## The Project Gutenberg eBook of History for ready reference, Volume 2, El Dorado to Greaves

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: History for ready reference, Volume 2, El Dorado to Greaves

Author: J. N. Larned

Illustrator: Alan C. Reiley

Release date: December 1, 2021 [eBook #66861]
Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Don Kostuch

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 2, EL DORADO TO GREAVES ***

    [Transcriber's Notes:]

    This volume is the continuation of volume 1,
    https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65306

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

    1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly
       brackets "{123}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this
       case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.

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

    3. Blocks of unrelated text are moved to a nearby break
       between subjects.

    5. Use of em dashes and other means of space saving are replaced
       with spaces and newlines.

    6. Subjects are arranged thusly:
       Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
       (as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.

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

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

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

       Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces
       and in italics, as in the original. The bibliography in Volume
       1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details,
       including URLs of available internet versions.

       ----------Subject: End----------
       indicates the end of a long group of subheadings or other
       large block.

    [End Transcriber's Notes.]

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE

    FROM THE BEST HISTORIANS, BIOGRAPHERS, SPECIALISTS

    THEIR OWN WORDS IN A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF HISTORY

    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

    IN FIVE VOLUMES

    VOLUME II-EL DORADO TO GREAVES

    SPRINGFIELD, MASS.
    THE C. A. NICHOLS CO., PUBLISHERS

    MDCCCXCV

    COPYRIGHT, 1894.
    BY J. N. LARNED.

    The Riversider Press, Cambridge, Mass, U. S. A.
    Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

    LIST OF MAPS.

    Map of Europe at the close of the Tenth Century, ... To follow page 1020
    Map of Europe in 1768,                           ... To follow page 1086
    Four maps of France,
      A. D. 1154, 1180, 1814 and 1860,               ... To follow page 1168
    Two maps of Central Europe, A. D. 848 and 888,   ... On page 1404
    Map of Germany at the Peace of Westphalia,       ... To follow page 1486
    Maps of Germany, A. D. 1815 and 1866;
      of the Netherlands, 1880-1889; and
      of the Zollverein,	                         ... To follow page 1540

    LOGICAL OUTLINES, IN COLORS.

    English history, ... To follow page 730
    French history,  ... To follow page 1158
    German history,	 ... To follow page 1428

    CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.

    The Fifth Century, ...  On page 1433
    The Sixth Century, ...	On page 1434

    {769}

    EL DORADO,
       The quest of.

       "When the Spaniards had conquered and pillaged the civilized
       empires on the table lands of Mexico, Bogota, and Peru, they
       began to look round for new scenes of conquest, new sources of
       wealth; the wildest rumours were received as facts, and the
       forests and savannas, extending for thousands of square miles
       to the eastward of the cordilleras of the Andes, were covered,
       in imagination, with populous kingdoms, and cities filled with
       gold. The story of El Dorado, of a priest or king smeared with
       oil and then coated with gold dust, probably originated in a
       custom which prevailed among the civilized Indians of the
       plateau of Bogota; but El Dorado was placed, by the credulous
       adventurers, in a golden city amidst the impenetrable forests
       of the centre of South America, and, as search after search
       failed, his position was moved further and further to the
       eastward, in the direction of Guiana. El Dorado, the phantom
       god of gold and silver, appeared in many forms. ... The
       settlers at Quito and in Northern Peru talked of the golden
       empire of the Omaguas, while those in Cuzco and Charcas dreamt
       of the wealthy cities of Paytiti and Enim, on the banks of a
       lake far away, to the eastward of the Andes. These romantic
       fables, so firmly believed in those old days led to the
       exploration of vast tracts of country, by the fearless
       adventurers of the sixteenth century, portions of which have
       never been traversed since, even to this day. The most famous
       searches after El Dorado were undertaken from the coast of
       Venezuela, and the most daring leaders of these wild
       adventures were German knights."

          C. R. Markham,
          Introduction to Simon's Account of the
          Expedition of Ursua and Aguirre
          (Hakluyt Society 1861).

       "There were, along the whole coast of the Spanish Main,
       rumours of an inland country which abounded with gold. These
       rumours undoubtedly related to the kingdoms of Bogota and
       Tunja, now the Nuevo Reyno de Granada. Belalcazar, who was in
       quest of this country from Quito, Federman, who came from
       Venezuela, and Gonzalo Ximenez de Quesada, who sought it by
       way of the River Madalena, and who effected its conquest, met
       here. But in these countries also there were rumours of a rich
       land at a distance; similar accounts prevailed in Peru; in
       Peru they related to the Nuevo Reyno, there they related to
       Peru; and thus adventurers from both sides were allured to
       continue the pursuit after the game was taken. An imaginary
       kingdom was soon shaped out as the object of their quest, and
       stories concerning it were not more easily invented than
       believed. It was said that a younger brother of Atabalipa
       fled, after the destruction of the Incas, took with him the
       main part of their treasures, and founded a greater empire
       than that of which his family had been deprived. Sometimes the
       imaginary Emperor was called the Great Paytite, sometimes the
       Great Moxo, sometimes the Enim or Great Paru. An impostor at
       Lima affirmed that he had been in his capital, the city of
       Manoa, where not fewer than 3,000 workmen were employed in the
       silversmiths' street; he even produced a map of the country,
       in which he had marked a hill of gold, another of silver, and
       a third of salt. ... This imaginary kingdom obtained the name
       of El Dorado from the fashion of its Lord, which has the merit
       of being in savage costume. His body was anointed every
       morning with a certain fragrant gum of great price, and gold
       dust was then blown upon him, through a tube, till he was
       covered with it: the whole was washed off at night. This the
       barbarian thought a more magnificent and costly attire than
       could be afforded by any other potentate in the world, and
       hence the Spaniards called him El Dorado, or the Gilded One. A
       history of all the expeditions which were undertaken for the
       conquest of his kingdom would form a volume not less
       interesting than extraordinary."

          R. Southey,
          History of Brazil,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

       The most tragical and thrilling of the stories of the seekers
       after El Dorado is that which Mr. Markham introduces in the
       quotation above, and which Southey has told with full details
       in The Expedition of Orsua; and the Crimes of Aguirre.
       The most famous of the expeditions were those in which Sir
       Walter Raleigh engaged, and two of which he personally led--in
       1595, and in 1617-18. Released from his long imprisonment in
       the Tower to undertake the latter, he returned from it, broken
       and shamed, to be sent to the scaffold as a victim sacrificed
       to the malignant resentment of Spain. How far Raleigh shared
       in the delusion of his age respecting El Dorado, and how far
       he made use of it merely to promote a great scheme for the
       "expansion of England," are questions that will probably
       remain forever in dispute.

          Sir Walter Raleigh,
          Discoverie of the Large, Rich and
          Beautiful Empire of Guiana
          (Hakluyt Society 1848).

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Van Heuvel,
          El Dorado.

          E. Edwards,
          Life of Raleigh,
          volume 1, chapters 10 and 25.

          P. F. Tytler,
          Life of Raleigh,
          chapters 3 and 6.

          E. Gosse,
          Raleigh,
          chapters 4 and 9.

          A. F. Bandelier,
          The gilded man.

    ELECTORAL COLLEGE, The Germanic:
       Its rise and constitution.
       Its secularization and extinction.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152,
          and 1347-1493;
          also, 1801-1803,
          and 1805-1806.

    ELECTORAL COMMISSION, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.

    ELECTORS,
       Presidential, of the United States of America.

          See PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

    ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION.

       "Electricity, through its etymology at least, traces its
       lineage back to Homeric times. In the Odyssey reference is
       made to the 'necklace hung with bits of amber' presented by
       the Phœnician traders to the Queen of Syra. Amber was highly
       prized by the ancients, having been extensively used as an
       ornamental gem, and many curious theories were suggested as to
       its origin. Some of these, although mythical, were singularly
       near the truth, and it is an interesting coincidence that in
       the well-known myth concerning the ill-fated and rash youth
       who so narrowly escaped wrecking the solar chariot and the
       terrestrial sphere, amber, the first known source of
       electricity, and the thunder-bolts of Jupiter are linked
       together. It is not unlikely that this substance was indebted,
       for some of the romance that clung to it through ages, to the
       fact that when rubbed it attracts light bodies. This property
       it was known to possess in the earliest times: it is the one
       single experiment in electricity which has come down to us
       from the remotest antiquity. ... The power of certain fishes,
       notably what is known as the 'torpedo,' to produce
       electricity, was known at an early period, and was commented
       on by Pliny and Aristotle.
    {770}
       ... Up to the sixteenth [century] there seems to have been no
       attempt to study electrical phenomena in a really scientific
       manner. Isolated facts which almost thrust themselves upon
       observers, were noted, and, in common with a host of other
       natural phenomena, were permitted to stand alone, with no
       attempt at classification, generalization, or examination
       through experiment. ... Dr. Gilbert can justly be called the
       creator of the science of electricity and magnetism. His
       experiments were prodigious in number, and many of his
       conclusions were correct and lasting. To him we are indebted
       for the name 'electricity,' which he bestowed upon the power
       or property which amber exhibited in attracting light bodies,
       borrowing the name from the substance itself, in order to
       define one of its attributes. ... This application of
       experiment to the study of electricity, begun by Gilbert three
       hundred years ago, was industriously pursued by those who came
       after him, and the next two centuries witnessed a rapid
       development of science. Among the earlier students of this
       period were the English philosopher, Robert Boyle, and the
       celebrated burgomaster of Magdeburg, Otto von Guericke. The
       latter first noted the sound and light accompanying electrical
       excitation. These were afterwards 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
       Society. ... 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
       resigned 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 Cuneus, a monk named Kleist, and Professor Muschenbroeck,
       of Leyden, are all accredited with the discovery. ... Sir
       William Watson perfected it by adding the outside metallic
       coating, and was by its aid enabled to fire gunpowder and
       other inflammables."

          T. C. Mendenhall,
          A Century of Electricity,
          chapter 1.

    ELECTRICITY: 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 Philadelphia, 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 famous
       letters to Collinson. ... In these letters he propounded the
       single-fluid theory of electricity, and referred all electric
       phenomena to its accumulation in bodies in quantities more
       than their natural share, or to its being withdrawn from them
       so as to leave them minus their proper portion." 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 account given by
       Dr. Stuber of Philadelphia, an intimate personal friend of
       Franklin, and published 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 over this would, he
       conceived, impart to it a portion of their electricity, which
       would be rendered evident to the senses by sparks being
       emitted when a key, a knuckle, or other conductor was
       presented to it. Philadelphia at this time offered no
       opportunity of trying an experiment of this kind. Whilst
       Franklin was waiting for the erection of a spire, it occurred
       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 handkerchief, 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
       appearance 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 experiments 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 despaired 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 exquisite 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
       electricity.' And thus the identity of lightning and
       electricity was proved. ... Franklin's proposition 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 protect 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 have done ever since."

    {771}

          P. Benjamin,
          The Age of Electricity,
          chapter 3.

    ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1753-1820.
       The beginnings of the Electric Telegraph.

       "The first actual suggestion of an electric telegraph was made
       in an anonymous letter published in the Scots Magazine 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 alphabet
       inscribed upon a piece of paper. ... The message was to be
       read off at the receiving station by observing the letters
       which were successively 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 important step of reducing the twenty-six
       wires to one, and indicating the different letters by various
       combinations of simple movements of an indicator, 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-mechanical telegraph,
       which was in practical use previous 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 indicated 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 signals.
       ... 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 signals 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 1823," based on the same idea as that of
       Chappe. ... "Ronalds drew up a sort of telegraphic code by
       which words, and sometimes even complete sentences, could be
       transmitted 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 electricity in telegraphy was made by Don Francisco
       Salva, whose 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
       discovery of the Voltaic pile to the same purpose, the
       liberation of bubbles of gas by the decomposition 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 Sömmering, and described in a paper
       communicated by the inventor to the Munich Academy of Sciences
       in 1809. Sömmering 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 suspended magnetic needle provided a
       new and much more hopeful method of applying the electric
       current to telegraphy. The great French astronomer Laplace
       appears to have been the first to suggest this application of
       Oersted's discovery, and he was followed shortly afterwards by
       Ampere, who in the year 1820 read a paper before the Paris
       Academy of Sciences."

          G. W. De Tunzelmann,
          Electricity in Modern Life,
          chapter 9.

    ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1786-1800.
       Discoveries of Galvani and Volta.

       "The fundamental experiment which led to the discovery of
       dynamical electricity [1786] is due to Galvani, professor of
       anatomy in Bologna. Occupied with investigations on the
       influence of electricity on the nervous excitability of
       animals, and especially of the frog, he observed that when the
       lumbar nerves of a dead frog were connected with the crural
       muscles 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 assumed that this
       electricity, which he called vital fluid, passed from the
       nerves to the muscles by the metallic arc, and was thus the
       cause of contraction. 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
       exclusively devoted to the nerves and muscles of the frog;
       Volta's was directed upon the connecting metal. Resting on the
       observation, which Galvani 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 officiated 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
       memorable controversy arose between Galvani and Volta. The
       latter was led to give greater extension to his contact
       theory, and propounded the principle that when two
       heterogeneous substances 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 Physics;
          translated by Atkinson, book 10, chapter 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, the first generator of electrical energy by
       chemical means, and the forerunner of the vast number of types
       of the modern "battery."

    {772}

    ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1810-1890.
       The Arc light.

       "The earliest instance of applying Electricity to the
       production of light was in 1810, by Sir Humphrey 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 carbon rods were fed together
       by clockwork. ... Similar devices were produced by Foucault
       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 Jablochkoff Candle
       (1876), in which the arc was formed between the ends of a pair
       of carbon rods placed side by side, and separated 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 Traction,
          chapter 3.

    ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1820-1825.
       Oersted, Ampere, and the discovery of the Electro-Magnet.

       "There is little chance ... that the discoverer of the magnet,
       or the discoverer and inventor of the magnetic needle, will
       ever be known by name, or that even the locality and date of
       the discovery will ever be determined [see COMPASS]. ... The
       magnet and magnetism received their first scientific treatment
       at the hands of Dr. Gilbert. During 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 applications than the former. It is
       not to be imagined that the many close resemblances of the two
       classes of phenomena were allowed to pass unnoticed. ... There
       was enough resemblance to suggest an intimate relation; and
       the connecting link was sought for by many eminent
       philosophers during the last years of the eighteenth and the
       earlier years of the present century."

          T. C. Mendenhall,
          A Century of Electricity,
          chapter 3.

       "The effect which an electric current, flowing in a wire, can
       exercise upon a neighbouring compass 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 Ampere, Arago, Davy, and by the
       devices of several other experimenters, including De la Rive's
       floating battery and coil, Schweigger's multiplier, Cumming's
       galvanometer, Faraday's apparatus for rotation of a permanent
       magnet, Marsh's vibrating pendulum and Barlow's rotating
       star-wheel. But it was not until 1825 that the electromagnet
       was invented. Arago announced, on 25th September 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 communicating 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 portions which could be
       adapted, at will, to the opposite poles of a powerful
       horizontal voltaic pile; a steel needle wrapped up in paper
       was introduced into the helix.' 'Now, after some minutes'
       sojourn in the helix, the steel needle had received a
       sufficiently strong dose of magnetism.' Arago then wound upon
       a little glass tube some short helices, each about 2¼ inches
       long, coiled alternately 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 reversed. Ampère, 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
       experimenting, 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,
          chapter 1.

    ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1825-1874.
       The Perfected Telegraph.

       "The European philosophers kept on groping. At the end of five
       years [after Oersted's discovery], one of them reached an
       obstacle which he made up his mind was so entirely
       insurmountable, that it rendered the electric telegraph an
       impossibility for all future time. This was [1825] Mr. Peter
       Barlow, fellow of the Royal Society, who had encountered the
       question whether the lengthening 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 considerable diminution with only 200
       feet of wire as at once to convince me of the impracticability
       of the scheme.' ... The year following the announcement of
       Barlow's conclusions, a young graduate of the Albany (N. Y.)
       Academy--by name Joseph Henry--was appointed to the
       professorship of mathematics in that institution. Henry there
       began the series of scientific investigations 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 galvanometer, 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 making it pass over even a mile of conductor
       and then affect a magnet.
    {773}
       Henry's reply was to point out that the trouble lay in the way
       Barlow'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
       increases 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 composed of a very few cells of large
       surface, combined 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 completely invented and
       demonstrated. There was nothing left to do, but to put up the
       posts, string the lines, and attach the instruments."

          P. Benjamin,
          The Age of Electricity,
          chapter 11.

       "At last we leave the territory of theory and experiment and
       come to that of practice. 'The merit of inventing 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 consideration Morse's telegraph, which was
       not introduced until five years after the time when he was
       impressed with the notion of its feasibility, we may mention
       the telegraph of Gauss and Weber of Göttingen. In 1833, they
       erected a telegraphic wire between the Astronomical and
       Magnetical Observatory of Göttingen, 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 Steinheil 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 Steinheil 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
       Electric Telegraph into England dates from the same year as
       that in which Steinheil's experiments took place. William
       Fothergill Cooke, a gentleman 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 Mönke, of Heidelberg, exhibited an
       electro-telegraphic experiment, 'in which electric currents,
       passing along a conducting 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 employed in a part of his apparatus, the
       latter gentleman advised him to apply to Professor Wheatstone.
       ... The result of the meeting of Cooke and Wheatstone was that
       they 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 currents transmitted through
       metallic circuits.' ... By-and-by, as might probably have been
       anticipated, difficulties arose between Cooke and Wheatstone,
       as to whom the main credit of introducing 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 Mr. Sabine: "It was once a popular
       fallacy in England that Messrs. 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,
          Great Movements,
          pages 424-429.

       "In the latter part of the year 1832, Samuel F. B. Morse, an
       American artist, while on a voyage from France to the United
       States, conceived the idea of an electromagnetic telegraph
       which should consist of the following parts, viz: A single
       circuit of conductors from some suitable generator of
       electricity; a system of signs, consisting of dots or points
       and spaces to represent numerals; a method of causing the
       electricity to mark or imprint these signs upon a strip or
       ribbon of paper by the mechanical action of an electro-magnet
       operating 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 constructed
       the first rude working model of his invention. ... The first
       public exhibition ... was on the 2d of September, 1837, on
       which occasion the marking was successfully effected through
       one third of a mile of wire. Immediately afterwards a
       recording instrument was constructed ... which was
       subsequently employed upon the first experimental line between
       Washington 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 the earth might be used to complete the circuit.
    {774}
       Accident, however, soon demonstrated this fact. ... The
       following year (1845) telegraph lines began to be built over
       other routes. ... In October, 1851, a convention of deputies
       from the German States of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria,
       Würtemberg and Saxony, met at Vienna, for the purpose of
       establishing a common and uniform telegraphic system, under
       the name of the German-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 inventor of a telegraphic
       system, with a magnanimity that does him high honor, strongly
       urged upon the convention the adoption of the American
       system." ... The first of the printing telegraphs 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
       instrumentality of mechanism, was originated by Alexander Bain
       of Edinburgh, whose first patents were taken out in 1846. An
       autographic telegraph, 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 variations of method by Charles
       Cros, of Paris, Abbé 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 suggested itself to Moses 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,
          Electricity and the Electric Telegraph,
          chapter 29-40.

    ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1831-1872.
       Dynamo
       Electrical Machines, 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 Faraday,
       published in the Philosophical Magazine of 2nd August, 1832.
       We learn from this description 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 modern continuous
       current machines. "Almost at the same time, Ritchie, Saxton,
       and Clarke constructed 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 Stöhrer (1843), on the same plan as
       Clarke's, but with six coils instead of two, and three
       compound magnets instead of one. ... The machines, constructed
       by Nollet (1849) and Shepard (1856) had still more magnets and
       coils. Shepard's machine was modified by Van Malderen, and was
       called the Alliance machine. ... Dr. Werner 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. ... Sinsteden in 1851 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 magnets. ... 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 induction 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' classical 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 machine 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 machines, the parts
       varying of course in minor details." The history of the dynamo
       since has been one of a gradual perfection of parts, resulting
       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,
          pages 227-242.

          S. P. Thompson,
          Dynamo Electrical Machines.

    ELECTRICITY:
       Electric Motors.

       It has been known for forty years that every form of electric
       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
       reverse operation of producing the motion mechanically. And
       when, starting from the researches of Siemens, Wilde, Nollet,
       Holmes and Gramme, the modern forms of magneto-electric and
       dynamo-electric machines began to come into commercial use, it
       was discovered that any one of 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.
    {775}
       It required no new discovery of the law of reversibility to
       enable the electrician to understand this; but to convince the
       world required actual experiment."

          A. Guillemin, Electricity and Magnetism,
          part 2, chapter 10, section 3.

    ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1835-1889.
       The Electric Railway.

       "Thomas Davenport, a poor blacksmith of Brandon, 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,
       Massachusetts, a small model electric engine running upon a
       circular track, the circuit being furnished by primary
       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, carried 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 locomotive
       was run successfully on several steam railroads 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, Massachusetts, perfected an electric engine of
       considerable 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 attained 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
       Mechanics fair by him in 1860. ... In 1879, Messrs. Siemen and
       Halske, of Berlin, constructed and operated an electric
       railway at the Industrial Exposition. A third rail placed in
       the centre of the two outer rails, supplied the current, which
       was taken up into the motor through a sliding 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 returned through the rails. Early in the year of 1881
       the Lichterfelde, Germany, electric railway was put into
       operation. It is a third rail system 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
       Company 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." October 31,
       1888, the Council Bluffs & Omaha Railway and Bridge Company
       was first operated by electricity, they using the
       Thomson-Houston system. The same year the Thomson-Houston Co.
       equipped the Highland Division of the Lynn & Boston Horse
       Railway at Lynn, Massachusetts. Horse railways now began to be
       equipped with electricity all over the world, and especially
       in the United States. In February, 1889, the Thomson-Houston
       Electric Co. had equipped the line from Bowdoin Square,
       Boston, to Harvard Square, Cambridge, of the West End Railway
       with electricity 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,
          appendix A.

    ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1841-1880.
       The Incandescent Electric Light.

       "While the arc lamp is well adapted for lighting large areas
       requiring a powerful, diffused light, similar to sunlight, and
       hence is suitable for outdoor illumination, and for workshops,
       stores, public buildings, and factories, especially those
       where colored fabrics are produced, its use in ordinary
       dwellings, or for a desk light in offices, is impractical, a
       softer, steadier, and more economical light being required.
       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
       invented in 1841 by Frederick de Molyens of Cheltenham,
       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 experiments, the battery was the source of
       electric supply; and the comparatively small current required
       for the incandescent light as compared with that required for
       the arc light, was an argument in favor of the former. ...
       Still, no substantial progress was made with either system
       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 practical success were Sawyer and Man
       of New York, and Edison. For a long time, Edison experimented
       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 platinum, Edison turned his
       attention to carbon, the superiority of which as an
       incandescent illuminant 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 platinum and iridium, the problem was, to secure the
       superior illumination of the carbon, and reduce or prevent its
       consumption. As this consumption was due chiefly to oxidation,
       it was questionable whether the superior illumination were not
       due to the same cause, and whether, if the carbon were inclosed
       in a glass globe, from which oxygen was eliminated, the same
       illumination could be obtained.
    {776}
       Another difficulty of equal magnitude was to obtain a
       sufficiently perfect vacuum, 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 filling 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 improvements,
       made it possible to obtain a sufficiently perfect vacuum, and
       the difficulty of introducing the current into the interior of
       the globe was overcome by imbedding a fine platinum 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 carbons made by Edison
       under his first patent in 1879, were obtained from brown paper
       or cardboard. ... 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 Lighting,
          chapter 8.

    ELECTRICITY: 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
       stations 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
       expedition 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 directions; 149 kilometres were thus
       lowered, when a fault in the cable was discovered. It had,
       therefore, 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
       unsuccessful, 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 Newfoundland. 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 mechanics and stokers, and 115 sailors. The
       management of all affairs relating to the laying of the cable
       was entrusted to Canning. The coast cable was laid on the 21st
       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 mischief to have
       been done with a malevolent purpose. On the 2nd of August,
       2,196 kilometres of cable were sunk, when another fault was
       discovered. 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 Company 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,
          pages 767-768.

    ELECTRICITY: A. D. 1876-1892.
       The Telephone.

       "The first and simplest of all magnetic telephones is the Bell
       Telephone." In "the first form of this instrument, 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 instrument are set
       in vibration sympathetically by the action of the voice with
       different degrees of amplitude, and a sound, which is an
       approximation 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 Philadelphia 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 vibrated in front of the electro-magnet when
       the membrane was thrown into sonorous vibration.
    {777}
       ... 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
       he could increase the strength of these currents. Elisha Gray
       had proposed to use the variation 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 reproduce sonorous
       vibrations; but there is no record of this experiment having
       been tried. Edison proposed to utilise the fact that the
       resistance of carbon varied under pressure. He had
       independently discovered this peculiarity of carbon, but it
       had been previously described by Du Moncel. ... The first
       carbon transmitter was constructed in 1878 by Edison."

          W. H. Preece, and J. Maier,
          The Telephone,
          chapter 3-4.

       In a pamphlet 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 Philadelphia, in 1876, was given the
       first general public 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
       purposes 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 subscribers 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 circuit 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 conversations
       annually. There is hardly a city or town of 5,000 inhabitants
       that has not its Telephone 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 December 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.

    ----------End: Electricity----------

    ELEPHANT, Order of the.

          A Danish order of knighthood instituted in 1693 by
          King Christian V.

    ELEPHANTINE.

          See EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

    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 brotherhoods,
       and no doubt were fondly believed to contain a saving grace by
       those who were admitted, 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 imposing and
       venerable. Their origin extended back into a mythical
       antiquity, and they were among the few forms of Greek worship
       which were under the superintendence of hereditary
       priesthoods. Thirlwall thinks that 'they were the remains 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
       philosophical thought and religious feeling.' This conclusion
       is still further confirmed by the moral and religious tone of
       the poets,--such as Æschylus,--whose ideas on justice, sin and
       retribution are as solemn and elevated as those of a Hebrew
       prophet. The secrets, whatever they were, were never revealed
       in express terms; but Isocrates uses some remarkable
       expressions, when speaking 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 compatible 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 eminent 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, sometimes numbered twenty or
       thirty thousand people, and the exciting scenes were well
       calculated to leave a durable impression on susceptible minds.
       ... The formula of the dismissal, after the initiation was
       over, consisted in the mysterious words 'konx,' 'ompax'; 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 impending shipwreck, or massacre by a
       victorious enemy,--men asked one another, 'Are you initiated?'
       as if this were the anchor of their hopes for another life."

    {778}

          C. C. Felton,
          Greece, Ancient and Modern,
          chapter 2, lecture 10.

       "The Eleusinian mysteries 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 temple 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,
          Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 25.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Brown,
          The Great Dionysiak Myth,
          chapter 6, section. 2.

          J. J. I. von Dollinger,
          The Gentile and the Jew,
          book 3 (volume 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 situated [about
       fourteen miles Northwest 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 important, 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
       approach presented a succession of magnificent objects, well
       calculated to heighten the solemn grandeur of the ceremonies
       and the awe and reverence of the Mystæ in their initiation.
       ... In the plurality of enclosures, in the magnificence of the
       pylæ or gateways, in the absence of any general symmetry of
       plan, in the small auxiliary temples, we recognize a great
       resemblance between the sacred buildings of Eleusis and the
       Egyptian Hiera of Thebes and Philæ. And this resemblance is
       the more remarkable, as the Demeter of Attica was the Isis of
       Egypt. We cannot 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
       fashionable 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 æra. During the two following centuries, its
       mysteries were the chief support of declining polytheism, and
       almost the only remaining bond of national union among the
       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
       prosperity, 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 conversions."

          W. M. Leake,
          Topography of Athens;
          volume 2: The Demi, section 5.

    ELGIN, Lord.
       The Indian administration of.

          See INDIA: 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 ground of Olympia, where
       the celebration 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 belonged, 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 Ætolian 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
       departed glories.

          See, also, OLYMPIC GAMES.

    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. 1715-1735; and
          SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725, and 1726-1731.

    ELIZABETH, N. J.
       The first settlement of.

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

    ELK HORN, OR PEA RIDGE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

    ELKWATER, OR CHEAT SUMMIT, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          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 administration of.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

    ELLSWORTH, Colonel, The death of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

    ELMET.

       A small kingdom of the Britons which was swallowed up in the
       English kingdom of Northumbria early in the seventh century.
       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 England, page 254.

    ELMIRA, N. Y. (then Newtown).
       General Sullivan's Battle with the Senecas.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    ELSASS.

          See ALSACE.

    ELTEKEH, Battle of.

       A victory won by the Assyrian, Sennacherib, over the
       Egyptians, before the disaster befell his army which is
       related in 2 Kings xix. 35. Sennacherib's own account of the
       battle has been found among the Assyrian records.

    {779}

          A. H. Sayce,
          Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
          chapter 6.

    ELUSATES, The.

          See AQUITAINE, TRIBES OF ANCIENT.

    ELVIRA, Battle of(1319).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

    ELY, The Camp of Refuge at.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.

    ELYMAIS.

          See ELAM.

    ELYMEIA.

          See MACEDONIA.

    ELYMIANS, The.

          See SICILY: EARLY INHABITANTS.

    ELYSIAN FIELDS.

          See CANARY ISLANDS.

    ELZEVIRS.

          See PRINTING: A. D. 1617-1680.

    EMANCIPATION, Catholic.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

    EMANCIPATION, Compensated;
       Proposal of President Lincoln.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH).

    EMANCIPATION, Prussian Edict of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

    EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATIONS,
       President Lincoln's.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER), and 1863 (JANUARY).

    EMANUEL,
       King of Portugal, A. D. 1495-1521.

       Emanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, A. D. 1553-1580.

    EMBARGO OF 1807, The American.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          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, History of the Romans, chapter 34, note.

    EMESSA.
       Capture by the Arabs (A. D. 636).

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

    ÉMIGRÉS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791;
          1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER); and 1791-1792.

    EMITES, The.

          See JEWS: EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

    EMMAUS, Battle of.

       Defeat of a Syrian army under Gorgias by Judas Maccabæus,
       B. C. 166.

          Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 7.

    EMMENDINGEN, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: 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: OF 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.

    ENCYCLOPÆDISTS, The.

       "French literature had never been so brilliant as in the
       second half of the 18th century. Buffon, Diderot, D'Alembert,
       Rousseau, Duclos, Condillac, Helvetius, Holbach, Raynal,
       Condorcet, Mably, and many others adorned it, and the
       'Encyclopædia,' which was begun in 1751 under the direction of
       Diderot, became the focus of an intellectual influence 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, History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter. 20 (volume 5).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Morley,
          Diderot and the Encyclopædists,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

          E. J. Lowell,
          The Eve of the French Revolution,
          chapter 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 DUCHY.

    ENGHIEN, Duc d',
       The abduction and execution of.

          See FRANCE: 1804-1805.

    ENGLAND:
       Before the coming of the English.
       The Celtic and Roman periods.

          See BRITAIN.

    ENGLAND: A. D.449-547.
       The three tribes of the English 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 colonized 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,
          Constitutional History of England,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

       "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
       Saxons gave us the name by which our Celtic neighbours have
       ever known us. But there is no reason to confine the area from
       which our forefathers 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
       certain to be swollen by many who are of stocks akin to the
       leading tribe, but who do not actually belong to it.
    {780}
       As we in Britain are those who stayed behind at the time of
       the second great migration of our people [to America], so I
       venture 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 marchland 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 the historical events of fourteen hundred
       years of separation have inevitably made the two tongues--two
       dialects, 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 between 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 seriousness; 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 fully 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 English People in its Three Homes
          (Lectures to American Audiences,
          pages 30-31, and 45-47).

          See ANGLES AND JUTES, and SAXONS.

    ENGLAND: 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 the
       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 were haunting the channel; 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
       questions 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 transferred 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 Medway." At
       Aylesford (A. D. 455), the lowest ford crossing the Medway,
       "the British leaders must have taken post for the defence of
       West Kent; but the Chronicle of the conquering people tells
       ... only that Horsa fell in the moment of victory; and the
       flint-heap of Horsted which has long preserved his name ...
       was held in aftertime 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 Ælle, his
       son.' ... The two kings pushed forward in 457 from the Medway
       to the conquest of West Kent." Another battle at the passage
       of the Cray was another victory for the invaders, and, "as the
       Chronicle of their conquerors tells 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 Romanized Britons rose in revolt under Aurelius
       Ambrosianus, a descendant of the last Roman general who
       claimed the purple as an Emperor in Britain. ... The
       revolution revived for a while the energy of the province."
       The Jutes were driven back into the Isle of Thanet, and held
       there, apparently, for some 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.
    {781}
       "In 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'sfleet 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 victory 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 Wight and a few
       districts on the Southampton Water."

          J. R. Green,
          The Making of England,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. M. Lappenberg,
          History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
          volume 1, pages 67-101.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    A Logical Outline of English History

    IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
    INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

       Physical or material (Orange).
       Ethnological (Dark Blue).
       Social and political (Green).
       Intellectual, moral and religious (Tan).
       Foreign (Black).

    5th-7th centuries.
    Conquest: and settlement by Saxons, Angles and Jutes.

       The Island of Britain, separated from the Continent of Europe
       by a narrow breadth of sea, which makes friendly commerce easy
       and hostile invasion difficult;--its soil in great part
       excellent; its northern climate tempered by the humid warmth
       of the Gulf Stream; its conditions good for breeding a robust
       population, strongly fed upon corn and meats; holding,
       moreover, in store, for later times, a rare deposit of iron
       and coal, of tin and potter's clay, and other minerals of like
       utility; was occupied and possessed by tribes from Northern
       Europe, of the strongest race in history; already schooled in
       courage and trained to enterprise by generations of sea-faring
       adventure; uncorrupted by any mercenary contact with the
       decaying civilization of Rome, but ready for the knowledge it
       could give.

    7th-11th Centuries.

       Fused, after much warring with one another and with their
       Danish kin, into a nation of Englishmen, they lived, for five
       centuries, an isolated life, until their insular and
       independent character had become deeply ingrained, and the
       primitive system of their social and political
       organization--their Townships, their Hundreds, their Shires,
       and the popular Moots, or courts, which determined and
       administered law in each--was rooted fast; though their king's
       power waxed and the nobles and the common people drew farther
       apart.

    A. D. 1066.--Norman conquest.

       Then they were mastered (in the last successful invasion that
       their Island ever knew) by another people, sprung from their
       own stock, but whose blood had been warmed and whose wit had
       been quickened by Latin and Gallic influences in the country
       of the Franks.

    11th-18th Centuries.

       A new social and political system now formed itself in England
       as the result:--Feudalism modified by the essential democracy
       inherent in Old English institutions--producing a stout
       commonality to daunt the lords, and a strong aristocracy to
       curb the king.

    A. D. 1215. Magna Oharta.

       English royalty soon weakened itself yet more by ambitious
       strivings to maintain and extend a wide dominion over-sea, in
       Normandy and Aquitaine; and was helpless to resist when barons
       and commons came together to demand the signing and sealing of
       the Great Charter of Englishmen's rights.

    A. D. 1265-1295--Parliament.

       Out of the conditions which gave birth to Magna Charta there
       followed, soon, the development of the English Parliament as a
       representative legislature, from the Curia Regis of the Normans
       and the Witenagemot of the older English time.

    A. D. 1337-1453--The Hundred Years War.

       From the woful wars of a hundred years with France, which
       another century brought upon it, the nation, as a whole,
       suffered detriment, no doubt, and it progress was hindered in
       many ways; but politically the people took some good from
       the troubled times, because their kings were more dependant on
       them for money and men.

    A. D. 1453-1485--War of the Roses

       So likewise, they were bettered in some ways by the dreadful
       civil Wars of the Roses, which distracted England for thirty
       years. The nobles well-nigh perished, as an order, in these
       wars, while the middle-class people at large suffered relatively
       little, in numbers or estate.

    A. D. 1348--The Great Plague.

       But, previously, the great Plague, by diminishing the ranks of
       the laboring class, had raised wages and the standard of living
       among them, and had helped, with other causes, to multiply the
       small landowners and tenant farmers of the country, increasing
       the independent common class.

    A. D. 1327-1377--Immigration of Flemish weavers.

       Moreover, from the time of Edward III., who encouraged Flemish
       weavers to settle in England and to teach their art to his
       people, manufactures began to thrive; trade extended; towns
       grew in population and wealth, and the great burgher
       middle-class rose rapidly to importance and weight in the
       land.

    A. D. 1485-1603--Absolutism of the Tudors.

       But the commons of England were not prepared to make use of
       the actual power which they held. The nobles had led them in
       the past; it needed time to raise leaders among themselves,
       and time to organize their ranks. Hence no new checks on
       royalty were ready to replace those constraints which had been
       broken by the ruin of great houses in the civil wars, and the
       crown made haste to improve its opportunity for grasping
       power. There followed, under the Tudors, a period of
       absolutism greater than England had known before.

    15th-16th Centuries--Renaissance.

       But this endured only for the time of the education of the
       commons, who conned the lessons of the age with eagerness and
       with understanding. The new learning from Greece and Rome; the
       new world knowledge that had been found in the West; the new
       ideas which the new art of the printer had furnished with
       wings,--all these had now gained their most fertile planting
       in the English mind. Their flower was the splendid literature
       of the Elizabethan age; they ripened fruits more substantial
       at a later day.

       The intellectual development of the nation tended first toward
       a religious independence, which produced two successive
       revolts--from Roman Papacy and from the Anglican Episcopacy
       that succeeded it.

       This religious new departure of the English people gave
       direction to a vast expansion of their energies in the outside
       world. It led them into war with Spain, and sent forth Drake
       and Hawkins and the Buccaneers, to train the sailors and pilot
       the merchant adventurers who would soon make England mistress
       of all the wide seas.

    A. D. 1608-1688.
       The Stuarts.
       The Civil War.
       The Commonwealth.
       The Revolution.

       Then, when these people, strong, prosperous and intelligent,
       had come to be ripely sufficient for self-government, there
       fell to them a foolish race of kings, who challenged them to a
       struggle which stripped royalty of all but its fictions, and
       established the sovereignty of England in its House of Commons
       for all time.

    18th-19th Centuries.
       Science
       Invention.
       Material progress.
       Economic enlightenment.

       Unassailable in its island,--taking part in the great wars of
       the 18th century by its fleets and its subsidies
       chiefly,--busy with its undisturbed labors at home,--vigorous
       in its conquests, its settlements and its trade, which it
       pushed into the farthest parts of the earth,--creating wealth
       and protecting it from spoliation and from waste,--the English
       nation now became the industrial and economic school of the
       age. It produced the mechanical inventions which first opened
       a new era in the life of mankind on the material side; it
       attained to the splendid enlightenment of freedom in trade; it
       made England the workshop and mart of the world, and it spread
       her Empire to every Continent, through all the seas.

    --------- End: A Logical Outline of English History --------------------

    ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
       The conquests of the Saxons.
       The founding of the kingdoms of Sussex, 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
       reinforcements arrived from Germany; the city of
       Andreades-Ceastre was taken by storm, all its inhabitants 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 Saxons was established in the person of Ella; and though
       ruling only over the narrow boundary of modern Sussex, he was
       accepted as the first of the Saxon Bretwaldas, or Emperors of
       the Isle of Britain. Encouraged, perhaps, by the good tidings
       received from Ella, another band of Saxons, commanded by
       Cerdic and his son Cynric, landed on the neighbouring shore,
       in the modern Hampshire (A. D. 494). At first they made but
       little progress. They were opposed by the Britons; but
       Geraint, whom the Saxon Chroniclers celebrate 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 Cynric in the dignity, became the
       King of the territory which he gained. Under Cynric and his
       son Ceaulin, the Saxons slowly, yet steadily, gained ground.
       The utmost extent of their dominions towards the North cannot
       be ascertained; but they had conquered the town of Bedford;
       and it was probably in consequence of their geographical
       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 Wessex, 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
       border. About the time that the Saxons under Cerdic 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 Saxony; but whereof the district of the Middle Saxons,
       now Middlesex, 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 sovereignty 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,
       Æscwin, 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. Palgrave,
          History of the Anglo Saxons,
          chapter 2.

       "The descents of [the West Saxons], Cerdic and Cynric, 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 be more widely known as the West
       Saxons, actually landed with a view to definite conquest."

          J. R. Green,
          The Making of England,
          chapter 3.

       "The greatness of Sussex did not last beyond the days of its
       founder Ælle, the first Bretwalda. Whatever importance Essex,
       or its offshoot, Middlesex, 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 Mercian Kings.
       Very different 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 interval 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 importance among the English
       Kingdoms, though the days of its permanent supremacy were
       still far distant."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 2, section 1.

    {782}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
       The conquests of the Angles.
       The founding of their kingdoms.

       Northwards of the East Saxons was established the kingdom of
       the East Angles, in which a 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 reference
       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 commonly his son Uffa, or Wuffa, from
       whom his race derived their patronymic of Uffings or Wuffings,
       is recorded as the first king. The neighbouring states of
       Mercia originated in the marsh districts of the Lindisware, or
       inhabitants of Lindsey (Lindesig), the northern part of
       Lincolnshire. 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 Kingdom of
       the Hwiccas, conterminous with the later diocese of Worcester,
       or the counties of Gloucester, Worcester, and a part of
       Warwick. This state, together with that of the Hecanas, bore
       the common Germanic appellation of the land of the Magesætas.
       ... 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), afterwards 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
       century."

          J. M. Lappenberg,
          History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings (Thorpe),
          volume 1, pages 112-117.

       The three Anglian kingdoms of Northumberland, Mercia and East
       Anglia, "are altogether much larger than the Saxon and Jutish
       Kingdoms, so you see very well why the land was called
       'England' and not 'Saxony.' ... 'Saxonia' 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 England 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 Northumberland was certainly founded by Ida the
       Angle in 547. It is more likely that there were some Teutonic
       settlements there before him, because the Chronicle does not
       say of him, as it does of Hengest, Cissa and Cerdie, 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 Edwin [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, including 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
       Lincolnshire, the Magesætas in Herefordshire, the Hwiccas in
       Gloucester, Worcester, and part of Warwick, 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 Hwiccas 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 History for Children,
          chapter 5.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 560.

       Ethelbert becomes king of Kent.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 593.

       Ethelfrith becomes king of Northumbria.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.
       The conversion of the English.

       "It happened that certain Saxon children were to be sold for
       slaves at the marketplace 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' (Romans 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 Christians?'
       Merchants.--'O no, they 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.--'And well may, for their "angel like faces"; it
       becometh such to be coheirs with the angels in heaven. In what
       province of England did they live?'
       Merchants.--'In Deira.'
       Gregory.--'They are to be freed de Dei irâ, "from the anger of
       God." How call ye the king of that country?'
       Merchants.--'Ella.'
       Gregory.--'Surely hallelujah ought to be sung in his kingdom
       to the praise of that God who created all things.'

    {783}

       Thus Gregory's gracious heart set the 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 his 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 Fuller,
          The Church History of Britain,
          book 2, section 1.

       In 590 the good Gregory became Bishop of Rome, or Pope, and
       six years later, still retaining 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 the
       Isle of Thanet, where the Jutish invaders had made their first
       landing, 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 Canterbury, 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 interval of little
       progress in the work of the mission, 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 Christian Church was reestablished,
       not wholly, as before, under the patronage and rule of Rome,
       but partly by a mission from the ancient Celtic Church, which
       did not acknowledge the supremacy 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 receive it. In the 8th century English missionaries were
       laboring zealously for the conversion of their Saxon and
       Frisian brethren on the continent.

          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,
          chapter 2.

    ENGLAND:
       End of the 6th. Century.
       The extent, the limits and the character
       of the Teutonic conquest.

       "Before the end of the 6th century the Teutonic dominion
       stretched from the German ocean to the Severn, and from the
       English Channel 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 independent 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 6th century and even later, there may have
       been within the English frontier inaccessible points where
       detached bodies of Welshmen still retained a precarious
       independence. It is probable also that, within the same
       frontier, there still 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 territory
       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 several important
       respects from every other settlement of a Teutonic people
       within the limits of the Roman Empire. ... Though the literal
       extirpation of a nation is an impossibility, 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. Nearly
       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,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 2, section 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 important, of all facts, the fact that
       Englishmen speak English and that Frenchmen speak French.

    {784}

       That is to say, in Gaul the speech of Rome lived through the
       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
       appreciable 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 something 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 slaughter
       and driving out of the existing 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; England became a Teutonic-speaking land. The obvious
       inference is that, while in Gaul the Teutonic conquest led to
       no general displacement of the inhabitants, in England it did
       lead to such a general displacement. In Gaul the Franks simply
       settled among a subject people, among whom they themselves
       were gradually merged; in Britain the Angles and Saxons slew
       or drove out the people whom they found in the land, and
       settled it again as a new people."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The English People in its Three Homes
          (Lectures to American Audiences),
          pages 114-115.

       "Almost to the close of the 6th century the English conquest
       of Britain was a sheer dispossession of the conquered people;
       and, so far as the English sword in these earlier days
       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 differences between the temper of the English and
       those of other conquerors. ... The displacement 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 battlefield
       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,
          The Making of England,
          chapter 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 example, by Mr. 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 Armorica 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 civilized 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 conquerors."

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 1, chapter 6.

       The opinion maintained by Prof. Freeman and Mr. Green (and, no
       less, by Dr. Stubbs) is the now generally accepted one.

    ENGLAND: 7th Century.
       The so-called "Heptarchy."

       "The old notion of an Heptarchy, of a regular 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. The 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 permanent
       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 Mercia.

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 2.

       "After the territorial boundaries had become more settled,
       there appeared at the commencement of the seventh century
       seven or eight greater and smaller kingdoms. ... Historians
       have described this condition of things as the Heptarchy,
       disregarding the early disappearance 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,
       whichever 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
       temporary superiority; first ascribed to Ælla 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 Strathclyde 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 revolved 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,
          History of the English Constitution,
          chapter 3.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 617.
       Edwin becomes king of Northumbria.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 634.
       Oswald becomes king of Northumbria.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 655.
       Oswi becomes king of Northumbria.

    {785}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 670.
       Egfrith becomes king of Northumbria.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 688.
       Ini becomes king of the West Saxons.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 716.
        Ethelbald becomes king of Mercia.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 758.
       Offa becomes king of Mercia.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 794.
       Cenwulf becomes king of Mercia.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 800.
       Accession of the West Saxon king Ecgberht.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 800-836.
       The supremacy of Wessex.
       The first king of all the English.

       "And now I have come to the reign of Ecgberht, the great
       Bretwalda. He was an Ætheling of the blood of Cerdic, and he
       is said to have been the son of Ealhmund, and Ealhmund is said
       to have been an Under-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. ... When Beorhtric
       died in 800, he [Ecgberht] 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 Æthelings to reign over them as his
       Under-kings. But Northumberland, Mercia, and East-Anglia were
       not brought so completely under his power as this. Their Kings
       submitted to Ecgberht and acknowledged 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 brought the Welsh, both in Wales and in
       Cornwall, more completely under his power. ... So King
       Ecgberht was Lord from the Irish Sea to the German Ocean, and
       from the English Channel 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 Kentishmen,
       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. Freeman,
          Old English History for Children,
          chapter 7.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 836.
       Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelwulf.

    ENGLAND: 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 Conquest of Britain. ... We first find a period in
       which the object of the invaders seems to be simple plunder.
       They land, they harry the country, 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 includes the time from the first
       recorded invasion [A. D. 787] till the latter half of the
       ninth century. Next comes a time in which the object of the
       Northmen is clearly no longer mere plunder, but settlement.
       ... In the reign of Æthelwulf 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
       Æthelwulf reigned in succession, and the reigns of the first
       three among them [Ethelbald, A. D. 858, Ethelberht, 860,
       Ethelred, 866] make up together only thirteen years. In the
       reign of the third of these princes, Æthelred I., the second
       period of the invasions fairly begins. Five years were spent
       by the Northmen in ravaging and conquering the tributary
       Kingdoms. Northumberland, 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 Mercia [868], they seized
       Nottingham, 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 Æthelred, the first of a
       long line of West-Saxon hero-Kings, supported by his greater
       brother Ælfred [Alfred the Great] met the invaders in battle
       after battle with varied success. He died and Ælfred
       succeeded, in the thick of the struggle. In this year [871],
       the last of Æthelred and the first of Ælfred, nine pitched
       battles, besides smaller engagements, were fought with the
       heathens on West-Saxon ground. At last peace was made; the
       Northmen retreated to London, within the Mercian frontier;
       Wessex was for the moment delivered, but the supremacy won by
       Ecgberht was lost. For a few years Wessex was subjected to
       nothing more than temporary incursions, but Northumberland and
       part of Mercia were systematically occupied by the Northmen,
       and the land was divided among them. ... At last the Northmen,
       now settled in a large part of the island, made a second
       attempt to add Wessex itself to their possessions [878]. For a
       moment the land seemed conquered; Ælfred 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 terrible 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 be fairly looked upon as honourable and even
       as triumphant. By the terms of the Peace of Wedmore 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 Ælfred and Guthrum's Peace,' Thorpe's 'Laws
       and Institutes,' i. 152. This frontier gives London to the
       English; but it seems that Ælfred did not obtain full
       possession of London till 886."
    {786}
       The territory thus conceded to the Danes, which 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 the 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,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 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
       monasteries destroyed; the people wild and lawless; ignorance,
       roughness, 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 bank 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 consented. What were the principal things
       he turned his mind to after providing for the defence of his
       kingdom, and collecting his friends and counsellors about him?
       Law--justice--religion--education. 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 justice 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 kingdom the poor,
       besides him, had few or no protectors.' ... 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 reviving 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
       practise 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 brought it.) And south of
       the Thames he could not remember one. His first care was to
       get better-educated clergy and bishops. And next to get the
       laymen taught also. ... He founded monasteries and schools,
       and restored the old ones which had been ruined. He had a
       school in his court for his own children and the children of
       his nobles. But at the very outset 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 Cædmon
       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 written
       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
       translations that he hoped, if anyone knew Latin better 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 occupations. 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 government, 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 mechanical
       inventions; to recite the Saxon books (Asser, being a
       Welshman, always calls the English, 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 daily 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 unknown.'"

          M. J. Guest,
          Lectures on the History of England,
          lecture 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 proverbial 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.
    {787}
       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, 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; vigilant and
       devoted in the service of God.' Mr. Freeman, in his 'History
       of the Norman Conquest,' has laid down the portrait in bold
       and lasting colours, in a passage as truthful as it is
       eloquent, 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 singular instance of a prince
       who has become a hero of romance, who, as such, has had
       countless imaginary exploits attributed to him, but to whose
       character romance has done no more than justice, and who
       appears in exactly the same light in history and in fable. No
       other man on record has ever so thoroughly united all the
       virtues both of the 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 scholar 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 people. But even in Saint Lewis we see a
       disposition to forsake an immediate sphere of duty for the
       sake of distant and unprofitable, however pious and glorious,
       undertakings. 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 inquiring spirit which took in the whole world, for
       purposes alike of scientific inquiry and of Christian
       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, and in sending alms
       to the distant Churches of India; but he neither forsook his
       crown, like some of his predecessors, nor neglected his
       duties, like some of his successors. The virtue of Alfred,
       like the virtue of Washington, consisted in no marvellous
       displays of super-human genius, but in the simple,
       straightforward 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; and in his career, glorious as it is, there
       is an element of intrigue and chicanery utterly alien to the
       noble simplicity of both Alfred and Washington. The same union
       of zeal for religion and learning with 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 the splendour of
       conquest and legislation, we cannot 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 cannot acquit Edward of occasional
       acts of violence, of occasional recklessness as to means; we
       cannot attribute to him the pure, simple, almost childlike
       disinterestedness which marks the character 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.
          Ease 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.'"

          Thomas Hughes,
          Alfred the Great,
          chapter 24.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Pauli,
          Life of Alfred the Great.

          Asser,
          Life of Alfred.

          See, also, NORMANS, and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 901.
       Accession of the West Saxon king Edward, called The Elder.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 925.
       Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelstan.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 938.
       The battle of Brunnaburgh.

       Alfred the Great, dying in 901, was succeeded by his son,
       Edward, and Edward, in turn, was followed, A. D. 925, by his
       son Athelstane, or Æthalsten. In the reign of Athelstane a
       great league was formed against him by the Northumbrian Danes
       with the Scots, with the Danes of Dublin 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 Brunnaburgh or
       Brunanburh, but the site of which is unknown. "Five Kings and
       seven northern Iarls or earls fell in the strife. ...
       Constantine the Scot fled to the 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 distant realms."

          F. Palgrave,
          History of the Anglo-Saxons,
          chapter 10.

       Mr. Skene is of opinion that the battle of Brunnaburgh was
       fought at Aldborough, near York.

          W. F. Skene,
          Celtic Scotland,
          volume 1, page 357.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 940.
       Accession of the West Saxon king Edmund.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 946.
       Accession of the West Saxon king Edred.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 955.
       Accession of the West Saxon king Edwig.

    {788}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
       Accession of the West Saxon king Edgar.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
       Completed union of the realm.
       Increase of kingly authority.
       Approach towards feudalism.
       Rise of the Witenagemot.
       Decline of the Freemen.

       "Before Alfred's son Edward died, the whole of Mercia was
       incorporated with his immediate dominions. The way in which
       the thing was done was more remarkable than the thing itself.
       Like the Romans, he made the fortified towns the means of
       upholding 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 beyond the Humber had acknowledged
       his overlordship, and even the Celts of Wales and Scotland had
       given in their submission in some form which they were not
       likely to interpret too strictly. His son and his two
       grandsons, Athelstan, Edmund, and Edred completed the work,
       and when after the short and troubled interval of Edwy's rule
       in Wessex, Edgar united the undivided realm under his sway in
       958, he had no internal enemies to suppress. He allowed the
       Celtic Scottish King who had succeeded to the inheritance 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 inferiors, 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 meetings 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 composed of those who either had too
       much land to till themselves, or, having no land at all, were
       released 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 aiming 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 overthrowing, the old popular
       assemblies. Two classes of men, the eorls and the gesiths, had
       been marked out from their fellows at the time of the
       conquest. The thegn of Edgar's day differed from both, but he
       had some of the distinguishing 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 the 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
       characteristics. ... There can be little doubt that the change
       began in the practice of granting special estates in the
       folkland, or common undivided land, to special persons. At
       first this land was doubtless held to be the property of the
       tribe. [This is now questioned by Vinogradoff 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 churches and monasteries. But a large
       portion went in privates estates, or book land, as it was
       called, from the book or charter which conveyed them 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 jurisdiction given
       him over his tenants and serfs, exempting 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 conquest this change was
       still going on. To the end, indeed, the old constitutional
       forms were not broken down. The hundred mote was not
       abandoned, 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 outward change. ...
       There was thus no actual breach of continuity in the nation.
       The thegnhood pushed its roots down, as it were, amongst the
       free classes. Nevertheless there was a danger 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 might rise to be a thegn. But the
       condition of the class to which he belonged was deteriorating
       every day.
    {789}
       The downward progress 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 actually the property of their
       masters. The Witenagemot 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 Parliament, 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 constitutional 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. Mullinger,
          Introduction to the Study of English History,
          part 1, chapter 2, section 16-21.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 975.
       Accession of the West Saxon king Edward, called The Martyr.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 979.
       Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelred, called The Unready.

    ENGLAND: 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 renewed their plundering and conquering expeditions
       against England; while England had a worthless waverer for her
       ruler, and many of her chief men turned traitors to their king
       and country. Always a laggart in open war, Ethelred tried in
       1001 the cowardly and foolish policy of buying off the enemies
       whom he dared not encounter. 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 1002 Ethelred
       tried the still more weak and wicked measure of ridding
       himself of his enemies by treacherous massacre. 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 Scandinavian
       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 was executed only in
       Southern England, that is, in the West-Saxon territories; but
       large 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 married and
       settled in England. ... The news of the massacre of St. Brice
       soon spread over the Continent, exciting the deepest
       indignation against the English and their king. Sweyn
       collected in Denmark a larger fleet and army than the north
       had ever before 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 slaughter;
       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
       Saxon 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, 'provided 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 indeed dead; but the Danish host which Sweyn
       had led thither was still in England, under the command of
       Sweyn's son, 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, surnamed Ironside, was
       chosen king by the great council then assembled in London, but
       great numbers of the Saxons made their submission to Canute.
       The remarkable personal valour of Edmund, strongly aided by
       the bravery of his faithful 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,
          History of England,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. M. Lappenberg,
          England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
          volume 2, pages 151-233.

          See, also, MALDEN, and ASSANDUN, BATTLES OF.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1016.
       Accession and death of King Edmund Ironside.

    ENGLAND: 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 unscrupulous 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 kingdoms
       beyond the sea, upon his Danish countrymen in England, and his
       Danish huscarles, or specially trained soldiers in his
       service, he was able, without even the appearance of weakness,
       to do what in him lay to bind Dane and Englishman together as
       common instruments of his 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 only 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 catastrophe swept away Cnut and his
       creation, the earldoms would pass into territorial
       sovereignties and the divisions of England would be made
       evident openly."

          S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
          Introduction to the Study of English History,
          chapter 2, section 25.

    {790}

       "He [Canute] ruled nominally at least, a larger European
       dominion than any English sovereign has ever done; and perhaps
       also a more homogeneous one. No potentate of the time came
       near him except the king of Germany, the emperor, 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 Britain annexed. Canute's division of
       his dominions on his death-bed, showed that he saw this to be
       impossible; 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 could Denmark be
       regarded as likely to continue united with England. The
       English nation was too much divided and demoralised 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, Mercians 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 perhaps a nearer approach to a
       feudal division of England than anything which followed the
       Norman Conquest. ... And the extent to which this creation of
       the four earldoms affected the history of the next
       half-century cannot be exaggerated. The certain tendency of
       such an arrangement to become hereditary, and the certain
       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,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 7, section 77.

        Canute died in 1035. He was succeeded by his two sons, Harold
        Harefoot (1035-1040) and Harthacnute or Hardicanute
        (1040-1042), after which the Saxon line of kings was
        momentarily restored.

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 6.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1035.
       Accession of Harold, son of Cnut.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1040.
       Accession of Harthacnut, or Hardicanute.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1042.
       Accession of Edward the Confessor.

    ENGLAND: 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 misgovernment, or rather anarchy, England, freed from
       the hated rule  of Harthacnut by his death, returned to its
       old line of kings, and 'all folk chose Edward [surnamed The
       Confessor, son of Ethelred the Unready] to king,' as was his
       right by birth. Not that he was, according to our ideas, the
       direct heir, since Edward, the son of Edmund Ironside, still
       lived, an exile in Hungary. But the Saxons, by choosing Edward
       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 between England and
       Normandy begun by the marriage of Ethelred 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 his 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 Normanizing 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 married his
       daughter, and at first ruled England leaning on the
       assistance, and almost overshadowed 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. "Godwine, 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 triumphant,
       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 relations we
       may be sure had existed between, the two cousins, and if, as
       is not improbable, William had begun to hope that he might
       some day succeed to the English throne, what more favourable
       opportunity for a visit could have been found? Edward had lost
       all hopes of ever having 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 difficulties. The Norman chroniclers alone mention
       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 how William could have subsequently
       made the Normans and the world believe in the sacredness of
       his claim. ... William returned to Normandy; but next year
       Edward was forced to change his policy." Godwine and his sons
       returned to England, with a fleet at their backs; London
       declared for them, and the king submitted himself to a
       reconciliation.
    {791}
       "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 survive his restoration, but dying the year
       after, 1053, left his son Harold Earl of the West-Saxons 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 conspicuous
       headship of the English party. In 1062 it was Harold's
       misfortune to be shipwrecked on the coast of France, and he
       was made captive. Duke 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 'William'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 stratagem 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 Harold's oath to the Duke of Normandy.

          A. H. Johnson,
          The Normans in Europe,
          chapters 10 and 12.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapters 7-10.

          J. R. Green,
          The Conquest of England,
          chapter 10.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1066.
       Election and coronation of Harold.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (spring and summer).
       Preparations of Duke William to enforce his claim to the
       English crown.

       On receiving news of Edward'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 he had pledged himself by his oath. Harold answered that
       the oath had no binding effect, by reason of the compulsion
       under which it was given; that the crown of England was not
       his to bestow, and that, being the chosen king, he could not
       marry without consent of the Witenagemot. When the Duke had
       this reply he proceeded with 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 realm. A great parliament of the Norman barons was
       held at Lillebonne, for the consideration of the matter. "In
       this memorable meeting 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 restore 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 tamed into a precedent, ... and the
       fertile fields of England should be the recompense of their
       fidelity. Upon this prospect of remuneration, the barons
       assented. ... William did not confine himself to his own
       subjects. All the adventurers and adventurous spirits of the
       neighbouring 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, lastly, the massacre of the Danes
       by Ethelred on St. Brice's Day. The alleged perjury of Harold
       enabled William to obtain the sanction of the Papal See.
       Alexander, the Roman Pontiff, allowed, nay, even urged him 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 assisted by the support which he gave to the
       decree. As a visible token of protection, the Pope transmitted
       to William the consecrated banner, the Gonfanon of St. Peter,
       and a precious ring, in which a relic of the chief of the
       Apostles was enclosed."

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          volume 3, pages 300-303.

       "William convinced, 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 deluded others.
       But we are more concerned with William as a statesman; and if
       it be statesmanship 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,
          chapter 6.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (September).
       The invasion of Tostig and Harold Hardrada and their
       overthrow 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.
       During 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
       visible. 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.
       Provisions 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
       ravaging the country in conjunction with Tostig, Harold's
       elder brother. This event came from one of those domestic
       feuds which did so much at this juncture to weaken the power
       of the English.
    {792}
       Tostig had exercised his authority in Northumbria [as earl] in
       the most arbitrary manner, and had 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
       his 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 Norwegians and Flemings, and
       their avowed object was to divide not less than half the
       kingdom between them. ... [The young Mercian earls Edwin and
       Morcar] summoned their forces ... to repel the invasion under
       Tostig. Before Harold could reach the north, they hazarded an
       engagement at a place named Fulford, on the Ouse, not far from
       Bishopstoke. Their measures, 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 obtained 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,
          Revolutions of English History,
          book 3, chapter 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 ready 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 fiery 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,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 14, section. 4.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (October).
       The Norman invasion and battle of Senlac or Hastings.

       The battle of Stamford-bridge was fought on Monday, September
       25, A. D. 1066. Three days later, on the Thursday, September
       28, William of Normandy landed his more formidable army of
       invasion at Pevensey, on the extreme southeastern coast. The
       news of  William's landing reached Harold, at York, on the
       following Sunday, it is thought, and his victorious but worn
       and wasted army was led instantly back, by forced marches,
       over the route it had traversed no longer than the week
       before. Waiting at London a few days for fresh musters to join
       him, the English king set out from that city October 12, and
       arrived on the following day at a point seven miles from the
       camp which his antagonist 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 committed to face the issue of battle without
       waiting 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 subsisting 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 Normans 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 catching
       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 William 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 Gyrth, 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 victory. Broken as
       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 mélée over his corpse."

          J. R. Green,
          A Short History of the English People,
          chapter 2, section 4.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 15, section 4.

          E. S. Creasy,
          Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
          chapter 8.

          Wace,
          Roman de Rou,
          translated by Sir A. Malet.

    {793}

    England: A. D. 1066-1071.
       The Finishing of the Norman 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
       Sussex, 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 conquests; all western and northern
       England remained unsubdued; but, except in Kent and
       Herefordshire, there was no fighting in any part of the land
       which had really submitted. The next two years were the time
       in which all England 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 northwest being still unsubdued. The attempt to win
       Durham in the beginning of 1069 led to two revolts 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 unsubdued parts, ending with the taking of Chester.
       Early in 1070 the whole land was for the first time in
       Williams's possession; there was no more fighting, and he was
       able to give 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 Fenland, 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 conquest of the land, as far as fighting
       goes, was now finished."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Short History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 8, section 9; chapter 10, section 16.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1067-1087.
       The spoils of the Conquest.

       "The Norman army ... remained concentrated 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. Commissioners 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 defeat, or by involuntary delays had
       been prevented from joining the royal standard. All the
       property of these three classes of men, lands, revenues,
       furniture, houses, were confiscated; the children of the first
       class were declared forever disinherited; the second class,
       were, in like manner, wholly 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 foreign 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
       contemporary with and of the race of the conquerors [Richard
       Lenoir or Noirot, bishop of Ely in the 12th century]. The
       immense product of this universal spoliation became the pay of
       those adventurers 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-Richard: 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,
          History of the Conquest of England by the Normans,
          book 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 insolence and injustice of William's Norman vassals,
       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 rebelled,
       were subdued, and oppressed again. ... An extensive spoliation
       of property accompanied these revolutions. It appears by the
       great national survey of Domesday Book, completed near the
       close of the Conqueror's reign, that the tenants in capite of
       the crown were generally foreigners. ... 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 Domesday 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 proportion of nearly 8,000 mesne tenants, who are
       summed up by the diligence of Sir Henry Ellis. ...
    {794}
       This might induce us to suspect that, great as the spoliation
       must appear in modern times, 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 universal reduced to a state of penury
       and servitude. And this suspicion may be in some degree just.
       Yet those writers, and especial the most English in feeling of
       them all, M. Thierry, are warranted by the language of
       contemporary authorities."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages.
          chapter 8, part 2.

       "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 kingdom in arms; no Englishman 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 Englishmen 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,
          pages 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 uniform 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,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 9, section. 95.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.
       The Camp of Refuge in the Fens.

       "In the northern part of Cambridgeshire 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 latter 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 district, almost a moving bog, impracticable
       for cavalry 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 several bands of patriots from various quarters,
       assembling against the Normans. Former chieftains, now
       dispossessed of their lands, successively 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,
          History of the Conquest of England by the Normans,
          book 4.

       "Against the new tyranny the free men of the Danelagh and of
       Northumbria rose. If Edward the descendant of Cerdic had been
       little to them, William 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 inexhaustible,
       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 ancestor 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 Refuge was maintained until
       October, 1071, when the stronghold is said to have been
       betrayed by the monks of Ely, who grew tired of the
       disturbance of their peace. But Hereward did not submit. He
       made his escape and various accounts are given of his
       subsequent career and his fate.

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 20, section 1.

          ALSO IN:
          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          first series, chapter 8.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1085-1086.
       The Domesday Survey and Domesday Book.

       "The distinctive characteristic 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 'Ie grand rôle,' 'Ie rôle royal,' 'Ie rôle de
       Winchester'; but by the Saxons were termed 'the Book of the
       Last Judgment,' 'Doomesdaege Boc,' 'Doomsday Book.'"

          E. Fischel,
          The English Constitution,
          chapter 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 and six ceorls of each township.
    {795}
       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, Cumberland, Westmoreland
       and Durham, and part of what is now Lancashire. It enumerates
       the tenants-in-chief, under tenants, freeholders, villeins,
       and serfs, describes the nature and obligations 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 have 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 Constitutional History,
          chapter 2.

       "Of the motives which induced the Conqueror and his council to
       undertake the Survey we have very little reliable 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 Chartulary of
       St. Mary's, Worcester, of the appointment 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 follows:

       I. What is the manor called?
       II. Who held it in the time of King Edward?
       III. Who now holds it?
       IV. How many hides?
       V. What teams are there in demesne?
       VI. What teams of the men?
       VII. What villans?
       VIII. What cottagers?
       IX. What bondmen?
       X. What freemen and what sokemen?
       XI. What woods?
       XII. What meadow?
       XIII. What pastures?
       XIV. What mills?
       XV. What fisheries?
       XVI. What is added or taken away?
       XVII. What the whole was worth together, and what now?
       XVIII. How much each freeman or sokeman had 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. ... An external evidence failing, we are
       driven back to the Record itself for evidence 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 Alfred
       and that of Edward the Confessor, 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. The Church had obtained enormous
       remissions of its liability, and its possessions were
       constantly increasing. 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 with a
       small share in the burden. In short the tax had come to be
       collected upon an old and uncorrected assessment. 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 Conqueror
       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 incidence of
       the tax was unequal and unjust. He had to face the
       difficulties 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 Norman
       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 liability of his subjects from every possible point of
       view."

          Stuart Moore,
          On the Study of Domesday Book
          (Domesday Studies, volume 1).

       "Domesday 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 Landnámabók,
       which records the names of the original settlers in Iceland
       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,
       describing the way in which our forefathers divided the
       territory they conquered, and how 'they called the lands after
       their own names,' would indeed be priceless. But the Domesday
       Book does, indirectly, 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 conquered at Senlac, but it gives us also the names
       of 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 land 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. Taylor,
          Domesday Survivals
          (Domesday Studies, volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest,
          chapters 21-22 and appendix A in volume 5.

          W. de Gray Birch,
          Domesday Book.

          F. W. Maitland,
          Domesday Book (Dict. Pol. Econ.).

    {796}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.
       The sons of the Conqueror and their reigns.

       William the Conqueror, when he died, left Normandy and Maine
       to his elder son Robert, the English crown to his stronger
       son, William, called Rufus, or the Red, and only a legacy of
       £5,000 to his third son, Henry, called Beauclerc, or The
       Scholar. The Conqueror's half-brother, Odo, soon began to
       persuade the Norman barons in England to displace William
       Rufus and plant Robert on the English throne. "The claim of
       Robert to succeed 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 parliamentary assembly. Having secured this
       title, the power of Rufus rested on the foundation most
       congenial with the feelings and institutions of the nation,
       and from their partiality received a popular support, which
       was soon experienced to be impregnable. The danger compelled
       the king to court his people by promises to diminish their
       grievances; which drew 30,000 knights spontaneously to his
       banners, happy 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 administration, 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 this 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 respective
       sovereigns to a fraternal pacification. The most important
       article of their reconciliation 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 cast in no common mould. It
       had all the greatness and the defects of the chivalric
       character, in its strong but rudest state. Impetuous, daring,
       original, magnanimous, and munificent; it was also harsh,
       tyrannical, and selfish; conceited of its own powers, loose in
       its moral principles, and disdaining consequences. ... 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 meliorated the king's ardent, but
       undisciplined temper. It was his misfortune, on this event, to
       choose for his favourite minister, an able, but an
       unprincipled man. ... The minister advised the king, on the
       death of every prelate, to seize all his temporal possessions.
       ... The great revenues obtained from this violent innovation,
       tempted both the king and his minister to increase its
       productiveness, by deferring the nomination 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 conscience, 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 demand that, after so many years alteration
       of property, could not be complied with without great
       disturbance of other persons. Anselm also exacted of the king
       that in all things which concerned the church, his counsels
       should be taken in preference 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 sovereign. ... 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 declared, 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 wallet. He was
       searched before his departure, that he might carry away no
       money, and was at last allowed to sail. But the king
       immediately executed his threat, and sequestered all his lands
       and property. This was about three years before 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 preponderance 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 invaders 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
       counsel 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. ... The 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 hunting 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 Tyrrel
       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 expired on the spot. ...
       It seems to be a questionable point, whether Walter Tyrrel
       actually shot the king. That opinion was certainly the most
       prevalent at the time, both here and in France. ...
    {797}
       None of the authorities intimate a belief of a purposed
       assassination; and, therefore, it would be unjust now to
       impute it to anyone. ... Henry was hunting in a different part
       of the New Forest when Rufus 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 gratified the nation,
       by abolishing the oppressive exactions 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 people
       their Anglo-Saxon laws and privileges, as amended by his
       father; a measure which ended the pecuniary oppressions of his
       brother, and which favoured the growing liberties of the
       nation. The Conqueror had noticed Henry's expanding 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 Beauclerc, or
       fine scholar. No wars, no cares of state, could afterwards
       deprive him of his love of literature. The nation soon felt
       the impulse and the benefit of their sovereign's intellectual
       taste. He acceded at the age of 32, and gratified the nation
       by marrying and crowning Mathilda, daughter of the sister of
       Edgar Etheling by Malcolm the king of Scotland, who had been
       waylaid and killed."

          S. Turner,
          History of England during the Middle Ages,
          volume 1, chapters 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
       defeated 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 espoused
       Robert's cause. It was ended by the battle of Brêmule, 1119,
       where the French suffered 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,
          History of Normandy and England,
          volume 4.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1135-1154.
       The miserable reign of Stephen.
       Civil war, anarchy and wretchedness in England.
       The transition to hereditary 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 outlived 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 enterprising 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
       extortions 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 presently
       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. S.
       Chronicle). ... Many soldiers, sickened with the unnatural
       war, put on the white cross and sailed for a nobler
       battle-field in 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 agreement "that Stephen should wear the crown till
       his death, and Henry receive the homage of the lords and towns
       of the realm as heir apparent." Stephen died the next year and
       Henry came to the throne with little further dispute.

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England During the Early and Middle Ages,
          chapter 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.
    {798}
       These were--(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 satisfaction to those
       who had placed him on the throne; (2) the existence of a rival
       claim, hanging 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 opponents
       throughout his reign would seem to have rested on two
       assumptions. The first, that a breach, on his part, of the
       'contract' justified 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 absolute 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 pernicious
       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
       subject, 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
       principle was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary
       or possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right
       of inheritance, and inheritance as primogeniture, was
       recognized as coordinate. ... The measures taken by Henry I.
       for securing the crown to his own children, whilst they prove
       the acceptance of the hereditary principle, prove also the
       importance of strengthening it by the recognition of the
       elective theory.' Mr. Freeman, though writing with 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 supplanting a rightful 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 II., 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 she 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 right 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 succeed 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 that of canonical election in the case of English
       bishoprics. In both cases a free election degenerated into a
       mere assent to a choice already made. We see the process of
       change already in full operation when Henry I. endeavours to
       extort beforehand from the magnates their assent to his
       daughter's succession, and when they subsequently 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 question 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 impatience 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 introduction
       of his centralizing administrative reforms. 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 compact or
       concession. Lastly, Stephen was confronted throughout by a
       rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for all
       the discontent 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 efficient 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,
          chapter. 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Mrs. J. R. Green,
          Henry the Second,
          chapter 1.

          See, also,
          STANDARD, BATTLE OF THE (A. D. 1137).

    {799}

    ENGLAND: 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 already, by the death of his father, Geoffrey, Count of
       Anjou, the head of the great house of Anjou, in France. From
       his father he inherited Anjou, Touraine and Maine; through his
       mother, Matilda, daughter of Henry I., he received the dukedom
       of Normandy as well as the kingdom of England; by marriage
       with 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 Count 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 Mediterranean. His subjects told with
       pride how 'his empire reached from the Arctic Ocean to the
       Pyrenees'; there was no monarch save the Emperor himself who
       ruled over such vast domains. ... His aim [a few years Inter]
       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. English scholars thronged the
       foreign universities; English chroniclers questioned
       travellers, scholars, ambassadors, as to what was passing
       abroad.' The influence of English learning and English
       statecraft 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 this
       wide, incongruous empire under his sceptre, by mere
       circumstances of birth and marriage, proved strangely equal,
       in many respects, to its greatness. "He was a foreign king who
       never spoke the English tongue, who lived and moved for the
       most part in a foreign camp, surrounded with a motley host of
       Brabançons and hirelings. ... It was under the rule of a
       foreigner such as this, however, that the races of conquerors
       and conquered 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 abolished
       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 between Church and State, and decreed
       that in England churchman as well as baron was to be held
       under the Common Law. ... His reforms established 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 government that the servants of the royal
       household became transformed into Ministers of State. It was
       he who gave England a foreign policy which decided our
       continental relations for seven hundred 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,
          chapters 1-2.

       Henry II. and his two sons, Richard I. (Cœur de Lion), and
       John, are distinguished, sometimes, as the Angevin kings, or
       kings of the House of Anjou, and sometimes as the
       Plantagenets, the latter name being derived from a boyish
       habit ascribed to Henry's father, Count Geoffrey, of "adorning
       his cap with a sprig of 'plantagenista,' the broom which in
       early summer makes the open country of Anjou and Maine 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 benefactor of
       England by stripping her kings of alien interests and alien
       powers and bending their necks to Magna Charta.

          K. Norgate,
          England under the Angevin Kings.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Stubbs,
          The Early Plantagenets.

          See, also,
          AQUITAINE (GUIENNE): A. D. 1137-1152;
          IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

    ENGLAND: 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 influence declining,
       Becket [the Archdeacon of Canterbury] was found apt for
       business as well as amusement, and gradually became intrusted
       with the exercise 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
       dignity 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 Theobald died. Henry declared
       that Becket should succeed,--no doubt counting upon his
       co-operation 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 entertained, 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 mandate, 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 instead 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 part so successfully played by Cardinal
       Wolsey in a succeeding age; that, Chancellor and Archbishop,
       he would continue the minister and personal friend of the
       King; that he would study to support and extend 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.
    {800}
       Instead of the stately and fastidious courtier, was seen the
       humble and squalid penitent. Next [to] his skin he wore
       hair-cloth, populous with vermin; he lived upon roots, and his
       drink was water, rendered 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 Normandy, with this short message, 'I desire
       that you will provide yourself with another Chancellor, as I
       find myself hardly sufficient for the duties of one office,
       and much less of two.' The fond patron, who had been so eager
       for his elevation, 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 reservation, 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 moment; and he with his brethren,
       retracting the saving clause, absolutely promised 'to observe
       the laws and customs of the kingdom.' To avoid all future
       dispute, Henry resolved to follow up his victory by having
       these laws and customs, as far as the Church was concerned,
       reduced into a code, to be sanctioned by the legislature, 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 Canterbury; but soon he again
       displeased the King, who cried in a rage, 'Who will rid me of
       this turbulent priest?' Four knights who were present
       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 à Becket to Pharaoh, who died by the Divine vengeance,
       as a punishment for his hardness of heart; and a proclamation
       was issued, forbidding anyone 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
       canonised at Rome; and, till the breaking out of the
       Reformation, St. Thomas of Canterbury, for pilgrimages and
       prayers, was the most distinguished Saint in England."

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
          chapter 3.

       "What did Henry II. 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 different 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 this clause in some
       such words as these:--Offences of which a clerk may be accused
       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, disobedience to superiors, breach of rules relating to
       the conduct 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 layman. 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 supervise the proceedings of the spiritual
       tribunals. ... Let us attempt a rival commentary. The author
       of this clause is not thinking of two different classes of
       offences. The purely ecclesiastical 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 respondere--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 believe to
       be the meaning of the clause."

          F. W. Maitland,
          Henry II. and the Criminous Clerks
          (English Historical Review, April, 1892),
          pages 224-226.

       The Assize of Clarendon, sometimes confused with the
       Constitutions of Clarendon, was an important decree approved
       two years later. It laid down the principles on which the
       administration 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,
          chapters 5-6.

    {801}

       "It may not be without instruction to remember that the
       Constitutions of Clarendon, which Becket spent his life in
       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 the wisest and most necessary of
       English institutions; that the especial point for which he
       surrendered his life was not the independence of the clergy
       from the encroachments 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. Stanley,
          Historical Memorials of Canterbury,
          page 124.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 12, sections 139-141.

          W. Stubbs,
          Select Charters,
          part 4.

          J. C. Robertson,
          Becket.

          J. A. Giles,
          Life and Letters of Thomas à Becket.

          R. H. Froude,
          History of the Contest between Archbishop
          Thomas à Becket and Henry II.
          (Remains, part 2, volume 2).

          J. A. Froude,
          Life and Times of Thomas Becket.

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 1, chapter 29.

          See, also,
          BENEFIT OF CLERGY,
          and JURY, TRIAL BY.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1189.
       Accession of King Richard I. (called Cœur de Lion).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1189-1199.
       Reign of Richard Cœur de Lion.
       His Crusade and campaigns in France.

       "The Third Crusade [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192], undertaken
       for the deliverance 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
       hereditary distinction in the Angevin family now reigning in
       England: they had founded the kingdom of Palestine; Henry II.
       himself had often prepared to set out; and Richard was
       confidently expected by the great body of his subjects to
       redeem 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 representative 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 apparently
       reckless, but really prudent valour, of patience under jealous
       ill-treatment, and perseverance in the face of extreme
       difficulties, shining out as the head of the manhood of his
       day, far above the common race of kings and emperors,--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 during Richard's absence
       languishes under the excitement which attends his almost
       continuous campaigns. ... Both on the Crusade and in France
       Richard was fighting the battle of the House which the English
       had very deliberately placed upon its throne; and if the war
       was kept off 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 History of England,
          book 1, chapter 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,
          Constitutional History of England,
          section. 150 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          K. Norgate,
          England under the Angevin Kings,
          volume 2, chapter 7-8.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1199.
       Accession of King John.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1205.
       The loss of Normandy and its effects.

       In 1202 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 momentarily 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 interests 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 inheritances vanished the last idea of making
       England a feudal kingdom. The Great Charter was won by men who
       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 History of England,
          chapter 12, section 152.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.

    ENGLAND: 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 cathedral, the suffragan bishops of the
       province, King John, and the powerful Pope Innocent III. Pope
       Innocent put forward as his candidate the afterwards 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 action with more fury than discretion, and
       proceeded to open war with the whole Church.
    {802}
       "The monks of Canterbury were driven from their monastery, and
       when, 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 interdict
       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 unconsecrated
       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 committed at their expense met with no
       punishment. ... Though acting thus violently, John showed the
       weakness of his character by continued communication 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 obstinacy 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 days in
       one place. None the less did he continue his old line of policy.
       ... In 1211 a league of excommunicated leaders was formed,
       including all 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
       France; 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 Barhamdown, 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 15th of May, at Dover, he formally resigned
       the crowns of England and Ireland into the hands of Pandulf,
       and received them again as the Pope's feudatory."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England (3d edition),
          volume 1, pages 130-134.

          ALSO IN:
          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

          E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
          Book 4, number 5.

          See, also, BOUVINES, BATTLE OF.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1206-1230.
       Attempts of John and Henry III. to recover Anjou and Maine.

          See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

    ENGLAND: 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 definite claim of liberty
       and law. The author of this great change was the new
       Archbishop [Langton] 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, hung on the fortunes 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 barons again met at St. Edmundsbury. ... At Christmas they
       presented themselves in arms before 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 northern 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 encamped on one bank, while the
       barons covered the marshy flat, still known by the name of
       Runnymede, 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 History of the England People,
          chapter 3, sections 2-3.

       "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 essential
       clauses of Magna Charta are those which protect the personal
       liberty and property of all freemen, by giving security from
       arbitrary imprisonment and arbitrary spoliation.
    {803}
       'No freeman (says the 29th chapter of Henry III.'s charter,
       which, as the existing law, I quote in preference to that of
       John, the variations not being very material) shall be taken
       or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties,
       or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise
       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,
       justice 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,
          chapter 8, part 2.

       "The Great Charter, although drawn up in the form of a royal
       grant, was really a treaty between 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 together. ... The barons maintain and secure the right of
       the whole people as against themselves 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 exaction 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
       constitutional history of England is little more than a
       commentary on Magna Carta."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 12, section 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 salvation of our soul, and the
       souls of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honour of
       God and the advancement of Holy Church, and amendment of our
       Realm, by advice of our venerable Fathers, Stephen, Archbishop
       of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Cardinal of the Holy
       Roman Church; Henry, Archbishop of Dublin; William, of London;
       Peter, of Winchester; Jocelin, of Bath and Glastonbury; Hugh,
       of Lincoln; Walter, of Worcester; William, of Coventry;
       Benedict, of Rochester--Bishops; of Master Pandulph,
       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, Constable of Scotland; Warin FitzGerald,
       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 Mareschal,
       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;

       1. That the Church of England shall be free, and have her
       whole rights, and her liberties inviolable; and we will have
       them so observed, that it may appear thence that the freedom
       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 Pope 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
       relief, 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 any 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 customs, 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 lands which he hath
       in custody, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be
       committed to two lawful and discreet 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 anyone the custody of
       any such lands, and he therein make destruction or waste, he
       shall lose the same custody, which shall be committed to two
       lawful and discreet 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,
       according 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 anything for her dower, or her marriage, of her
       inheritance, 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 security that she will not marry without our assent, if
       she hold of us; or without the consent of the lord of whom she
       holds, if she hold of another.

    {804}

       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 anyone shall die indebted to the Jews, his 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 daughter; 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 kingdom
       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 summons. And summons
       being thus made, the business shall proceed on the day
       appointed, according 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 anyone 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 perform more service for a
       knight's fee, or other free tenement, 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 Mort
       d'ancestor, 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.

       20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a small offence, but
       only according 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 manner 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
       mercy; 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, hundreds, wapentakes, and trethings, shall
       stand at the old rents, without any increase, except in our
       demesne manors.

       26. If anyone 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, saving 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 everyone 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 himself will do it in his person, or by
       another able man, in case he cannot do it through any
       reasonable 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 command.

       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 freeman.

       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 seacoast.

    {805}

       34. The writ which is called prœcipe, for the future, shall
       not be made out to anyone, 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 russets,
       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 denied.

       37. If any do hold of us by fee-farm, or by socage, or by
       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 knife, 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, without 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 lawful, for the time to come, for anyone to go
       out of our kingdom, and return safely and securely 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 merchants 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 henceforth
       shall not come before our justiciaries of the forest, upon
       common summons, but such as are impleaded, or are sureties for
       any that are attached for something concerning the forest.

       45. We will not make any justices, constables, sheriffs, or
       bailiffs, but of such as know 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 customs 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
       relations 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 molestation of our
       people.

       52. If anyone has been dispossessed or deprived by us, without
       the lawful 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 depending, 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 expedition, we will
       immediately cause full justice to be administered therein.

       53. The same respite we shall have, and in the same manner,
       about administering justice, disafforesting or letting
       continue 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 return from our expedition, or if we tarry
       at home, and do not make our expedition, we will immediately
       do full justice to all the complainants in this behalf.

       54. No man shall be taken or imprisoned upon the appeal of a
       woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

    {806}

       55. All unjust and illegal fines made by us, and all
       amerciaments 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 barons hereafter mentioned for
       the preservation of the peace, or of the major part of them,
       together with the aforesaid Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury,
       if he can be present, and others whom he shall think fit to
       invite; and if he cannot 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 plaintiffs 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 dispossessed 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 dispute 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 subjects.

       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
       which 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 expedition, we will immediately do them full justice,
       according to the laws of the Welsh and of the parts before
       mentioned.

       58. We will without 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 Alexander, 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; unless 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 determination 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 lasting, we
       do give and grant our subjects the underwritten security,
       namely that the barons may choose five-and-twenty barons of
       the kingdom, whom they think convenient; who shall take care,
       with all their might, to hold and observe, and cause to be
       observed, the 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 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 have 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 barons, 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 manner they can,
       till the grievance is redressed, according to their pleasure;
       saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our Queen
       and children; and when it is redressed, they shall behave 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 anyone that shall
       please to swear to this, and never will 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 anyone of the
       five-and-twenty barons dies, or goes out of the kingdom, or is
       hindered any other way from carrying the things aforesaid into
       execution, the rest of the said five-and-twenty barons may
       choose another 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 assembled together, they should happen
       to disagree about any matter, and some of them, when summoned,
       will not or cannot come, 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 had given
       their consent; and the aforesaid five-and-twenty shall swear
       that all the premises they shall faithfully observe, and cause
       with all their power to be observed. And we will procure
       nothing from anyone, by ourselves nor by another, whereby any
       of these concessions and liberties may be revoked 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, indignations,
       and rancours that have arisen between us and our subjects, of
       the clergy and laity, from the first breaking out of the
       dissensions 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 tranquillity, 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 concessions aforesaid.

    {807}

       63. Wherefore we will and firmly enjoin, that the Church of
       England be 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,
          part 5.

          Old South Leaflets,
          General Series,
          number 5.

          Also IN:
          E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
          book 1, number 7.

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 2, chapter 3.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
       Character and reign of Henry III.
       The Barons' War.
       Simon de Montfort and the evolution of the English Parliament.

       King John died October 17,1216. "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 confirmation of the Great Charter took
       place in the autumn of 1217, 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. Magna Charta was again confirmed,
       and this is the form in which it afterwards took its place
       among the statutes of the realm. Two years later, Henry III.
       personally assumes the reins of government at the Parliament
       of Oxford (1227), 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
       under the name of Henry III. The regency had succeeded in
       removing the dominant influence of the Roman Curia by the
       recall of the papal legate, Pandulf, to Rome (1221), and in
       getting rid of the dangerous foreign mercenary soldiery
       (1224). ... With the disgraceful dismissal of the chief
       justiciary, Hubert de Burgh, there begins a second epoch of a
       personal rule of Henry III. (1232-1252), which for twenty
       continuous years, presents the picture of a confused and
       undecided struggle between the king and his foreign favourites
       and personal adherents on the one side, and the great barons,
       and with them soon the prelates, on the other. ... In 21 Henry
       III. the King finds himself, in consequence of pressing money
       embarrassments, again compelled to make a solemn confirmation
       of the charter, in which once more the clauses relating to the
       estates are omitted. Shortly afterwards, as had happened just
       one hundred years previously in France, the name
       'parliamentum' occurs for the first time (Chron. Dunst., 1244;
       Matth. Paris, 1246), and curiously enough, Henry III. himself,
       in a writ addressed to the Sheriff of Northampton, designates
       with this term the assembly which originated the Magna Charta.
       ... The name 'parliament,' now occurs more frequently, but
       does not supplant the more definite terms concilium,
       colloquium, etc. In the meanwhile the relations with the
       Continent became complicated, in consequence of the family
       connections of the mother and wife of the King, and the greed
       of the papal envoys. ... From the year 1244 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,
          History of the English Constitution,
          volume 1, pages 313-321.

       "Nothing is so hard to realise as chaos; and nothing nearer to
       chaos can be conceived than the government 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 making the Crown virtually independent of
       the barons. ... His connexion with Louis 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
       Channel maxims of government and ideas of royal authority
       which were utterly inapplicable to the actual state of his own
       kingdom. This, like a premature Stuart, Henry was incapable of
       perceiving; 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 resources, a rare talent
       for administration, the sagacity to choose and the
       self-reliance to trust his counsellors. And not one of these
       various qualities did Henry possess. ... Henry had imbibed
       from the events and the tutors of his early childhood two
       maxims of state, and two alone: to trust Rome, and to distrust
       the barons of England. ... He filled the places of trust and
       power about himself with aliens, to whom the maintenance of
       Papal influence was like an instinct of self-preservation.
       Thus were definitely formed the two great parties out of whose
       antagonism the War of the Barons arose, under whose influence
       the relations between the crown and people of England were
       remodelled, and out of whose enduring conflict rose,
       indirectly, the political principles which contributed so
       largely to bring about the Reformation of the English Church.
       The few years which followed the fall of Hubert de Burgh were
       the heyday of Papal triumph. And 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 1258 opened the first act of the
       great drama which has made the name of Simon de Montfort
       immortal. ... The Barons of England, at Leicester's
       suggestion, had leagued for the defence of their rights. They
       appeared armed at the Great Council. ...
    {808}
       They required as the condition of their assistance that the
       general reformation of the realm should be entrusted to a
       Commission of twenty-four members, half to be chosen by the
       crown, and half by themselves. For the election of this body,
       primarily, and for a more explicit statement of grievances,
       the Great Council was to meet again at Oxford on the 11th of
       June, 1258. When the Barons came, they appeared at the head of
       their retainers. The invasion of the Welsh was the plea; but
       the real danger was nearer home. They seized on the Cinque
       Ports; the unrenewed truce with France was the excuse; they
       remembered too vividly King John and his foreign mercenaries.
       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
       encroachment 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
       representative of the 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 insult to the
       national spirit which no free people could fail to resent. ...
       England for the English, 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 referred to, of a committee
       of twenty-four. ... It amounted to placing the crown under the
       control of a temporary Council of Regency [see OXFORD,
       PROVISIONS OF]. ... 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 arms, and prepared to use
       them. The aliens, with their few English supporters, 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 the general government of the country, was the right to
       nominate the sheriffs. In 1261 the King, who had procured a
       Papal bull to abrogate the Provisions of Oxford, 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 memorable; 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 devoted,
       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 Provisions of Oxford were to them what
       the Great Charter had been to their fathers. They were drawn
       together with an unanimity unknown before. ... They demanded
       the restoration of the Great Provisions. The King refused, and
       in May, 1263, 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 9th of September,
       accordingly, 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, 1264. 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 memorable field of Lewes the
       genius of Leicester prevailed. ... With the 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 23d of
       June the Parliament met. It was no longer a Great Council,
       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
       Montfort, and ordered that until the proposed arbitration
       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 Despenser, Charles of Anjou, and the Abbot
       of Bec. 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
       1264, [Montfort] issued in the King's name the ever-memorable
       writs which summoned the first complete Parliament which ever
       met in England.
    {809}
       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 his
       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 offence to a considerable section
       of the barons. ... Difficulties were visibly gathering thicker
       around him, and he was evidently conscious that disaffection
       was spreading fast. ... Negotiations went forward, 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 Welsh border;
       before the middle of June he had made the border his own. On
       the 29th Gloucester opened its gates to him. He had many
       secret friends. He pushed fearlessly eastward, and surprised
       the garrison of Kenilworth, commanded by Simon, the Earl's
       second son. The Earl himself lay at Evesham, awaiting the
       troops which his son was to bring up from Kenilworth. ... On
       the fatal field of Evesham, fighting side by side to the last,
       fell the Earl himself, his eldest son Henry, Despenser the
       late Justiciar, Lord Basset of Drayton, 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 Review, January, 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 general
       convention of the tenants in chief or of the three estates,
       but a parliamentary assembly of the supporters of the existing
       government."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 14, section 177 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Stubbs,
          The Early Plantagenets.

          G. W. Prothero,
          Life of Simon de Montfort,
          chapter 11-12.

          H. Blaauw,
          The Barons' War.

          C. H. Pearson,
          England, Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 2.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1271.
       Crusade of Prince Edward:

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1270-1271.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1272.
       Accession of King Edward I.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295.
       Development of Parliamentary representation under Edward 1.

       "Happily, 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 which 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 assemblies were instruments of
       warfare. Edward's assemblies were invitations to peace. ...
       Barons and prelates, knights and townsmen, came together 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 together 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 prelates 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,
          Introduction to the Study of English History,
          chapter 4, section 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 completed, as a part
       of a definite and orderly arrangement, 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 assembly, the same year, granted him a fifteenth. ...
       There is no evidence that the commons of either town or county
       were represented. ... In 1282, when the expenses of the Welsh
       war were becoming heavy, Edward 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 assemblies, one at York and another at Northampton,
       in which four knights from each shire and four members from
       each city and borough were ordered 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 Shrewsbury the 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. Another
       step was taken in 1290: knights of the shire were again
       summoned; but still much remained to be done before a perfect
       parliament was constituted. 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
       constitutional law, he went still further, assembling the
       clergy by their representatives in August, and the shires by
       their representative knights in October.
    {810}
       The next year, 1295, witnessed the first summons of a perfect
       and model parliament; the clergy represented by their bishops,
       deans, archdeacons, and elected proctors; the barons summoned
       severally in person by the king's special writ, and the
       commons summoned by writs addressed to the sheriffs, directing
       them to send up two elected knights from each 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 which touches all should be approved by all,'
       a maxim which might serve as a motto for Edward's
       constitutional scheme, however slowly it grew upon him, now
       permanently and consistently completed."

          W. Stubbs,
          The Early Plantagenets,
          chapter 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 constitutional reforms to that
       capacity. But although 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
       the creation of a national parliament, composed of the three
       estates. ... This design was perfected in 1295. It was not the
       result of compulsion, but the consummation of a growing policy.
       ... But the close union of 1295 was followed by the compulsion
       of 1297: out of the organic completeness of the constitution
       sprang the power of resistance, and out of the resistance the
       victory of the principles, which Edward might guide, but which
       he failed to coerce."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 15, section 244
          and chapter 14, section 180-182.

          W. Stubbs,
          Select Charters,
          part 7.

       "The 13th century was above all things the age of the lawyer
       and the 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. From 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 emulation 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 coordinate 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 Bracton wrote the first systematic
       exposition of English 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. Edward himself strove
       with no small success to carry on the same great work by new
       legislation. ... His well-known title of the 'English
       Justinian' 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 are 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 prerogative. But he nearly
       always took a broad and comprehensive view of his authority,
       and thoroughly grasped the truth that the best interests 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 lawgiver 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 ordinary part of the machinery of English
       government, 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 already roughly worked out, were
       ill-defined and ill-understood. Before his death the national
       council was no longer regarded as complete unless 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 anticipation 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
       estate, and so taught the country gentry, the lesser
       landowners, who, in a time when direct participation 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 strengthened 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 the First,
          chapter 7-8.

    {811}

       "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 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 cordial
       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."

          E. Boutmy,
          The English Constitution,
          chapter 3.

    ENGLAND: 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. ... Accordingly, 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 corporations. 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. ... Once the clergy seem to have meditated
       open resistance, for, in 1281, we find the king warning the
       bishops, who were then in convocation at Lambeth, as they
       loved their baronies, to discuss nothing that appertained to
       the crown, or the king's person, or his council. The warning
       appears to have proved effectual, and the clergy found less
       dangerous employment in elaborating subtle evasions of the
       obnoxious law. At first fictitious recoveries were practised;
       an abbey bringing a suit against a would-be donor, who
       permitted judgment against him to go by default. When this was
       prohibited, special charters of exemption were procured. Once
       an attempt was made to smuggle a dispensing bill through
       parliament. One politic abbot in the 15th century encouraged
       his friends to make bequests of land, suffered them to
       escheat, and then begged them back of the crown, playing on
       the religious feelings of Henry VI. Yet it is strong proof of
       the salutary terror which the Statute of Mortmain inspired
       that even then the abbot was not quieted, and procured an Act
       of Parliament to purge him from any consequences of his
       illegal practices. In fact, the fear, lest astute crown
       lawyers should involve a rich foundation in wholesale
       forfeitures, seems sometimes to have hampered its members in
       the exercise of their undoubted rights as citizens."

          C. H. Pearson,
          History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
          volume 2, chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents.

          K. E. Digby,
          Law of Real Property (4th edition).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1282-1284.
       Subjugation of Wales.

          See WALES: A. D. 1282-1284.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
       Conquest of Scotland by Edward I.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

    ENGLAND: 14th Century.
       Immigration of Flemish artisans.
       The founding of English manufactures.

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.
       Resistance to the Pope.

       "For one hundred and fifty years succeeding the Conquest, the
       right of nominating the archbishops, bishops, and mitred
       abbots had been claimed and exercised by the king. This right
       had been specially confirmed by the Constitutions of
       Clarendon, which also provided that the revenues of vacant
       sees should belong to the Crown. But John 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 liberties; the right of free
       election being specially conceded to the cathedral chapters
       and the religious 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 channel for draining money into the
       Roman exchequer. Edward I. 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 Rome--[the prelude to the
       Statute of Præmunire, described below]. ... In 1389, there was an
       expectation that the Pope was about to attempt to enforce his
       claims, by excommunicating those who rejected them. ... The
       Parliament at once passed a highly penal statute. ... Matters
       were shortly afterwards brought to a crisis by Boniface IX.,
       who after declaring the statutes 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 forthwith
       excommunicated by the Pope. The Commons were now roused to the
       highest pitch of indignation,"--and the final great Statute of
       Præmunire 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 for ever
       under this especial form, the wave of papal encroachment was
       rolled back.'"

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          chapter 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 patronage. ... 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 prohibitions and
       penalties; and in 1390 the parliament of Richard II. rehearsed
       and confirmed the statute. By this act, forfeiture and
       banishment were decreed against future transgressors."
    {812}
       The Statute of Præmunire as enacted finally in 1393, provided
       that "all persons procuring in the court of Rome or elsewhere
       such translations, processes, sentences of excommunication,
       bulls, instruments or other things which touch the king, his
       crown, regality or realm, should suffer the penalties of
       præmunire"--which included imprisonment and forfeiture of
       goods. "The name præmunire which marks this form of
       legislation is taken from the opening word of the writ by
       which the sheriff is charged to summon the delinquent."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 19, section 715-716.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1307.
       Accession of King Edward II.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.
       The Ordainers.

       "At the parliament which met in March 1310 [reign of Edward
       II.] a new scheme of reform was promulgated, 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 Ordainers 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 whole administration
       of the kingdom thus passed into their hands. ... The Ordainers
       immediately on their appointment issued six articles directing
       the observance of the charters, the careful collection of the
       customs, and the arrest of the foreign merchants; but the
       great body of the ordinances was reserved 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,
          The Early Plantagenets,
          chapter 12.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1314-1328.
       Bannockburn and the recovery of Scottish independence.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314; 1314-1328.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1327.
       Accession of King Edward III.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1328.
       The Peace of Northampton with Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1328-1360.
       The pretensions and wars of Edward III. in France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339; and 1337-1360.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1332-1370.
       The wars of Edward III. with Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333, and 1333-1370.

    ENGLAND: 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 reward at the hands of their
       sovereign. ... The 13th century had broken up estates all over
       England and multiplied families of the upper class; the 14th
       century was consolidating properties again, and establishing a
       broad division between a few powerful nobles and the mass of
       the community. 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 importance 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
       merchants 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 Brétigny,
       brought the plunder of half [of] 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 number of working men
       and made labour valuable, 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 troops 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 property or emigrated,
       was succeeded by a sharp inquisition after fugitive serfs, and
       constant legislation 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 contumacy
       he should be imprisoned without the option 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 influence 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 bowmen fought at Crécy,
       and English privateers retorted on Genoese commerce throughout
       the course of the reign. In 1376 the Commons petitioned that
       all Lombards might be expelled [from] the kingdom, bringing
       amongst other charges against them that they were French
       spies. The Florentines 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 transferred the privilege
       of lending to the crown to the merchants of the rising Hanse
       Towns."

          C. H. Pearson,
          English History in the Fourteenth Century,
          chapter 9.

       "We may trace the destructive nature of the war with France in
       the notices of adjoining parishes thrown into one for want of
       sufficient inhabitants, 'of people 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 because the monks and nuns had died, and none bad
       been found to supply their places. ...
    {813}
       To the poverty of the country and the consequent inability of
       the nation to maintain the costly wars of Edward III., are
       attributed the enactments 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,
          England in the 15th Century,
          introduction, part 2.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1318-1349.
       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 diminished 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 survivors demanded an extravagant rate of wages, and
       even combined to enforce it, whilst on the other hand the
       landowners had to resort to every antiquated claim of service
       to get their estates cultivated 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,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 16, section 259.

       "On the first of August 1348 the disease appeared in the
       seaport towns of Dorsetshire, and travelled slowly westwards
       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
       authorities of the county of Gloucester. These precautions
       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 northwards. ... The
       mortality was enormous. Perhaps 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 chroniclers. 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
       archbishops 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
       landowners. 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 punishment 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,
          History of Agriculture and Prices in England,
          volume 1,  chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          F. A. Gasquet,
          The Great Pestilence.

          W. Longman,
          Edward III.,
          volume 1; chapter 10.

          A. Jessop,
          The Coming of the Friars, &c.,
          chapter 4-5.

    ENGLAND: 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 beginning 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 enjoyed the favor of the royal
       family. ... On many occasions, even thus early, he had
       appeared 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 English 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 unwarranted interference of
       romantic aspirations. The spirit of chivalry no longer formed
       a fundamental 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 individuals and according
       to the varieties developed by rank in life, education, age,
       and sex. ... Nothing has been preserved from his early
       writings. ... The fact is very remarkable that from the first,
       or at least from a very early period, Chaucer wrote in the
       English language--however 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.
    {814}
       Queen Philippa, in particular, showing herself in this a 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, before he sketched out in his famous chronicle the
       motley-colored, vivid picture of that eventful age. We also
       see in this period young Englishmen of rank and education
       trying 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,
          History of English Literature,
          book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2, part 1).

       "English was not taught in the schools, but French only, until
       after the accession 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
       established 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 century, they began to
       coalesce, and this process was going on with a rapidity that
       threatened a predominance of the French, if not a total
       extinction 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 scholarship 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 moment of severance of the two
       peoples and dialects, 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 Englishmen. Chaucer did not
       introduce into the English 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 exceptions, 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 religion, of moral
       and intellectual discourse, and of taste, had become utterly
       obsolete, and unknown. The place of the lost words had been
       partly supplied by the importation of Continental terms; but
       the new words came without the organic power of composition
       and derivation which belonged to those they had supplanted.
       Consequently, they were incapable of those modifications 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 History of the English Language,
          lecture 9.

          ALSO IN:
          T. R. Lounsbury,
          Studies in Chaucer.

          A. W. Ward,
          Chaucer.

          W. Godwin,
          Life of Geoffrey Chaucer.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.
       The Lollards.

       "The Lollards were the earliest 'Protestants' of England. They
       were the followers of John Wyclif, but before 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 Lollards. The priests and friars hated them and
       accused them of heresy, and a Walter Lollard, probably one of
       them, was burnt in 1322 at Cologne 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 Germany, was given to them,
       and gradually became the name for that whole movement of
       religious reformation which grew up from the seed Wyclif
       sowed."

          B. Herford,
          Story of Religion in England,
          chapter 16.

    {815}

       "A turning point arrived in the history of the reforming party
       at the 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 the assistance of the
       Churchmen, and above all to that of Archbishop Arundel. It was
       felt that the new dynasty and the hierarchy stood or fell
       together. A mixture of religious and political motives led to
       the passing of the well-known statute 'De hæretico comburendo'
       in 1401 and thenceforward Lollardy was a capital offence."

          R. L. Poole,
          Wycliffe and Movements for Reform,
          chapter 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 proclamation 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 confederate
       districts, and to appoint Sir John Oldcastle president of the
       commonwealth.'"

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History (4th edition),
          chapter 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; austere 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
       captaincy, 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--to preach, not of
       relics and of indulgences, but of repentance and of the grace
       of God. They carried 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 Richard, Wycliffe 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
       century. He was summoned to answer for himself before the
       Archbishop of Canterbury in 1377. He appeared in court
       supported by the presence of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster,
       the eldest of Edward's surviving sons, and the authorities
       were unable to strike him behind so powerful a shield. But the
       'poor priests' had other doctrines. ... 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, cast odium upon all such
       opinions. "So long as Wycliffe lived, his own lofty character was
       a guarantee for the conduct of his immediate disciples; 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 unmolested for the next twenty years. ...
       On the settlement of the country under Henry IV. they fell
       under the general ban which struck down all parties who had
       shared in the late disturbances."

          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          chapter 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 had scarcely anything in the way of popular
       literature, and which had been accustomed to regard the
       Scriptures as the special property of the learned. It was
       welcomed with an enthusiasm which could not be restrained, and
       read with avidity both by priests and laymen. ... The homely
       wisdom, blended with eternal truth, which has long since
       enriched our vernacular speech with a multitude of proverbs,
       could not thenceforth be restrained in its circulation by mere
       pious awe or time-honoured prejudice. 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, warning the people against the delusive
       preaching 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. Appealing to such an
       authority in their favour, the eloquence of the new teachers
       made a marvellous impression. Their followers increased with
       extraordinary rapidity. By the estimate of an opponent 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 Wycliffe himself, but even the
       most violent of the fanatics. And, certainly, whatever might
       have been Wycliffe's own view, doctrines were promulgated by
       his reputed followers that were distinctly subversive of
       authority. John Ball fomented the insurrection of Wat Tyler,
       by preaching the natural equality of men. ... But the
       popularity of Lollardy 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 English History, 1-2.

       "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 subversive social doctrines. He himself stood
       aloof from such doctrines, but he could not prevent his
       followers from mingling in the social fray. It was perhaps
       their merit that they did so. The established constitutional
       order was but another name for oppression and wrong to the
       lower classes. But as yet the lower classes were not
       sufficiently advanced 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 had
       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 enforce
       absolute labour-rents was tacitly abandoned, and gradually
       during the next century the mass of the villeins passed into
       the position of freemen.
    {816}
       For the moment, nobles and prelates, landowners and clergy,
       banded themselves together to form one great party of
       resistance. The church came to be but an outwork of the
       baronage."

          S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
          Introduction to the Study of English History,
          part 1, chapter 5, sections 14-15.

          ALSO IN
          L. Sergeant,
          John Wyclif.

          G. Lechler,
          John Wiclif and his English Precursors.

          See, also,
          BOHEMIA; A. D. 1405-1415,
          and BEGUINES.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1377.
       Accession of King Richard II.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1377-1399.
       The character and reign of Richard II.

       "Richard II. was a far superior man to many of the weaker
       kings of England; but being self-willed and unwarlike, he was
       unfitted for the work which the times required. Yet, on a
       closer inspection than the traditional view of the reign has
       generally encouraged, we cannot but observe that the finer
       qualities which came out in certain crises of his reign appear
       to have frequently influenced his conduct: we know that he was
       not an immoral man, that he was an excellent husband to an
       excellent wife, and that he had devoted friends, willing to
       lay down their lives for him when there was nothing whatever
       left for them to gain. ... Richard, who had been brought up in
       the purple quite as much as Edward II., was kept under
       restraint by his uncles, and not being judiciously guided in
       the arts of government, fell, like his prototype, into the
       hands of favourites. His brilliant behaviour in the
       insurrection of 1381 indicated much more than mere possession
       of the Plantagenet courage and presence of mind. He showed a
       real sympathy with the villeins who had undeniable grievances.
       ... His instincts were undoubtedly for freedom and
       forgiveness, and there is no proof, nor even probability, that
       he intended to use the villeins against his enemies. His early
       and happy marriage with Anne of Bohemia ought, one might
       think, to have saved him from the vice of favouritism; but he
       was at least more fortunate than Edward II. in not being cast
       under the spell of a Gaveston. When we consider the effect of
       such a galling government as that of his uncle Gloucester, and
       his cousin Derby, afterwards Henry IV., who seems to have been
       pushing Gloucester on from the first, we can hardly be
       surprised that he should require some friend to lean upon. The
       reign is, in short, from one, and perhaps the truest, point of
       view, a long duel between the son of the Black Prince and the
       son of John of Gaunt. One or other of them must inevitably
       perish. A handsome and cultivated youth, who showed himself at
       fifteen every inch a king, who was married at sixteen, and led
       his own army to Scotland at eighteen, required a different
       treatment from that which he received. He was a man, and
       should have been dealt with as such. His lavish and
       reprehensible grants to his favourites were made the excuse
       for Gloucester's violent interference in 1386, but there is
       good ground for believing that the movement was encouraged by
       the anti-Wicliffite party, which had taken alarm at the
       sympathy with the Reformers shown at this time by Richard and
       Anne."

          M. Burrows,
          Commentaries on the History of England,
          book 2, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. R. Green,
          History of the English People,
          book 4, chapter 4 (volume 1).

          C. H. Pearson,
          English History in the 14th Century,
          chapter 10-12.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.
       Wat Tyler's Rebellion.

       "In June 1381 there broke out in England the formidable
       insurrection known as Wat Tyler's Rebellion. The movement
       seems to have begun among the bondmen of Essex and of Kent;
       but it spread at once to the counties of Sussex Hertford,
       Cambridge, Suffolk and Norfolk. The peasantry, armed with
       bludgeons and rusty swords, first occupied the roads by which
       pilgrims went to Canterbury, and made everyone swear that he
       would be true to king Richard and not accept a king named
       John. This, of course, was aimed at the government of John of
       Gaunt [Duke of Lancaster], ... to whom the people attributed
       every grievance they had to complain of. The principal, or at
       least the immediate cause of offence arose out of a poll-tax
       which had been voted in the preceding year."

          J. Gairdner,
          Houses of Lancaster and York,
          chapter 2.

       The leaders of the insurgents were Wat the Tyler, who had been
       a soldier, John Ball, a priest and preacher of democratic and
       socialistic doctrines, and one known as Jack Straw. They made
       their way to London. "It ought to have been easy to keep them
       out of the city, as the only approach to it was by London
       Bridge, and the mayor and chief citizens proposed to defend
       it. But the Londoners generally, and even three of the
       aldermen, were well inclined to the rebels, and declared that
       they would not let the gates be shut against their friends and
       neighbours, and would kill the mayor himself if he attempted
       to do it. So on the evening of Wednesday, June 13, the
       insurgents began to stream in across the bridge, and next
       morning marched their whole body across the river, and
       proceeded at once to the Savoy, the splendid palace of the
       Duke of Lancaster. Proclamation was made that any one found
       stealing the smallest article would be beheaded; and the place
       was then wrecked and burned with all the formalities of a
       solemn act of justice. Gold and silver plate was shattered
       with battle-axes and thrown into the Thames; rings and smaller
       jewels were brayed in mortars; silk and embroidered dresses
       were trampled under feet and torn up. Then the Temple was
       burned with all its muniments. The poet Gower was among the
       lawyers who had to save their lives by flight, and he passed
       several nights in the woods of Essex, covered with grass and
       leaves and living on acorns. Then the great house of the
       Hospitallers at Clerkenwell was destroyed, taking seven days
       to burn." The young king (Richard II.) and his court and
       council had taken refuge in the Tower. The insurgents now
       threatened to storm their stronghold if the king did not come
       out and speak to them. The king consented and appointed a
       rendezvous at Mile End. He kept the appointment and met his
       turbulent subjects with so much courage and tact and so many
       promises, that he persuaded a great number to disperse to
       their homes. But while this pacific interview took place, Wat
       Tyler, John Ball, and some 400 of their followers burst into
       the Tower, determined to find the archbishop of Canterbury and
       the Lord Treasurer, Sir Robert de Hales, who were the most
       obnoxious ministers. "So great was the general consternation
       that the soldiers dared not raise a hand while these ruffians
       searched the different rooms, not sparing even the king's
       bedroom, running spears into the beds, asked the king's mother
       to kiss them, and played insolent jokes on the chief officers.
    {817}
       Unhappily they were not long in finding the archbishop, who
       had said mass in the chapel, and was kneeling at the altar in
       expectation of their approach." The Lord Treasurer was also
       found, and both he and the archbishop were summarily beheaded
       by the mob. "Murder now became the order of the day, and
       foreigners were among the chief victims; thirteen Flemings
       were dragged out of one church and beheaded, seventeen out of
       another, and altogether it is said 400 perished. Many private
       enmities were revenged by the London rabble on this day." On
       the next day, June 15, the king, with an armed escort, went to
       the camp of the insurgents, at Smithfield, and opened
       negotiations with Tyler, offering successively three forms of
       a new charter of popular rights and liberties, all of which
       were rejected. Finally, Tyler was invited to a personal
       conference, and there, in the midst of the king's party, on
       some provocation or pretended provocation in his words or
       bearing, the popular leader was struck from his horse and
       killed. King Richard immediately rode out before the ranks of
       the rebels, while they were still dazed by the suddenness and
       audacity of the treacherous blow, crying "I will be your
       leader; follow me." The thoughtless mob followed and soon
       found itself surrounded by bodies of troops whose courage had
       revived. The king now commanded the trembling peasants "to
       fall on their knees, cut the strings of their bows, and leave
       the city and its neighbourhood, under pain of death, before
       nightfall. This command was instantly obeyed." Meantime and
       afterwards there were many lesser risings in various parts of
       the country, all of which were suppressed, with such rigorous
       prosecutions in the courts that 1,500 persons are said to have
       suffered judicially.

          C. H. Pearson,
          English History in the Fourteenth Century,
          chapter 10.

       The Wat Tyler insurrection proved disastrous in its effect on
       the work of Church reform which Wyclif was then pursuing. "Not
       only was the power of the Lancastrian party, on which Wyclif
       had relied, for the moment annihilated, but the quarrel
       between the Baronage and Church, on which his action had
       hitherto been grounded, was hushed in the presence of a common
       danger. Much of the odium of the outbreak, too, fell on the
       Reformer. ... John Ball, who had figured in the front rank of
       the revolt, was claimed as one of his adherents. ... Whatever
       belief such charges might gain, it is certain that from this
       moment all plans for the reorganization of the Church were
       confounded in the general odium which attached to the projects
       of the socialist peasant leaders."

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of the English People,
          chapter 5, section 3.

       "When Parliament assembled it proved itself as hostile as the
       crown to the conceding any of the demands of the people; both
       were faithful to all the records of history in similar cases;
       they would have belied all experience if, being victorious,
       they had consented to the least concession to the vanquished.
       The upper classes repudiated the recognition of the rights of
       the poor to a degree, which in our time would be considered
       sheer insanity. The king had annulled, by proclamation to the
       sheriffs, the charters of manumission which he had granted to
       the insurgents, and this revocation was warmly approved by
       both Lords and Commons, who, not satisfied with saying that
       such enfranchisement could not be made without their consent,
       added, that they would never give that consent, even to save
       themselves from perishing altogether in one day. There was, it
       is true, a vague rumour about the propriety and wisdom of
       abolishing villanage; but the notion was scouted, and the
       owners of serfs showed that they neither doubted the right by
       which they held their fellow-creatures in a state of slavery,
       nor would hesitate to increase the severity of the laws
       affecting them. They now passed a law by which 'all riots and
       rumours, and other such things were turned into high treason';
       this law was most vaguely expressed, and would probably
       involve those who made it in inextricable difficulties. It was
       self-apparent, that this Parliament acted under the impulses
       of panic, and of revenge for recent injuries. ... It might be
       said that the citizens of the municipalities wrote their
       charters of enfranchisement with the very blood of their lords
       and bishops; yet, during the worst days of oppression, the
       serfs of the cities had never suffered the cruel excesses of
       tyranny endured by the country people till the middle of the
       fifteenth century. And, nevertheless, the long struggles of
       the townships, despite the bloodshed and cruelties of the
       citizens, are ever considered and narrated as glorious
       revolutions, whilst the brief efforts of the peasants for
       vengeance, which were drowned in their own blood, have
       remained as a stigma flung in the face of the country
       populations whenever they utter a word claiming some
       amelioration in their condition. Whence the injustice? The
       bourgeoisie was victorious and successful. The rural
       populations were vanquished and trampled upon. The
       bourgeoisie, therefore, has had its poets, historians, and
       flatterers, whilst the poor peasant, rude, untutored, and
       ignorant, never had a lyre nor a voice to bewail his
       lamentable sorrows and sufferings."

          Prof. De Vericour,
          Wat Tyler
          (Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
          number 8, volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          G. Lechler,
          John Wiclif,
          chapter 9, section 3.

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1383.
       The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade in Flanders.

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1388.
       The Merciless or Wonderful Parliament.

          See PARLIAMENT, THE WONDERFUL.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1399.
       Accession of King Henry IV.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1399-1471.
       House of Lancaster.

       This name is given in English history to the family which
       became royal in the person of Henry of Bolingbroke, Duke of
       Lancaster, who deposed his cousin, Richard II., or forced him
       to abdicate the throne, and who was crowned king (Henry IV.),
       Oct. 11, 1399, with what seemed to be the consent of the
       nation. He not only claimed to be the next in succession to
       Richard, but he put forward a claim of descent through his
       mother, more direct than Richard's had been, from Henry III.
       "In point of fact Henry was not the next in succession. His
       father, John of Gaunt [or John of Ghent, in which city he was
       born], was the fourth son of Edward III., and there were
       descendants of that king's third son, Lionel Duke of Clarence,
       living. ... At one time Richard himself had designated as his
       successor the nobleman who really stood next to him in the
       line of descent. This was Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, the
       same who was killed by the rebels in Ireland. This Roger had
       left a son Edmund to inherit his title, but Edmund was a mere
       child, and the inconvenience of another minority could not
       have been endured."

          J. Gairdner,
          Houses of Lancaster and York,
          chapter 2.

    {818}

       As for Henry's pretensions through his mother, they were
       founded upon what Mr. Gairdner calls an "idle story," that
       "the eldest son of Henry III. was not king Edward, but his
       brother Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, who was commonly
       reputed the second son; and that this Edmund had been
       purposely set aside on account of his personal deformity. The
       plain fact of the matter was that Edmund Crouchback was six
       years younger than his brother Edward I.; and that his surname
       Crouchback had not the smallest reference to personal
       deformity, but only implied that he wore the cross upon his
       back as a crusader." Mr. Wylie (History of England under Henry
       IV., volume 1, chapter 1) represents that this latter claim
       was put forward under the advice of the leading jurists of the
       time, to give the appearance of a legitimate succession;
       whereas Henry took his real title from the will and assent of
       the nation. Henry IV. was succeeded by his vigorous son, Henry
       V. and he in turn by a feeble son, Henry VI., during whose
       reign England was torn by intrigues and factions, ending in
       the lamentable civil wars known as the "Wars of the Roses,"
       the deposition of Henry VI. and the acquisition of the throne
       by the "House of York," in the persons of Edward IV. and
       Richard III. It was a branch of the House of Lancaster that
       reappeared, after the death of Richard III. in the royal
       family better known as the Tudors.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.
       Relations with Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1402-1413.
       Owen Glendower's Rebellion in Wales.

          See WALES: A. D.1402-1413.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1403.
       Hotspur's Rebellion.

       The earl of Northumberland and his son, Henry Percy, called
       "Hotspur," had performed great services for Henry IV., in
       establishing and maintaining him upon the throne. "At the
       outset of his reign their opposition would have been fatal to
       him; their adhesion ensured his victory. He had rewarded them
       with territory and high offices of trust, and they had by
       faithful services ever since increased their claims to
       gratitude and consideration. ... Both father and son were
       high-spirited, passionate, suspicious men, who entertained an
       exalted sense of their own services and could not endure the
       shadow of a slight. Up to this time [early in 1403] not a
       doubt had been cast on their fidelity. Northumberland was
       still the king's chief agent in Parliament, his most valued
       commander in the field, his Mattathias. It has been thought
       that Hotspur's grudge against the king began with the notion
       that the release of his brother-in-law, Edmund Mortimer [taken
       prisoner, the year before, by the Welsh], had been neglected
       by the king, or was caused by Henry's claim to deal with the
       prisoners taken at Homildon; the defenders of the Percies
       alleged that they had been deceived by Henry in the first
       instance, and only needed to be persuaded that Richard lived
       in order to desert the king. It is more probable that they
       suspected Henry's friendship, and were exasperated by his
       compulsory economies. ... Yet Henry seems to have conceived no
       suspicion. ... Northumberland and Hotspur were writing for
       increased forces [for the war with Scotland]. ... On the 10th
       of July Henry had reached Northamptonshire on his way
       northwards; on the 17th he heard that Hotspur with his uncle
       the earl of Worcester were in arms in Shropshire. They raised
       no cry of private wrongs, but proclaimed themselves the
       vindicators of national right: their object was to correct the
       evils of the administration, to enforce the employment of wise
       counsellors, and the proper expenditure of public money. ...
       The report ran like wildfire through the west that Richard was
       alive, and at Chester. Hotspur's army rose to 14,000 men, and
       not suspecting the strength and promptness of the king, he sat
       down with his uncle and his prisoner, the earl of Douglas,
       before Shrewsbury. Henry showed himself equal to the need.
       From Burton-on-Trent, where on July 17 he summoned the forces
       of the shires to join him, he marched into Shropshire, and
       offered to parley with the insurgents. The earl of Worcester
       went between the camps, but he was either an impolitic or a
       treacherous envoy, and the negotiations ended in mutual
       exasperation. On the 21st the battle of Shrewsbury was fought;
       Hotspur was slain; Worcester was taken and beheaded two days
       after. The old earl, who may or may not have been cognizant of
       his son's intentions from the first, was now marching to his
       succour. The earl of Westmoreland, his brother-in-law, met him
       and drove him back to Warkworth. But all danger was over. On
       the 11th of August he met the king at York, and submitted to
       him."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 18, section 632.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Wylie,
          History of England under Henry IV.,
          volume 1, chapter 25.

          W. Shakespeare,
          King Henry IV.,
          part 1.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1413.
       Accession of King Henry V.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.
       Parliamentary gains under Henry V.

       "What the sword had won the sword should keep, said Henry V.
       on his accession; but what was meant by the saying has its
       comment in the fact that, in the year which witnessed his
       victory at Agincourt, he yielded to the House of Commons the
       most liberal measure of legislation which until then it had
       obtained. The dazzling splendour of his conquests in France
       had for the time cast into the shade every doubt or question
       of his title, but the very extent of those gains upon the
       French soil established more decisively the worse than
       uselessness of such acquisitions to the English throne. The
       distinction of Henry's reign in constitutional history will
       always be, that from it dates that power, indispensable to a
       free and limited monarchy, called Privilege of Parliament; the
       shield and buckler under which all the battles of liberty and
       good government were fought in the after time. Not only were
       its leading safeguards now obtained, but at once so firmly
       established, that against the shock of incessant resistance in
       later years they stood perfectly unmoved. Of the awful right
       of impeachment, too, the same is to be said. It was won in the
       same reign, and was never afterwards lost."

          J. Forster,
          Historical and Biographical Essays,
          volume 1, page 207.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1415-1422.
       Conquests of Henry V. in France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1415; and 1417-1422.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1422.
       Accession of King Henry VI.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1431-1453.
       Loss of English conquests and possessions in France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453,
          and AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.

    {819}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.
       Cade's Rebellion.

       A formidable rebellion broke out in Kent, under the leadership
       of one Jack Cade, A. D. 1450. Overtaxation, the bad management
       of the council, the extortion of the subordinate officers, the
       injustice of the king's bench, the abuse of the right of
       purveyance, the "enquestes" and amercements, and the
       illegitimate control of elections were the chief causes of the
       rising of 1450. "The rising was mainly political, only one
       complaint was economical, not a single one was religious. We
       find not a single demand for new legislation. ... The movement
       was by no means of a distinctly plebeian or disorderly
       character, but was a general and organized rising of the
       people at large. It was a political upheaval. We find no trace
       of socialism or of democracy. ... The commons in 1450 arose
       against Lancaster and in favor of York. Their rising was the
       first great struggle in the Wars of the Roses."

          Kriehn,
          Rising in 1450,
          Chapter IV., VII.

       Cade and his rebels took possession of London; but they were
       beaten in a battle and forced to quit the city. Cade and some
       followers continued to be turbulent and soon afterwards he was
       killed.

          J. Gairdner,
          Houses of Lancaster and York,
          chapter 7, section 6.

          ALSO IN:
          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          3d series, chapter 7.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1455.
       Demoralized state of the nation.
       Effects of the wars in France.

       "The whole picture of the times is very depressing on the
       moral if not on the material side. There are few more pitiful
       episodes in history than the whole tale of the reign of Henry
       VI., the most unselfish and well-intentioned king that ever
       sat upon the English throne--a man of whom not even his
       enemies and oppressors could find an evil word to say; the
       troubles came, as they confessed, 'all because of his false
       lords, and never of him.' We feel that there must have been
       something wrong with the heart of a nation that could see
       unmoved the meek and holy king torn from wife and child, sent
       to wander in disguise up and down the kingdom for which he had
       done his poor best, and finally doomed to pine for five years a
       prisoner in the fortress where he had so long held his royal
       Court. Nor is our first impression concerning the
       demoralisation of England wrong. Every line that we read bears
       home to us more and more the fact that the nation had fallen
       on evil times. First and foremost among the causes of its
       moral deterioration was the wretched French War, a war begun
       in the pure spirit of greed and ambition,--there was not even
       the poor excuse that had existed in the time of Edward
       III.--carried on by the aid of hordes of debauched foreign
       mercenaries ... and persisted in long after it had become
       hopeless, partly from misplaced national pride, partly because
       of the personal interests of the ruling classes. Thirty-five
       years of a war that was as unjust as it was unfortunate had
       both soured and demoralised the nation. ... When the final
       catastrophe came and the fights of Formigny [or Fourmigny] and
       Chatillon [Castillon] ended the chapter of our disasters, the
       nation began to cast about for a scapegoat on whom to lay the
       burden of its failures. ... At first the unfortunate Suffolk
       and Somerset had the responsibility laid upon them. A little
       later the outcry became more bold and fixed upon the
       Lancastrian dynasty itself as being to blame not only for
       disaster abroad, but for want of governance at home. If King
       Henry had understood the charge, and possessed the wit to
       answer it, he might fairly have replied that his subjects must
       fit the burden upon their own backs, not upon his. The war had
       been weakly conducted, it was true; but weakly because the men
       and money for it were grudged. ... At home, the bulwarks of
       social order seemed crumbling away. Private wars, riot, open
       highway robbery, murder, abduction, armed resistance to the
       law, prevailed on a scale that had been unknown since the
       troublous times of Edward II.--we might almost say since the
       evil days of Stephen. But it was not the Crown alone that
       should have been blamed for the state of the realm. The nation
       had chosen to impose over-stringent constitutional checks on
       the kingly power before it was ripe for self-government, and
       the Lancastrian house sat on the throne because it had agreed
       to submit to those checks. If the result of the experiment was
       disastrous, both parties to the contract had to bear their
       share of the responsibility. But a nation seldom allows that
       it has been wrong; and Henry of Windsor had to serve as a
       scapegoat for all the misfortunes of the realm, because Henry
       of Bolingbroke had committed his descendants to the unhappy
       compact. Want of a strong central government was undoubtedly
       the complaint under which England was labouring in the middle
       of the 15th century, and all the grievances against which
       outcry was made were but symptoms of one latent disease. ...
       All these public troubles would have been of comparatively
       small importance if the heart of the nation had been sound.
       The phenomenon which makes the time so depressing is the
       terrible decay in private morals since the previous century.
       ... There is no class or caste in England which comes well out
       of the scrutiny. The Church, which had served as the conscience
       of the nation in better times, had become dead to spiritual
       things. It no longer produced either men of saintly life or
       learned theologians or patriotic statesmen. ... The baronage
       of England had often been unruly, but it had never before
       developed the two vices which distinguished it in the times of
       the Two Roses--a taste for indiscriminate bloodshed and a turn
       for political apostacy. ... Twenty years spent in contact with
       French factions, and in command of the godless mercenaries who
       formed the bulk of the English armies, had taught our nobles
       lessons of cruelty and faithlessness such as they had not
       before imbibed. ... The knights and squires showed on a
       smaller scale all the vices of the nobility. Instead of
       holding together and maintaining a united loyalty to the
       Crown, they bound themselves by solemn sealed bonds and the
       reception of 'liveries' each to the baron whom he preferred.
       This fatal system, by which the smaller landholder agreed on
       behalf of himself and his tenants to follow his greater
       neighbour in peace and war, had ruined the military system of
       England, and was quite as dangerous as the ancient feudalism.
       ... If the gentry constituted themselves the voluntary
       followers of the baronage, and aided their employers to keep
       England unhappy, the class of citizens and burgesses took a
       very different line of conduct. If not actively mischievous,
       they were solidly inert. They refused to entangle themselves
       in politics at all. They submitted impassively to each ruler
       in turn, when they had ascertained that their own persons and
       property were not endangered by so doing. A town, it has been
       remarked, seldom or never stood a siege during the Wars of the
       Roses, for no town ever refused to open its gates to any
       commander with an adequate force who asked for entrance."

          C. W. Oman,
          Warwick the King-maker,
          chapter 1.

    {820}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
       The Wars of the Roses.

       Beginning with a battle fought at St. Albans on the 23d of
       May, 1455, England was kept in a pitiable state of civil war,
       with short intervals of troubled peace, during thirty years.
       The immediate cause of trouble was in the feebleness of King
       Henry VI., who succeeded to the throne while an infant, and
       whose mind, never strong, gave way under the trials of his
       position when he came to manhood. The control of the
       government, thus weakly commanded, became a subject of strife
       between successive factions. The final leaders in such
       contests were Queen Margaret of Anjou, the energetic consort
       of the helpless king (with the king himself sometimes in a
       condition of mind to cooperate with her), on one side, and, on
       the other side, the Duke of York, who traced his lineage to
       Edward III., and who had strong claims to the throne if Henry
       should leave no heir. The battle at St. Albans was a victory
       for the Yorkists and placed them in power for the next two
       years, the Duke of York being named Protector. In 1456 the
       king recovered so far as to resume the reigns of government,
       and in 1459 there was a new rupture between the factions. The
       queen's adherents were beaten in the battle of Bloreheath,
       September 23d of that year; but defections in the ranks of the
       Yorkists soon obliged the latter to disperse and their
       leaders, York, Warwick and Salisbury, fled to Ireland and to
       Calais. In June, 1460, the earls of Warwick, Salisbury and
       March (the latter being the eldest son of the Duke of York)
       returned to England and gathered an army speedily, the city of
       London opening its gates to them. The king's forces were
       defeated at Northampton (July 10) and the king taken prisoner.
       A parliament was summoned and assembled in October. Then the Duke
       of York came over from Ireland, took possession of the royal
       palace and laid before parliament a solemn claim to the crown.
       After much discussion a compromise was agreed upon, under
       which Henry VI. should reign undisturbed during his life and
       the Duke of York should be his undisputed successor. This was
       embodied in an act of parliament and received the assent of
       the king; but queen Margaret who had retired into the north,
       refused to surrender the rights of her infant son, and a
       strong party sustained her. The Duke of York attacked these
       Lancastrian forces rashly, at Wakefield, Dec. 30, 1460, and
       was slain on the field of a disastrous defeat. The queen's
       army, then, marching towards London, defeated the Earl of
       Warwick at St. Albans, February 17, 1461 (the second battle of
       the war at that place), and recovered possession of the person
       of the king. But Edward, Earl of March (now become Duke of
       York, by the death of his father), who had just routed a
       Lancastrian force at Mortimer's Cross, in Wales, joined his
       forces with those of Warwick and succeeded in occupying
       London, which steadily favored his cause. Calling together a
       council of lords, Edward persuaded them to declare King Henry
       deposed, on the ground that he had broken the agreement made
       with the late Duke of York. The next step was to elect Edward
       king, and he assumed the royal title and state at once. The
       new king lost no time in marching northwards against the army
       of the deposed sovereign, which lay near York. On the 27th of
       March the advanced division of the Lancastrians was defeated
       at Ferrybridge, and, two days later, their main body was
       almost destroyed in the fearful battle of Towton,--said to
       have been the bloodiest encounter that ever took place on
       English soil. King Henry took refuge in Scotland and Queen
       Margaret repaired to France. In 1464 Henry reappeared in the
       north with a body of Scots and refugees and there were risings
       in his favor in Northumberland, which the Yorkists crushed in
       the successive battles of Hedgeley Moor and Hexham. The
       Yorkist king (Edward IV.) now reigned without much disturbance
       ntil 1470, when he quarreled with the powerful Earl of Warwick--
       the "king-maker," whose strong hand had placed him on the
       throne. Warwick then passed to the other side, offering his
       services to Queen Margaret and leading an expedition which
       sailed from Harfleur in September, convoyed by a French fleet.
       Edward found himself unprepared to resist the Yorkist risings
       which welcomed Warwick and he fled to Holland, seeking aid
       from his brother-in-law, the Duke of Burgundy. For nearly six
       months, the kingdom was in the hands of Warwick and the
       Lancastrians; the unfortunate Henry VI., released from
       captivity in the Tower, was once more seated on the throne.
       But on the 14th of March, 1471, Edward reappeared in England,
       landing at Ravenspur, professing that he came only to recover
       his dukedom of York. As he moved southwards he gathered a
       large force of supporters and soon reassumed the royal title
       and pretensions. London opened its gates to him, and, on the
       14th of April--exactly one month after his landing--he
       defeated his opponents at Barnet, where Warwick, "the
       king-maker"--the last of the great feudal barons--was slain.
       Henry, again a captive, was sent back to the Tower. But
       Henry's dauntless queen, who landed at Weymouth, with a body
       of French allies on the very day of the disastrous Barnet
       fight, refused to submit. Cornwall and Devon were true to her
       cause and gave her an army with which she fought the last
       battle of the war at Tewksbury on the 4th of May. Defeated and
       taken prisoner, her young son slain--whether in the battle or
       after it is unknown--the long contention of Margaret of Anjou
       ended on that bloody field. A few days later, when the
       triumphant Yorkist King Edward entered London, his poor,
       demented Lancastrian rival died suddenly and suspiciously in
       the Tower. The two parties in the long contention had each
       assumed the badge of a rose--the Yorkists a white rose, the
       Lancastrians a red one. Hence the name of the Wars of the
       Roses. "As early as the time of John of Ghent, the rose was
       used as an heraldic emblem, and when he married Blanche, the
       daughter of the Duke of Lancaster, he used the red rose for a
       device. Edmund of Langley, his brother, the fifth son of
       Edward III., adopted the white rose in opposition to him; and
       their followers afterwards maintained these distinctions in
       the bloody wars of the fifteenth century. There is, however,
       no authentic account of the precise period when these badges
       were first adopted."

          Mrs. Hookham,
          Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Gairdner,
          Houses of Lancaster and York.

          Sir J. Ramsay,
          Lancaster and York.

          C. W. Oman;
          Warwick, the King-maker,
          chapter 5-17.

          See, also,
          TOWTON, BARNET, and TEWKSBURY.

    {821}

       The effects of the Wars of the Roses.

       "It is astonishing to observe the rapidity with which it [the
       English nation] had settled down to order in the reign of
       Henry VII. after so many years of civil dissension. It would
       lead us to infer that those wars were the wars of a class, and
       not of the nation; and that the effects of them have been
       greatly exaggerated. With the single exception of Cade's
       rebellion, they had nothing in common with the revolutions of
       later or earlier times. They were not wars against classes,
       against forms of government, against the order or the
       institutions of the nation. It was the rivalry of two
       aristocratic factions struggling for superiority, neither of
       them hoping or desiring, whichever obtained the upper hand, to
       introduce momentous changes in the State or its
       administration. The main body of the people took little
       interest in the struggle; in the towns at least there was no
       intermission of employment. The war passed over the nation,
       ruffling the surface, toppling down high cliffs here and
       there, washing away ancient landmarks, attracting the
       imagination of the spectator by the mightiness of its waves,
       and the noise of its thunders; but the great body below the
       surface remained unmoved. No famines, no plagues, consequent
       on the intermittance of labour caused by civil war, are
       recorded; even the prices of land and provisions scarcely
       varied more than they have been known to do in times of
       profoundest peace. But the indirect and silent operation of
       these conflicts was much more remarkable. It reft into
       fragments the confederated ranks of a powerful territorial
       aristocracy, which had hitherto bid defiance to the King,
       however popular, however energetic. Henceforth the position of
       the Sovereign in the time of the Tudors, in relation to all
       classes of the people, became very different from what it had
       been; the royal supremacy was no longer a theory; but a fact.
       Another class had sprung up on the decay of the ancient
       nobility. The great towns had enjoyed uninterrupted
       tranquility, and even flourished, under the storm that was
       scourging the aristocracy and the rural districts. Their
       population had increased by numbers whom fear or the horrors
       of war had induced to find shelter behind stone walls. The
       diminution of agricultural labourers converted into soldiers
       by the folly of their lords had turned corn-lands into
       pasture, requiring less skill, less capital, and less labour."

          J. S. Brewer,
          The Reign of Henry VIII.,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

       "Those who would estimate the condition of England aright
       should remember that the War of the Roses was only a
       repetition on a large scale of those private wars which
       distracted almost every county, and, indeed, by taking away
       all sense of security, disturbed almost every manor and every
       class of society during the same century. ... The lawless
       condition of English society in the 15th century resembled
       that of Ireland in as recent a date as the beginning of the
       19th century. ... In both countries women were carried off,
       sometimes at night; they were first violated, then dragged to
       the altar in their night-dress and compelled to marry their
       captors. ... Children were seized and thrown into a dungeon
       until ransomed by their parents."

          W. Denton,
          England in the 15th Century,
          chapter 3.

       "The Wars of the Roses which filled the second half of the
       15th century furnished the barons with an arena in which their
       instincts of violence had freer play than ever; it was they
       who, under the pretext of dynastic interests which had ceased
       to exist, of their own free choice prolonged the struggle.
       Altogether unlike the Italian condottieri, the English barons
       showed no mercy to their own order; they massacred and
       exterminated each other freely, while they were careful to
       spare the commonalty. Whole families were extinguished or
       submerged in the nameless mass of the nation, and their
       estates by confiscation or escheat helped to swell the royal
       domain. When Henry VII. had stifled the last movements of
       rebellion and had punished, through the Star Chamber, those
       nobles who were still suspected of maintaining armed bands,
       the baronage was reduced to a very low ebb; not more than
       twenty-nine lay peers were summoned by the king to his first
       Parliament. The old Norman feudal nobility existed no longer;
       the heroic barons of the great charter barely survived in the
       persons of a few doubtful descendants; their estates were
       split up or had been forfeited to the Crown. A new class came
       forward to fill the gap, that rural middle class which was
       formed ... by the fusion of the knights with the free
       landowners. It had already taken the lead in the House of
       Commons, and it was from its ranks that Henry VII. chose
       nearly all the new peers. A peerage renewed almost throughout,
       ignorant of the habits and traditions of the earlier nobility,
       created in large batches, closely dependent on the monarch who
       had raised it from little or nothing and who had endowed it
       with his bounty--this is the phenomenon which confronts us at
       the end of the fifteenth century."

          E. Boutmy,
          The English Constitution,
          chapter 5.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1461.
       Accession of King Edward IV.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1461-1485.
       House of York.

       The House of York, which triumphed in the Wars of the Roses,
       attaining the throne in the person of Edward IV. (A. D. 1461),
       derived its claim to the crown through descent, in the female
       line, from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the third son of Edward
       III. (the second son who lived to manhood and left children);
       while the House of Lancaster traced its lineage to John of
       Gaunt, a younger son of the same king Edward III., but the
       line of Lancastrian succession was through males. "Had the
       crown followed the course of hereditary succession, it would
       have devolved on the posterity of Lionel. ... By the decease
       of that prince without male issue, his possessions and
       pretensions fell to his daughter Philippa, who by a singular
       combination of circumstances had married Roger Mortimer earl
       of March, the male representative of the powerful baron who
       was attainted and executed for the murder of Edward II., the
       grandfather of the duke of Clarence. The son of that potent
       delinquent had been restored to his honours and estates at an
       advanced period in the reign of Edward III. ... Edmund, his
       grandson, had espoused Philippa of Clarence. Roger Mortimer,
       the fourth in descent from the regicide, was lord lieutenant
       of Ireland and was considered, or, according to some writers,
       declared to be heir of the crown in the early part of
       Richard's reign. Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, in whom the
       hereditary claim to the crown was vested at the deposition of
       Richard, was then only an infant of ten years of age. ...
    {822}
       Dying without issue, the pretensions to the crown, which he
       inherited through the duke of Clarence, devolved on his sister
       Anne Mortimer, who espoused Richard of York earl of Cambridge,
       the grandson of Edward III. by his fourth [fifth] son Edmund
       of Langley duke of York." Edward IV. was the grandson of this
       Anne Mortimer and Richard of York.

          Sir J. Mackintosh,
          History of England,
          volume 1, pages 338-339.

       The House of York occupied the throne but twenty-four years.
       On the death of Edward IV., in 1483, the crown was secured by
       his brother, Richard, duke of Gloucester, who caused Edward's
       two sons to be murdered in the Tower. The elder of these
       murdered princes is named in the list of English kings as
       Edward V.; but he cannot be said to have reigned. Richard III.
       was overthrown and slain on Bosworth field in 1485.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.
       The New Monarchy.
       The rise of Absolutism and the decline of Parliamentary
       government.

       "If we use the name of the New Monarchy to express the
       character of the English sovereignty from the time of Edward
       IV. to the time of Elizabeth, it is because the character of
       the monarchy during this period was something wholly new in
       our history. There is no kind of sibilantly between the
       kingship of the Old English, of the Norman, the Angevin, or
       the Plantagenet sovereigns, and the kingship of the Tudors.
       ... What the Great Rebellion in its final result actually did
       was to wipe away every trace of the New Monarchy, and to take
       up again the thread of our political development just where it
       had been snapped by the Wars of the Roses. ... The founder of
       the New Monarchy was Edward IV. ... While jesting with
       aldermen, or dallying with his mistresses, or idling over the
       new pages from the printing press [Caxton's] at Westminster,
       Edward was silently laying the foundations of an absolute rule
       which Henry VII. did little more than develop and consolidate.
       The almost total discontinuance of Parliamentary life was in
       itself a revolution. Up to this moment the two Houses had
       played a part which became more and more prominent in the
       government of the realm. ... Under Henry VI. an important step
       in constitutional progress had been made by abandoning the old
       form of presenting the requests of the Parliament in the form
       of petitions which were subsequently moulded into statutes by
       the Royal Councils; the statute itself, in its final form, was
       now presented for the royal assent, and the Crown was deprived
       of its former privilege of modifying it. Not only does this
       progress cease, but the legislative activity of Parliament
       itself comes abruptly to an end. ... The necessity for
       summoning the two Houses had, in fact, been removed by the
       enormous tide of wealth which the confiscation of the civil
       war poured into the royal treasury. ... It was said that
       nearly a fifth of the land had passed into the royal
       possession at one period or another of the civil war. Edward
       added to his resources by trading on a vast scale. ... The
       enterprises he had planned against France ... enabled Edward
       not only to increase his hoard, but to deal a deadly blow at
       liberty. Setting aside the usage of loans sanctioned by the
       authority of Parliament, Edward called before him the
       merchants of the city and requested from each a present or
       benevolence in proportion to the need. Their compliance with
       his prayer was probably aided by his popularity with the
       merchant class; but the system of benevolence was soon to be
       developed into the forced loans of Wolsey and the ship-money
       of Charles I."

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of the English People,
          chapter 6, section 3.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 18, section 696.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1474.
       Treaty with the Hanseatic League.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1476.
       Introduction of Printing by Caxton.

          See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1476-1491.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1483-1485.
       Murder of the young king, Edward V.
       Accession of Richard III.
       The battle of Bosworth and the fall of the House of York.

       On the death of Edward IV., in 1483, his crafty and
       unscrupulous brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, gathered
       quickly into his hands the reins of power, proceeding with
       consummate audacity and ruthlessness to sweep every strong
       rival out of his path. Contenting himself for a few weeks,
       only, with the title of Protector, he soon disputed the
       validity of his brother Edward's marriage, caused an
       obsequious Parliament to set aside the young sons whom the
       latter had left, declaring them to be illegitimate, and placed
       the crown on his own head. The little princes (King Edward V.,
       and Richard, Duke of York), immured in the Tower, were
       murdered presently at their uncle's command, and Richard III.
       appeared, for the time, to have triumphed in his ambitious
       villainy. But, popular as he made himself in many cunning
       ways, his deeds excited a horror which united Lancastrians
       with the party of York in a common detestation. Friends of
       Henry, Earl of Richmond, then in exile, were not slow to take
       advantage of this feeling. Henry could claim descent from the
       same John of Gaunt, son of Edward III., to whom the House of
       Lancaster traced its lineage; but his family--the
       Beauforts--sprang from the mistress, not the wife, of the
       great Duke of Lancaster, and had only been legitimated by act
       of Parliament. The Lancastrians, however, were satisfied with
       the royalty of his blood, and the Yorkists were made content
       by his promise to marry a daughter of Edward IV. On this
       understanding being arranged, Henry came over from Brittany to
       England, landing at Milford Haven on the 7th or 8th of August,
       1485, and advancing through Wales, being joined by great
       numbers as he moved. Richard, who had no lack of courage,
       marched quickly to meet him, and the two forces joined battle
       on Bosworth Field, in Leicestershire, on Sunday, August 21. At
       the outset of the fighting Richard was deserted by a large
       division of his army and saw that his fate was sealed. He
       plunged, with despairing rage, into the thickest of the
       struggle and was slain. His crowned helmet, which he had worn,
       was found by Sir Reginald Bray, battered and broken, under a
       hawthorn bush, and placed on the head of his rival, who soon
       attained a more solemn coronation, as Henry VII.

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          3d Series, chapters 19-20.

       "I must record my impression that a minute study of the facts
       of Richard's life has tended more and more to convince me of
       the general fidelity of the portrait with which we have been
       made familiar by Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More. I feel quite
       ashamed, at this day, to think how I mused over this subject
       long ago, wasting a great deal of time, ink and paper, in
       fruitless efforts to satisfy even my own mind that traditional
       black was real historical white, or at worst a kind of grey.
       ...
    {823}
       Both the character and personal appearance of Richard III.
       have furnished matter of controversy. But with regard to the
       former the day has now gone by when it was possible to doubt
       the evidence at least of his principal crime; and that he was
       regarded as a tyrant by his subjects seems almost equally
       indisputable. At the same time he was not destitute of better
       qualities. ... As king he seems really to have studied his
       country's welfare, passed good laws, endeavoured to put an end
       to extortion, declined the free gifts offered to him by
       several towns, and declared he would rather have the hearts of
       his subjects than their money. His munificence was especially
       shown in religious foundations. ... His hypocrisy was not of
       the vulgar kind which seeks to screen habitual baseness of
       motive by habitual affectation of virtue. His best and his
       worst deeds were alike too well known to be either concealed
       or magnified; at least, soon after he became king, all doubt
       upon the subject must have been removed. ... His ingratiating
       manners, together with the liberality of his disposition, seem
       really to have mitigated to a considerable extent the alarms
       created by his fitful deeds of violence. The reader will not
       require to be reminded of Shakespeare's portrait of a murderer
       who could cajole the woman whom he had most exasperated and
       made a widow into marrying himself. That Richard's ingenuity
       was equal to this extraordinary feat we do not venture to
       assert; but that he had a wonderful power of reassuring those
       whom he had most intimidated and deceiving those who knew him
       best there can be very little doubt. ... His taste in building
       was magnificent and princely. ... There is scarcely any
       evidence of Richard's [alleged] deformity to be derived from
       original portraits. The number of portraits of Richard which
       seem to be contemporary is greater than might have been
       expected. ... The face in all the portraits is a remarkable
       one, full of energy and decision, yet gentle and sad-looking,
       suggesting the idea not so much of a tyrant as of a mind
       accustomed to unpleasant thoughts. Nowhere do we find depicted
       the warlike hard-favoured visage attributed to him by Sir
       Thomas More. ... With such a one did the long reign of the
       Plantagenets terminate. The fierce spirit and the valour of
       the race never showed more strongly than at the close. The
       Middle Ages, too, as far as England was concerned, may be said
       to have passed away with Richard III."

          J. Gairdner,
          History of the Life, and Reign of Richard The Third,
          introduction and chapter 6.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1485.
       Accession of King Henry VII.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1528.
       The Sweating Sickness.

          See SWEATING SICKNESS.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1603.
       The Tudors.

       The Tudor family, which occupied the English throne from the
       accession of Henry VII., 1485, until the death of Elizabeth,
       1603, took its name, but not its royal lineage, from Sir Owen
       Tudor, a handsome Welsh chieftain, who won the heart and the
       hand of the young widow of Henry V., Catherine of France. The
       eldest son of that marriage, made Earl of Richmond, married in
       his turn Margaret Beaufort, great-granddaughter to John of
       Gaunt, or Ghent, who was one of the sons of Edward III. From
       this latter union came Henry of Richmond, as he was known, who
       disputed the crown with Richard III. and made his claim good
       on Bosworth Field, where the hated Richard was killed. Henry's
       pretensions were based on the royal descent of his
       mother--derived, however, through John of Gaunt's mistress--
       and the dynasty which he founded was closely related in origin
       to the Lancastrian line. Henry of Richmond strengthened his
       hold upon the crown, though not his title to it, by marrying
       Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV., thus joining the white rose
       to the red. He ascended the throne as Henry VII., A. D. 1485;
       was succeeded by his son, Henry VIII., in 1509, and the latter
       by his three children, in order as follows: Edward VI., 1547;
       Mary, 1553; Elizabeth, 1558. The Tudor family became extinct
       on the death of Queen Elizabeth, in 1603. "They [the Tudors]
       reigned in England, without a successful rising against them,
       for upwards of a hundred years; but not more by a studied
       avoidance of what might so provoke the country, than by the
       most resolute repression of every effort, on the part of what
       remained of the peerage and great families, to make head
       against the throne. They gave free indulgence to their tyranny
       only within the circle of the court, while they unceasingly
       watched and conciliated the temper of the people. The work
       they had to do, and which by more scrupulous means was not
       possible to be done, was one of paramount necessity; the
       dynasty uninterruptedly endured for only so long as was
       requisite to its thorough completion; and to each individual
       sovereign the particular task might seem to have been
       specially assigned. It was Henry's to spurn, renounce and
       utterly cast off, the Pope's authority, without too suddenly
       revolting the people's usages and habits; to arrive at blessed
       results by ways that a better man might have held to be
       accursed; during the momentous change in progress to keep in
       necessary check both the parties it affected; to persecute
       with an equal hand the Romanist and the Lutheran; to send the
       Protestant to the stake for resisting Popery, and the Roman
       Catholic to the scaffold for not admitting himself to be Pope;
       while he meantime plundered the monasteries, hunted down and
       rooted out the priests, alienated the abbey lands, and glutted
       himself and his creatures with that enormous spoil. It was
       Edward's to become the ready and undoubting instrument of
       Cranmer's design, and, with all the inexperience and more than
       the obstinacy of youth, so to force upon the people his
       compromise of doctrine and observance, as to render possible,
       even perhaps unavoidable, his elder sister's reign. It was
       Mary's to undo the effect of that precipitate eagerness of the
       Reformers, by lighting the fires of Smithfield; and
       opportunely to arrest the waverers from Protestantism, by
       exhibiting in their excess the very worst vices, the cruel
       bigotry, the hateful intolerance, the spiritual slavery, of
       Rome. It was Elizabeth's finally and forever to uproot that
       slavery from amongst us, to champion all over the world a new
       and nobler faith, and immovably to establish in England the
       Protestant religion."

          J. Forster,
          Historical and Biographical Essays,
          pages 221-222.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
          Introduction to the Study of English History,
          chapter 6.

          C. E. Moberly,
          The Early Tudors.

    {824}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.
       The Rebellions of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.

       Although Henry VII., soon after he attained the throne,
       married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV., and thus
       united the two rival houses, the Yorkists were discontented
       with his rule. "With the help of Margaret of Burgundy, Edward
       IV. 's sister, and James IV. of Scotland, they actually set up
       two impostors, one after the other, to claim the throne. There
       was a real heir of the House of York still alive--young
       Edward, Earl of Warwick [son of the Duke of Clarence, brother
       to Edward IV.],  ... and Henry had taken the precaution to
       keep him in the Tower. But in 1487 a sham Earl of Warwick
       appeared in Ireland, and being supported by the Earl of
       Kildare, was actually crowned in Dublin Cathedral. Henry soon
       put down the imposture by showing the real earl to the people
       of London, and defeating the army of the pretended earl at
       Stoke, near Newark, June, 1487. He proved to be a lad named
       Lambert Simnel, the son of a joiner at Oxford, and he became a
       scullion in the king's kitchen." In 1492 another pretender of
       like character was brought forward. "A young man, called
       Perkin Warbeck, who proved afterwards to be a native of
       Tournay, pretended that he was Richard, Duke of York, the
       younger of the two little princes in the Tower, and that he
       had escaped when his brother Edward V. was murdered. He
       persuaded the king of France and Margaret of Burgundy to
       acknowledge him, and was not only received at the foreign
       courts, but, after failing in Ireland, he went to Scotland,
       where James IV. married him to his own cousin Catharine
       Gordon, and helped him to invade England in 1496. The invasion
       was defeated however, by the Earl of Surrey, and then Perkin
       went back to Ireland, where the people had revolted against
       the heavy taxes. There he raised an army and marched to
       Exeter, but meeting the king's troops at Taunton, he lost
       courage, and fled to the Abbey of Beaulieu, where he was taken
       prisoner, and sent to the Tower in 1497." In 1501 both Perkin
       Warbeck and the young Earl of Warwick were executed.

          A. B. Buckley,
          History of England for Beginners,
          chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Gairdner, Story of Perkin Warbeck
          (appendix to Life of Richard III.).

          C. M, Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          3d series, chapters 21 and 24.

          J. Gairdner,
          Henry VII.,
          chapters 4 and 7.

    ENGLAND: 15th-16th Centuries.
       The Renaissance.
       Life in "Merry England."
       Preludes to the Elizabethan Age of literature.

       "Toward the close of the fifteenth century ... commerce and
       the woollen trade made a sudden advance, and such an enormous
       one that corn-fields were changed into pasture-lands, 'whereby
       the inhabitants of the said town (Manchester) have gotten and
       come into riches and wealthy livings,' so that in 1553, 40,000
       pieces of cloth were exported in English ships. It was already
       the England which we see to-day, a land of meadows, green,
       intersected by hedgerows, crowded with cattle, abounding in
       ships, a manufacturing, opulent land, with a people of
       beef-eating toilers, who enrich it while they enrich
       themselves. They improved agriculture to such an extent, that
       in half a century the produce of an acre was doubled. They
       grew so rich, that at the beginning of the reign of Charles I.
       the Commons represented three times the wealth of the Upper
       House. The ruin of Antwerp by the Duke of Parma sent to
       England 'the third part of the merchants and manufacturers,
       who made silk, damask, stockings, taffetas, and serges.'  The
       defeat of the Armada and the decadence of Spain opened the
       seas to their merchants. The toiling hive, who would dare,
       attempt, explore, act in unison, and always with profit, was
       about to reap its advantages and set out on its voyages,
       buzzing over the universe. At the base and on the summit of
       society, in all ranks of life, in all grades of human
       condition, this new welfare became visible. ... It is not when
       all is good, but when all is better, that they see the bright
       side of life, and are tempted to make a holiday of it. This is
       why at this period they did make a holiday of it, a splendid
       show, so like a picture that it fostered painting in Italy, so
       like a representation, that it produced the drama in England.
       Now that the battle-axe and sword of the civil wars had beaten
       down the independent nobility, and the abolition of the law of
       maintenance had destroyed the petty royalty of each great
       feudal baron, the lords quitted their sombre castles,
       battlemented fortresses, surrounded by stagnant water, pierced
       with narrow windows, a sort of stone breast-plates of no use
       but to preserve the life of their masters. They flock into new
       palaces, with vaulted roofs and turrets, covered with
       fantastic and manifold ornaments, adorned with terraces and
       vast staircases, with gardens, fountains, statues, such as
       were the palaces of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, half Gothic and
       half Italian, whose convenience, grandeur, and beauty
       announced already habits of society and the taste for
       pleasure. They came to court and abandoned their old manners;
       the four meals which scarcely sufficed their former voracity
       were reduced to two; gentlemen soon became refined, placing
       their glory in the elegance and singularity of their
       amusements and their clothes. ... To vent the feelings, to
       satisfy the heart and eyes, to set free boldly on all the
       roads of existence the pack of appetites and instincts, this
       was the craving which the manners of the time betrayed. It was
       'merry England,' as they called it then. It was not yet stern
       and constrained. It expanded widely, freely, and rejoiced to
       find itself so expanded. No longer at court only was the drama
       found but in the village. Strolling companies betook
       themselves thither, and the country folk supplied any
       deficiencies when necessary. Shakspeare saw, before he
       depicted them, stupid fellows, carpenters, joiners,
       bellow-menders, play Pyramus and Thisbe, represent the lion
       roaring as gently as possible, and the wall, by stretching out
       their hands. Every holiday was a pageant, in which
       townspeople, workmen, and children bore their parts. ... A few
       sectarians, chiefly in the towns and of the people, clung
       gloomily to the Bible. But the court and the men of the world
       sought their teachers and their heroes from pagan Greece and
       Rome. About 1490 they began to read the classics; one after
       the other they translated them; it was soon the fashion to
       read them in the original. Elizabeth, Jane Grey, the Duchess
       of Norfolk, the Countess of Arundel, many other ladies, were
       conversant with Plato, Xenophon, and Cicero in the original,
       and appreciated them. Gradually, by an insensible change, men
       were raised to the level of the great and healthy minds who
       had freely handled ideas of all kinds fifteen centuries ago.
       They comprehended not only their language, but their thought;
       they did not repeat lessons from, but held conversations with
       them; they were their equals, and found in them intellects as
       manly as their own. ...
    {825}
       Across the train of hooded school men and sordid cavillers the
       two adult and thinking ages were united, and the moderns,
       silencing the infantine or snuffling voices of the middle-age,
       condescended only to converse with the noble ancients. They
       accepted their gods, at least they understand them, and keep
       them by their side. In poems, festivals, tapestries, almost
       all ceremonies they appear, not restored by pedantry merely,
       but kept alive by sympathy, and glorified by the arts of an
       age as flourishing and almost as profound as that of their
       earliest birth. After the terrible night of the middle-age,
       and the dolorous legends of spirits and the damned, it was a
       delight to see again Olympus shining upon us from Greece; its
       heroic and beautiful deities once more ravishing the heart of
       men, they raised and instructed this young world by speaking
       to it the language of passion and genius; and the age of
       strong deeds, free sensuality, bold invention, had only to
       follow its own bent, in order to discover in them the eternal
       promoters of liberty and beauty. Nearer still was another
       paganism, that of Italy; the more seductive because more
       modern, and because it circulates fresh sap in an ancient
       stock; the more attractive, because more sensuous and present,
       with its worship of force and genius, of pleasure and
       voluptuousness. ... At that time Italy clearly led in every
       thing, and civilisation was to be drawn thence as from its
       spring. What is this civilisation which is thus imposed on the
       whole of Europe, whence every science and every elegance
       comes, whose laws are obeyed in every court, in which Surrey,
       Sidney, Spenser, Shakspeare sought their models and their
       materials? It was pagan in its elements and its birth; in its
       language, which is but slightly different from Latin; in its
       Latin traditions and recollections, which no gap has come to
       interrupt; in its constitution, whose old municipal life first
       led and absorbed the feudal life; in the genius of its race,
       in which energy and enjoyment always abounded."

          H. A. Taine,
          History of English Literature,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       "The intellectual movement, to which we give the name of
       Renaissance, expressed itself in England mainly through the
       Drama. Other races in that era of quickened activity, when
       modern man regained the consciousness of his own strength and
       goodliness after centuries of mental stagnation and social
       depression, threw their energies into the plastic arts and
       scholarship. The English found a similar outlet for their
       pent-up forces in the Drama. The arts and literature of Greece
       and Rome had been revealed by Italy to Europe. Humanism had
       placed the present once more in a vital relation to the past.
       The navies of Portugal and Spain had discovered new continents
       beyond the ocean; the merchants of Venice and Genoa had
       explored the farthest East. Copernicus had revolutionised
       astronomy, and the telescope was revealing fresh worlds beyond
       the sun. The Bible had been rescued from the mortmain of the
       Church; scholars studied it in the language of its authors,
       and the people read it in their own tongue. In this rapid
       development of art, literature, science, and discovery, the
       English had hitherto taken but little part. But they were
       ready to reap what other men had sown. Unfatigued by the
       labours of the pioneer, unsophisticated by the pedantries and
       sophistries of the schools, in the freshness of their youth
       and vigour, they surveyed the world unfolded to them. For more
       than half a century they freely enjoyed the splendour of this
       spectacle, until the struggle for political and religious
       liberty replunged them in the hard realities of life. During
       that eventful period of spiritual disengagement from absorbing
       cares, the race was fully conscious of its national
       importance. It had shaken off the shackles of oppressive
       feudalism, the trammels of ecclesiastical tyranny. It had not
       yet passed under the Puritan yoke, or felt the encroachments
       of despotic monarchy. It was justly proud of the Virgin Queen,
       with whose idealised personality the people identified their
       newly acquired sense of greatness. ... What in those fifty
       years they saw with the clairvoyant eyes of artists, the poets
       wrote. And what they wrote, remains imperishable. It is the
       portrait of their age, the portrait of an age in which
       humanity stood self-revealed, a miracle and marvel to its own
       admiring curiosity. England was in a state of transition when
       the Drama came to perfection. That was one of those rare
       periods when the past and the future are both coloured by
       imagination, and both shed a glory on the present. The
       medieval order was in dissolution; the modern order was in
       process of formation. Yet the old state of things had not
       faded from memory and usage; the new had not assumed despotic
       sway. Men stood then, as it were, between two dreams--a dream
       of the past, thronged with sinister and splendid
       reminiscences; a dream of the future, bright with unlimited
       aspirations and indefinite hopes. Neither the retreating
       forces of the Middle Ages nor the advancing forces of the
       modern era pressed upon them with the iron weight of
       actuality. The brutalities of feudalism had been softened; but
       the chivalrous sentiment remained to inspire the Surreys and
       the Sidneys of a milder epoch. ... What distinguished the
       English at this epoch from the nations of the South was not
       refinement of manners, sobriety, or self-control. On the
       contrary they retained an unenviable character for more than
       common savagery. ... Erasmus describes the filth of their
       houses, and the sicknesses engendered in their cities by bad
       ventilation. What rendered the people superior to Italians and
       Spaniards was the firmness of their moral fibre, the sweetness
       of their humanity, a more masculine temper, less vitiated
       instincts and sophisticated intellects, a law-abiding and
       religious conscience, contempt for treachery and baseness,
       intolerance of political or ecclesiastical despotism combined
       with fervent love of home and country. They were coarse, but
       not vicious; pleasure-loving, but not licentious; violent, but
       not cruel; luxurious but not effeminate. Machiavelli was a
       name of loathing to them. Sidney, Essex, Raleigh, More, and
       Drake were popular heroes; and whatever may be thought of
       these men, they certainly counted no Marquis of Pescara, no
       Duke of Valentino, no Malatesta Baglioni, no Cosimo de' Medici
       among them. The Southern European type betrayed itself but
       faintly in politicians like Richard Cromwell and Robert
       Dudley. . . . Affectations of foreign vices were only a
       varnish on the surface of society. The core of the nation
       remained sound and wholesome. Nor was the culture which the
       English borrowed from less unsophisticated nations, more than
       superficial. The incidents of Court gossip show how savage was
       the life beneath.
    {826}
       Queen Elizabeth spat, in the presence of her nobles, at a
       gentleman who had displeased her; struck Essex on the cheek;
       drove Burleigh blubbering from her apartment. Laws in merry
       England were executed with uncompromising severity. Every
       township had its gallows; every village its stocks,
       whipping-post and pillory. Here and there, heretics were
       burned upon the market-place; and the block upon Tower Hill
       was seldom dry. ... Men and women who read Plato, or discussed
       the elegancies of Petrarch, suffered brutal practical jokes,
       relished the obscenities of jesters, used the grossest
       language of the people. Carrying farms and acres on their
       backs in the shape of costly silks and laces, they lay upon
       rushes filthy with the vomit of old banquets. Glittering in
       suits of gilt and jewelled mail, they jostled with
       town-porters in the stench of the bear-gardens, or the bloody
       bull-pit. The church itself was not respected. The nave of old
       S. Paul's became a rendezvous for thieves and prostitutes. ...
       It is difficult, even by noting an infinity of such
       characteristics, to paint the many-coloured incongruities of
       England at that epoch. Yet in the midst of this confusion rose
       cavaliers like Sidney, philosophers like Bacon, poets like
       Spenser; men in whom all that is pure, elevated, subtle,
       tender, strong, wise, delicate and learned in our modern
       civilisation displayed itself. And the masses of the people
       were still in harmony with these high strains. They formed the
       audience of Shakspere. They wept for Desdemona, adored Imogen,
       listened with Jessica to music in the moon-light at Belmont,
       wandered with Rosalind through woodland glades of Arden. Such
       was the society of which our theatre became the mirror."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Shakspere's Predecessors in the English Drama,
          chapter 2, section 1, 2, and 5.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1497.
       Cabot's discovery of the North American Continent.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.
       Voyage and discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
       Ground of English claims in the New World.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1502.
       The marriage which brought the Stuarts to the English throne.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1509.
       The character and reign of Henry VII.

       "As a king, Bacon tells us that he was 'a wonder for wise
       men.' Few indeed were the councillors that shared his
       confidence, but the wise men, competent to form an estimate of
       his statesmanship, had but one opinion of his consummate
       wisdom. Foreigners were greatly struck with the success that
       attended his policy. Ambassadors were astonished at the
       intimate knowledge he displayed of the affairs of their own
       countries. From the most unpropitious beginnings, a proscribed
       man and an exile, he had won his way in evil times to a throne
       beset with dangers; he had pacified his own country, cherished
       commerce, formed strong alliances over Europe, and made his
       personal influence felt by the rulers of France, Spain, Italy,
       and the Netherlands as that of a man who could turn the scale
       in matters of the highest importance to their own domestic
       welfare. ... From first to last his policy was essentially his
       own; for though he knew well how to choose the ablest
       councillors, he asked or took their advice only to such an
       extent as he himself deemed expedient. ... No one can
       understand his reign, or that of his son, or, we might add, of
       his granddaughter Queen Elizabeth, without appreciating the
       fact that, however well served with councillors, the sovereign
       was in those days always his own Prime Minister. ... Even the
       legislation of the reign must be regarded as in large measure
       due to Henry himself. We have no means, it is true, of knowing
       how much of it originated in his own mind; but that it was all
       discussed with him in Council and approved before it was
       passed we have every reason to believe. For he never appears
       to have put the royal veto upon any Bill, as constitutional
       usage both before and after his days allowed. He gave his
       assent to all the enactments sent up to him for approval,
       though he sometimes added to them provisos of his own. And
       Bacon, who knew the traditions of those times, distinctly
       attributes the good legislation of his days to the king
       himself. 'In that part, both of justice and policy, which is
       the most durable part, and cut, as it were, in brass or
       marble, the making of good laws, he did excel.' This
       statement, with but slight variations in the wording, appears
       again and again throughout the History; and elsewhere it is
       said that he was the best lawgiver to this nation after Edward
       I. ... The parliaments, indeed, that Henry summoned were only
       seven in number, and seldom did anyone of them last over a
       year, so that during a reign of nearly twenty-four years many
       years passed away without a Parliament at all. But even in
       those scanty sittings many Acts were passed to meet evils that
       were general subjects of complaint. ... He could scarcely be
       called a learned man, yet he was a lover of learning, and gave
       his children an excellent education. His Court was open to
       scholars. ... He was certainly religious after the fashion of
       his day. ... His religious foundations and bequests perhaps do
       not necessarily imply anything more than conventional feeling.
       But we must not overlook the curious circumstance that he once
       argued with a heretic at the stake at Canterbury and got him
       to renounce his heresy. It is melancholy to add that he did
       not thereupon release him from the punishment to which he had
       been sentenced; but the fact seems to show that he was afraid
       of encouraging insincere conversions by such leniency. During
       the last two or three years of the 15th century there was a
       good deal of procedure against heretics, but on the whole, we
       are told, rather by penances than by fire. Henry had no desire
       to see the old foundations of the faith disturbed. His zeal
       for the Church was recognised by no less than three Popes in
       his time, who each sent him a sword and a cap of maintenance.
       ... To commerce and adventure he was always a good friend. By
       his encouragement Sebastian Cabot sailed from Bristol and
       discovered Newfoundland--The New Isle, as it at first was
       called. Four years earlier Columbus had first set foot on the
       great western continent, and had not his brother been taken by
       pirates at sea, it is supposed that he too might have made his
       great discovery under Henry's patronage."

          James Gairdner,
          Henry the Seventh,
          chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Bacon,
          History of the Reign of King Henry VII.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1509,
       Accession of King Henry VIII.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1151-1513.
       Enlisted In the Holy League of Pope Julius II. against France.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1513.
       Henry's invasion of France.
       The victory of the Battle of the Spurs.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

    {827}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1513-1529.
       The ministry of Cardinal Wolsey.

       From 1513 to 1529, Thomas Wolsey, who became Archbishop of
       York in 1514, and Cardinal in 1515, was the minister who
       guided the policy of Henry VIII., so far as that head-strong
       and absolute monarch could be guided at all. "England was
       going through a crisis, politically, socially, and
       intellectually, when Wolsey undertook the management of
       affairs. ... We must regret that he put foreign policy in the
       first place, and reserved his constructive measures for
       domestic affairs. ... Yet even here we may doubt if the
       measures of the English Reformation would have been possible
       if Wolsey's mind had not inspired the king and the nation with
       a heightened consciousness of England's power and dignity.
       Wolsey's diplomacy at least tore away all illusions about Pope
       and Emperor, and the opinion of Europe, and taught Henry VIII.
       the measure of his own strength. It was impossible that
       Wolsey's powerful hand should not leave its impression upon
       everything which it touched. If Henry VIII. inherited a strong
       monarchy, Wolsey made the basis of monarchical power still
       stronger. ... Wolsey saw in the royal power the only possible
       means of holding England together and guiding it through the
       dangers of impending change. ... Wolsey was in no sense a
       constitutional minister, nor did he pay much heed to
       constitutional forms. Parliament was only summoned once during
       the time that he was in office, and then he tried to browbeat
       Parliament and set aside its privileges. In his view the only
       function of Parliament was to grant money for the king's
       needs. The king should say how much he needed, and Parliament
       ought only to advise how this sum might be most conveniently
       raised. ... He was unwise in his attempt to force the king's
       will upon Parliament as an unchangeable law of its action.
       Henry VIII. looked and learned from Wolsey's failure, and when
       he took the management of Parliament into his own hands he
       showed himself a consummate master of that craft. ... He was
       so skilful that Parliament at last gave him even the power
       over the purse, and Henry, without raising a murmur, imposed
       taxes which Wolsey would not have dared to suggest. ... Where
       Wolsey would have made the Crown independent of Parliament,
       Henry VIII. reduced Parliament to be a willing instrument of
       the royal will. ... Henry ... clothed his despotism with the
       appearance of paternal solicitude. He made the people think
       that he lived for them, and that their interests were his,
       whereas Wolsey endeavoured to convince the people that the
       king alone could guard their interests, and that their only
       course was to put entire confidence in him. Henry saw that men
       were easier to cajole than to convince. ... In spite of the
       disadvantage of a royal education, Henry was a more thorough
       Englishman than Wolsey, though Wolsey sprang from the people.
       It was Wolsey's teaching, however, that prepared Henry for his
       task. The king who could use a minister like Wolsey and then
       throw him away when he was no longer useful, felt that there
       was no limitation to his self-sufficiency. ... For politics in
       the largest sense, comprising all the relations of the nation
       at home and abroad, Wolsey had a capacity which amounted to
       genius, and it is doubtful if this can be said of any other
       Englishman. ... Taking England as he found her, he aimed at
       developing all her latent possibilities, and leading Europe to
       follow in her train. ... He made England for a time the centre
       of European politics, and gave her an influence far higher
       than she could claim on material grounds. ... He was indeed a
       political artist, who worked with a free hand and a certain
       touch.. ... He was, though he knew it not, fitted to serve
       England, but not to serve the English king. He had the aims of
       a national statesman, not of a royal servant. Wolsey's
       misfortune was that his lot was cast on days when the career
       of a statesman was not distinct from that of a royal servant."

          M. Creighton,
          Cardinal Wolsey,
          chapters 8 and 11.

          ALSO IN:
          J. S. Brewer,
          The Reign of Henry VIII.

          J. A. Froude,
          History of  England from the Fall of Wolsey,
          chapters 1-2.

          G. Cavendish,
          Life of Wolsey.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1514.
       Marriage of the king's sister with Louis XII. of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1516-1517.
       Intrigues against France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1519.
       Candidacy of Henry VIII. for the imperial crown.

             See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1520-1521.
       Rivalry of the Emperor and the French King
       for the English alliance.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1525.
       The king changes sides in European politics and breaks his
       alliance with the Emperor.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1527.
       New alliance with France and Venice against Charles V.
       Formal renunciation of the claim of the English kings to the
       crown of France.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534.
       Henry VIII. and the Divorce question.
       The rupture with Rome.

       Henry VIII. owed his crown to the early death of his brother
       Arthur, whose widow, Catharine of Aragon, the daughter of
       Ferdinand, and consequently the aunt of Charles V. [emperor],
       Henry was enabled to marry through a dispensation obtained by
       Henry VII. from Pope Julius II.,--marriage with the wife of a
       deceased brother being forbidden by the laws of the Church.
       Henry was in his twelfth year when the marriage was concluded,
       but it was not consummated until the death of his father. ...
       The question of Henry's divorce from Catharine soon became a
       subject of discussion, and the effort to procure the annulling
       of the marriage from the pope was prosecuted for a number of
       years. Henry professed, and perhaps with sincerity, that he
       had long been troubled with doubts of the validity of the
       marriage, as being contrary to the divine law, and therefore
       not within the limit of the pope's dispensing power. The death
       of a number of his children, leaving only a single daughter,
       Mary, had been interpreted by some as a mark of the
       displeasure of God. At the same time the English people, in
       the fresh recollection of the long dynastic struggle, were
       anxious on account of the lack of a male heir to the throne.
       On the queen's side it was asserted that it was competent for
       the pope to authorize a marriage with a brother's widow, and
       that no doubt could possibly exist in the present case, since,
       according to her testimony, her marriage with Arthur had never
       been completed. The eagerness of Henry to procure the divorce
       increased with his growing passion for Anne Boleyn. The
       negotiations with Rome dragged slowly on. Catharine was six
       years older than himself, and had lost her charms.
    {828}
       He was enamored of this young English girl, fresh from the
       court of France. He resolved to break the marriage bond with
       the Spanish princess who had been his faithful wife for nearly
       twenty years. It was not without reason that the king became
       more and more incensed at the dilatory and vacillating course
       of the pope. ... Henry determined to lay the question of the
       validity of his marriage before the universities of Europe,
       and this he did, making a free use of bribery abroad and of
       menaces at home. Meantime, he took measures to cripple the
       authority of the pope and of the clergy in England. In these
       proceedings he was sustained by a popular feeling, the growth
       of centuries, against foreign ecclesiastical interference and
       clerical control in civil affairs. The fall of Wolsey was the
       effect of his failure to procure the divorce, and of the
       enmity of Anne Boleyn and her family. ... In order to convict
       of treason this minister, whom he had raised to the highest
       pinnacle of power, the king did not scruple to avail himself
       of the ancient statute of præmunire, which Wolsey was accused
       of having transgressed by acting as the pope's legate in
       England--it was dishonestly alleged, without the royal
       license. Early in 1531 the king charged the whole body of the
       clergy with having incurred the penalties of the same law by
       submitting to Wolsey in his legatine character. Assembled in
       convocation, they were obliged to implore his pardon, and
       obtained it only in return for a large sum of money. In their
       petition he was styled, in obedience to his dictation, 'The
       Protector and Supreme Head of the Church and Clergy of
       England,' to which was added, after long debate, at the
       suggestion of Archbishop Warham--'as far as is permitted by
       the law of Christ.' The Church, prostrate though it was at the
       feet of the despotic king, showed some degree of self-respect
       in inserting this amendment. Parliament forbade the
       introduction of papal bulls into England. The king was
       authorized if he saw fit, to withdraw the annats--first-fruits
       of benefices--from the pope. Appeals to Rome were forbidden.
       The retaliatory measures of Henry did not move the pope to
       recede from his position. On or about January 25, 1533, the
       king was privately married to Anne Boleyn. ... In 1534 Henry
       was conditionally excommunicated by Clement VII. The papal
       decree deposing him from the throne, and absolving his
       subjects from their allegiance, did not follow until 1538, and
       was issued by Paul III. Clement's bull was sent forth on the
       23 of March. On the 23 of November Parliament passed the Act
       of Supremacy, without the qualifying clause which the clergy
       had attached to their vote. The king was, moreover, clothed
       with full power and authority to repress and amend all such
       errors, heresies, and abuses as 'by any manner of spiritual
       authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed.'
       Thus a visitatorial function of vast extent was recognized as
       belonging to him. In 1532 convocation was driven to engage not
       'to enact or promulge or put in execution' any measures
       without the royal license, and to promise to change or to
       abrogate any of the 'provincial constitutions' which he should
       judge inconsistent with his prerogative. The clergy were thus
       stripped of all power to make laws. A mixed commission, which
       Parliament ordained for the revision of the whole canon law,
       was not appointed in this reign. The dissolution of the king's
       marriage thus dissolved the union of England with the papacy."

          G. P. Fisher,
          History of the Christian Church,
          period 8, chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:

          J. S. Brewer,
          The Reign of Henry VIII.,
          volume 2, chapters 27-35.

          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          S. H. Burke,
          Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty,
          volume 1, chapters 8-25.

          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 6, chapter 3.

          T. E. Bridgett,
          Life and Writings of Sir T. More.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1529-1535.
       The execution of Sir Thomas More.

       On the 25th of October, 1529, the king, by delivering the
       great seal to Sir Thomas More, constituted him Lord
       Chancellor. In making this appointment, Henry "hoped to
       dispose his chancellor to lend his authority to the projects
       of divorce and second marriage, which now agitated the king's
       mind, and were the main objects of his policy. ... To pursue
       this subject through the long negotiations and discussions
       which it occasioned during six years, would be to lead us far
       from the life of Sir Thomas More. ... All these proceedings
       terminated in the sentence of nullity in the case of Henry's
       marriage with Catherine, pronounced by Cranmer, the espousal
       of Anne Boleyn by the king, and the rejection of the papal
       jurisdiction by the kingdom, which still, however, adhered to
       the doctrines of the Roman catholic church. The situation of
       More during a great part of these memorable events was
       embarrassing. The great offices to which he was raised by the
       king, the personal favour hitherto constantly shown to him,
       and the natural tendency of his gentle and quiet disposition,
       combined to disincline him to resistance against the wishes of
       his friendly master. On the other hand, his growing dread and
       horror of heresy, with its train of disorders; his belief that
       universal anarchy would be the inevitable result of religious
       dissension, and the operation of seven years' controversy for
       the Catholic church, in heating his mind on all subjects
       involving the extent of her authority, made him recoil from
       designs which were visibly tending towards disunion with the
       Roman pontiff. ... Henry used every means of procuring an
       opinion favourable to his wishes from his chancellor, who
       excused himself as unmeet for such matters, having never
       professed the study of divinity. ... But when the progress
       towards the marriage was so far advanced that he saw how soon
       the active co-operation of a chancellor must be required, he
       made suit to 'his singular dear friend,' the duke of Norfolk,
       to procure his discharge from this office. The duke, often
       solicited by More, then obtained, by importunate suit, a clear
       discharge for the chancellor. ... The king directed Norfolk,
       when he installed his successor, to declare publicly, that his
       majesty had with pain yielded to the prayers of sir Thomas
       More, by the removal of such a magistrate. .... It must be
       owned that Henry felt the weight of this great man's opinion,
       and tried every possible means to obtain at least the
       appearance of his spontaneous approbation. ... The king ...
       sent the archbishop of Canterbury, the chancellor, the duke of
       Norfolk, and Cromwell, to attempt the conversion of More.
       Audley reminded More of the king's special favour and many
       benefits. More admitted them; but modestly added, that his
       highness had most graciously declared that on this matter More
       should be molested no more.
    {829}
       When in the end they saw that no persuasion could move him,
       they then said, 'that the king's highness had given them in
       commandment, if they could by no gentleness win him, in the
       king's name with ingratitude to charge him, that never was
       servant to his master so villainous, nor subject to his prince
       so traitorous as he.'. . . By a tyrannical edict, mis-called a
       law, in the same session of 1533-4, it was made high treason,
       after the 1st of May, 1534, by writing, print, deed, or act,
       to do or to procure, or cause to be done or procured, anything
       to the prejudice, slander, disturbance, or derogation of the
       king's lawful matrimony with queen Anne. If the same offences
       were committed by words, they were only misprision. The same
       act enjoined all persons to take an oath to maintain the whole
       contents of the statute, and an obstinate refusal to make such
       oath was subjected to the penalties of misprision. ... Sir T.
       More was summoned to appear before these commissioners at
       Lambeth, on Monday the 13th of April, 1534. ... After having
       read the statute and the form of the oath, he declared his
       readiness to swear that he would maintain and defend the order
       of succession to the crown as established by parliament. He
       disclaimed all censure of those who had imposed, or on those
       who had taken, the oath, but declared it to be impossible that
       he should swear to the whole contents of it, without offending
       against his own conscience. ... He never more returned to his
       house, being committed to the custody of the abbot of
       Westminster, in which he continued four days; and at the end
       of that time he was conveyed to the Tower on Friday the 17th
       of April, 1534. ... On the 6th of May, 1535, almost
       immediately after the defeat of every attempt to practise on
       his firmness, More was brought to trial at Westminster, and it
       will scarcely be doubted, that no such culprit stood at any
       European bar for a thousand years. ... It is lamentable that
       the records of the proceedings against such a man should be
       scanty. We do not certainly know the specific offence of which
       he was convicted. ... On Tuesday, the 6th of July (St.
       Thomas's eve), 1535, sir Thomas Pope, 'his singular good
       friend,' came to him early with a message from the king and
       council, to say that he should die before nine o'clock of the
       same morning. ... The lieutenant brought him to the scaffold,
       which was so weak that it was ready to fall, on which he said,
       merrily, 'Master Lieutenant, I pray you see me safe up, and
       for my coming down let me shift for myself.' When he laid his
       head on the block he desired the executioner to wait till he
       had removed his beard, for that had never offended his
       highness."

          Sir J. Mackintosh,
          Sir Thomas More
          (Cabinet Cyclopedia:
          Eminent British Statesmen, volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          Historical Biographies,
          chapter 3.

          T. E. Bridgett,
          Life and Writings of Sir Thomas More,
          chapters 12-24.

          S. H. Burke,
          Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty,
          volume 1, chapter 29.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1531-1563,
       The genesis of the Church of England.

       "Henry VIII. attempted to constitute an Anglican Church
       differing from the Roman Catholic Church on the point of the
       supremacy, and on that point alone. His success in this
       attempt was extraordinary. The force of his character, the
       singularly favorable situation in which he stood with respect
       to foreign powers, the immense wealth which the spoliation of
       the ah beys placed at his disposal, and the support of that
       class which still halted between two opinions, enabled him to
       bid defiance to both the extreme parties, to burn as heretics
       those who avowed the tenets of the Reformers, and to hang as
       traitors those who owned the authority of the Pope. But
       Henry's system died with him. Had his life been prolonged, he
       would have found it difficult to maintain a position assailed
       with equal fury by all who were zealous either for the new or
       for the old opinions. The ministers who held the royal
       prerogatives in trust for his infant son could not venture to
       persist in so hazardous a policy; nor could Elizabeth venture
       to return to it. It was necessary to make a choice. The
       government must either submit to Rome, or must obtain the aid
       of the Protestants. The government and the Protestants had
       only one thing in common, hatred of the Papal power. The
       English reformers were eager to go as far as their brethren on
       the Continent. They unanimously condemned as Antichristian
       numerous dogmas and practices to which Henry had stubbornly
       adhered, and which Elizabeth reluctantly abandoned. Many felt
       a strong repugnance even to things indifferent which had
       formed part of the polity or ritual of the mystical Babylon.
       Thus Bishop Hooper, who died manfully at Gloucester for his
       religion, long refused to wear the episcopal vestments. Bishop
       Ridley, a martyr of still greater renown, pulled down the
       ancient altars of his diocese, and ordered the Eucharist to be
       administered in the middle of churches, at tables which the
       Papists irreverently termed oyster boards. Bishop Jewel
       pronounced the clerical garb to be a stage dress, a fool's
       coat, a relique of the Amorites, and promised that he would
       spare no labour to extirpate such degrading absurdities.
       Archbishop Grindal long hesitated about accepting a mitre from
       dislike of what he regarded as the mummery of consecration.
       Bishop Parkhurst uttered a fervent prayer that the Church of
       England would propose to herself the Church of Zurich as the
       absolute pattern of a Christian community. Bishop Ponet was of
       opinion that the word Bishop should be abandoned to the
       Papist, and that the chief officers of the purified church
       should be called Superintendents. When it is considered that
       none of these prelates belonged to the extreme section of the
       Protestant party, it cannot be doubted that, if the general
       sense of that party had been followed, the work of reform
       would have been carried on as unsparingly in England as in
       Scotland. But, as the government needed the support of the
       Protestants, so the Protestants needed the protection of the
       government. Much was therefore given up on both sides: an
       union was effected; and the fruit of that union was the Church
       of England."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 1.

       "The Reformation in England was, singular amongst the great
       religious movements of the sixteenth century. It was the least
       heroic of them all--the least swayed by religious passion, or
       moulded and governed by spiritual and theological necessities.
       From a general point of view, it looks at first little more
       than a great political change. The exigencies of royal
       passion, and the dubious impulses of statecraft, seem its
       moving and really powerful springs. But, regarded more
       closely, we recognise a significant train both of religious
       and critical forces at work. The lust and avarice of Henry,
       the policy of Cromwell, and the vacillations of the leading
       clergy, attract prominent notice; but there may be traced
       beneath the surface a wide-spread evangelical fervour amongst
       the people, and, above all, a genuine spiritual earnestness
       and excitement of thought at the universities.
    {830}
       These higher influences preside at the first birth of the
       movement. They are seen in active operation long before the
       reforming task was taken up by the Court and the bishops."

          J. Tulloch,
          Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy
          in England in the 17th Century,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

       "The miserable fate of Anne Boleyn wins our compassion, and
       the greatness to which her daughter attained has been in some
       degree reflected back upon herself. Had she died a natural
       death, and had she not been the mother of Queen Elizabeth, we
       should have estimated her character at a very low value
       indeed. Protestantism might still, with its usual unhistorical
       partizanship, have gilded over her immoralities; but the
       Church of England must ever look upon Anne Boleyn with
       downcast eyes full of sorrow and shame. By the influence of
       her charms, Henry was induced to take those steps which ended
       in setting the Church of England free from an uncatholic yoke:
       but that such a result should be produced by such an influence
       is a fact which must constrain us to think that the land was
       guilty of many sins, and that it was these national sins which
       prevented better instruments from being raised up for so
       righteous an object."

          J. H. Blunt,
          The Reformation of the Church of England,
          pages 197-198.

       "Cranmer's work might never have been carried out, there might
       have been no English Bible, no Ten Articles or 'Institution,'
       no reforming Primers, nor Proclamations against Ceremonies,
       had it not been for the tact, boldness and skill of Thomas
       Crumwell, who influenced the King more directly and constantly
       than Cranmer, and who knew how to make his influence
       acceptable by an unprincipled confiscation and an absurd
       exaggeration of the royal supremacy. Crumwell knew that in his
       master's heart there was a dislike and contempt of the clergy.
       ... It is probable that Crumwell's policy was simply
       irreligious, and only directed towards preserving his
       influence with the King; but as the support of the reforming
       part of the nation was a useful factor in it, he was thus led
       to push forward religious information in conjunction with
       Cranmer. It has been before said that purity and
       disinterestedness are not to be looked for in all the actors
       in the English Reformation. To this it may be added that
       neither in the movement itself nor in those who took part in
       it is to be found complete consistency. This, indeed, is not
       to be wondered at. Men were feeling their way along untrodden
       paths, without any very clear perception of the end at which
       they were aiming, or any perfect understanding of the
       situation. The King had altogether misapprehended the meaning
       of his supremacy. A host of divines whose views as to the
       distinction between the secular and the spiritual had been
       confused by the action of the Popes, helped to mislead him.
       The clergy, accustomed to be crushed and humiliated by the
       Popes, submitted to be crushed and humiliated by the King; and
       as the tide of his autocratic temper ebbed and flowed, yielded
       to each change. Hence there was action and reaction throughout
       the reign. But in this there were obvious advantages for the
       Church. The gradual process accustomed men's thoughts to a
       reformation which should not be drastic or iconoclastic, but
       rather conservative and deliberate."

          G. G, Perry,
          History of the Reformation in England,
          chapter 5.

       "With regard to the Church of England, its foundations rest
       upon the rock of Scripture, not upon the character of the King
       by whom they were laid. This, however, must be affirmed in
       justice to Henry, that mixed as the motives were which first
       induced him to disclaim the Pope's authority, in all the
       subsequent measures he acted sincerely, knowing the importance
       of the work in which he had engaged, and prosecuting it
       sedulously and conscientiously, even when most erroneous. That
       religion should have had so little influence upon his moral
       conduct will not appear strange, if we consider what the
       religion was wherein he was trained up;--nor if we look at the
       generality of men even now, under circumstances immeasurably
       more fortunate than those in which he was placed. Undeniable
       proofs remain of the learning, ability, and diligence, with
       which he applied himself to the great business of weeding out
       superstition, and yet preserving what he believed to be the
       essentials of Christianity untouched. This praise (and it is
       no light one) is his due: and it is our part to be thankful to
       that all-ruling Providence, which rendered even his passions
       and his vices subservient to this important end."

          R. Southey,
          The Book of the Church,
          chapter 12.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.
       The suppression of the Monasteries.

       "The enormous, and in a great measure ill-gotten, opulence of
       the regular clergy had long since excited jealousy in every
       part of Europe. ... A writer much inclined to partiality
       towards the monasteries says that they held [in England]
       one-fifth part of the kingdom; no insignificant patrimony. ...
       As they were in general exempted from episcopal visitation,
       and intrusted with the care of their own discipline, such
       abuses had gradually prevailed and gained strength by
       connivance as we may naturally expect in corporate bodies of
       men leading almost of necessity useless and indolent lives,
       and in whom very indistinct views of moral obligations were
       combined with a great facility of violating them. The vices
       that for many ages had been supposed to haunt the monasteries,
       had certainly not left their precincts in that of Henry VIII.
       Wolsey, as papal legate, at the instigation of Fox, bishop of
       Hereford, a favourer of the Reformation, commenced a
       visitation of the professed as well as secular clergy in 1523,
       in consequence of the general complaint against their manners.
       ... Full of anxious zeal for promoting education, the noblest
       part of his character, he obtained bulls from Rome suppressing
       many convents (among which was that of St. Frideswide at
       Oxford), in order to erect and endow a new college in that
       university, his favourite work, which after his fall was more
       completely established by the name of Christ Church. A few
       more were afterwards extinguished through his instigation; and
       thus the prejudice against interference with this species of
       property was somewhat worn off, and men's minds gradually
       prepared for the sweeping confiscations of Cromwell [Thomas
       Cromwell, who succeeded Wolsey as chief minister of Henry
       VIII.]. The king indeed was abundantly willing to replenish
       his exchequer by violent means, and to avenge himself on those
       who gainsayed his supremacy; but it was this able statesman
       who, prompted both by the natural appetite of ministers for
       the subjects' money and by a secret partiality towards the
       Reformation, devised and
       carried on with complete success, if not with the utmost
       prudence, a measure of no inconsiderable hazard and
       difficulty. ...
    {831}
       It was necessary, by exposing the gross corruptions of
       monasteries, both to intimidate the regular clergy, and to
       excite popular indignation against them. It is not to be
       doubted that in the visitation of these foundations, under the
       direction of Cromwell, as lord vice-gerent of the king's
       ecclesiastical supremacy, many things were done in an
       arbitrary manner, and much was unfairly represented. Yet the
       reports of these visitors are so minute and specific that it
       is rather a preposterous degree of incredulity to reject their
       testimony whenever it bears hard on the regulars. ... The
       dread of these visitors soon induced a number of abbots to
       make surrenders to the king; a step of very questionable
       legality. But in the next session the smaller convents, whose
       revenues were less than £200 a year, were suppressed by act of
       parliament, to the number of 376, and their estates vested in
       the crown. This summary spoliation led to the great northern
       rebellion soon afterwards," headed by Robert Ask, a gentleman
       of Yorkshire, and assuming the title of a Pilgrimage of Grace.

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 2.

       "Far from benefiting the cause of the monastic houses, the
       immediate effect of the Pilgrimage of Grace was to bring ruin
       on those monasteries which had as yet been spared. For their
       complicity or alleged complicity in it, twelve abbots were
       hanged, drawn and quartered, and their houses were seized by
       the Crown. Every means was employed by a new set of
       Commissioners to bring about the surrender of others of the
       greater abbeys. The houses were visited, and their pretended
       relics and various tricks to encourage the devotion of the
       people were exposed. Surrenders went rapidly on during the
       years 1537 and 1538, and it became necessary to obtain a new
       Act of Parliament to vest the property of the later surrenders
       in the Crown. ... Nothing, indeed, can be more tragical than
       the way in which the greater abbeys were destroyed on
       manufactured charges and for imaginary crimes. These houses
       had been described in the first Act of Parliament as 'great
       and honourable,' wherein 'religion was right well kept and
       observed.' Yet now they were pitilessly destroyed. A revenue
       of about £131,607 is computed to have thus come to the Crown,
       while the movables are valued at £400,000. How was this vast
       sum of money expended?

       (1) By the Act for the suppression of the greater monasteries
       the King was empowered to erect six new sees, with their deans
       and chapters, namely, Westminster, Oxford, Chester,
       Gloucester, Bristol and Peterborough. ...

       (2) Some monasteries were turned into collegiate churches, and
       many of the abbey churches ... were assigned as parish
       churches.

       (3) Some grammar schools were erected.

       (4) A considerable sum is said to have been spent in making
       roads and in fortifying the coasts of the Channel.

       (5) But by far the greater part of the monastic property
       passed into the hands of the nobility and gentry, either by
       purchase at very easy rates, or by direct gift from the Crown.
       ...

       The monks and nuns ejected from the monasteries had small
       pensions assigned to them, which are said to have been
       regularly paid; but to many of them the sudden return into a
       world with which they had become utterly unacquainted, and in
       which they had no part to play, was a terrible hardship, ...
       greatly increased by the Six Article Law, which ... made the
       marriage of the secularized 'religious' illegal under heavy
       penalties."

          G. G. Perry,
          History of the Reformation in England,
          chapter 4.

       "The religious bodies, instead of uniting in their common
       defence, seem to have awaited singly their fate with the
       apathy of despair. A few houses only, through the agency of
       their friends, sought to purchase the royal favour with offers
       of money and lands; but the rapacity of the king refused to
       accept a part when the whole was at his mercy."

          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 6, chapter 4.

       Some of the social results of the suppression "may be summed
       up in a few words. The creation of a large class of poor to
       whose poverty was attached the stigma of crime; the division
       of class from class, the rich mounting up to place and power,
       the poor sinking to lower depths; destruction of custom as a
       check upon the exactions of landlords; the loss by the poor of
       those foundations at schools and universities intended for
       their children, and the passing away of ecclesiastical tithes
       into the hands of lay owners."

          F. A. Gasquet,
          Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries,
          volume 2, page 523.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1536-1543.
       Trial and execution of Anne Boleyn.
       Her successors, the later wives of Henry VIII.

       Anne Boleyn had been secretly married to the king in January,
       1533, and had been crowned on Whitsunday of that year. "The
       princess Elizabeth, the only surviving child, was born on the
       7th of September following. ... The death of Catherine, which
       happened at Kimbolton on the 29th of January, 1536, seemed to
       leave queen Anne in undisturbed possession of her splendid
       seat." But the fickle king had now "cast his affections on
       Jane Seymour, the daughter of Sir John Seymour, a young lady
       then of the Queen's bed-chamber, as Anne herself had been in
       that of Catherine." Having lost her charms in the eyes of the
       lustful despot who had wedded her, her influence was gone--
       and her safety. Charges were soon brought against the
       unfortunate woman, a commission (her own father included in
       it) appointed to inquire into her alleged misdeeds, and "on
       the 10th of May an indictment for high treason was found by
       the grand jury of Westminster against the Lady Anne, Queen of
       England; Henry Norris, groom of the stole; Sir Francis Weston
       and William Brereton, gentlemen of the privy chamber; and Mark
       Smeaton, a performer on musical instruments, and a person 'of
       low degree,' promoted to be a groom of the chamber for his
       skill in the fine art which he professed. It charges the queen
       with having, by all sorts of bribes, gifts, caresses, and
       impure blandishments, which are described with unblushing
       coarseness in the barbarous Latinity of the indictment,
       allured these members of the royal household into a course of
       criminal connection with her, which had been carried on for
       three years. It included also George Boleyn viscount Rochford,
       the brother of Anne, as enticed by the same lures and snares
       with the rest of the accused, so as to have become the
       accomplice of his sister, by sharing her treachery and
       infidelity to the king. It is hard to believe that Anne could
       have dared to lead a life so unnaturally dissolute, without
       such vices being more early and very generally known in a
       watchful and adverse court.
    {832}
       It is still more improbable that she should in every instance
       be the seducer. ... Norris, Weston, Brereton, and Smeaton were
       tried before a commission of oyer and terminer at Westminster,
       on the 12th of May, two days after the bill against them was
       found. They all, except Smeaton, firmly denied their guilt to
       the last moment. On Smeaton's confession it must be observed
       that we know not how it was obtained, how far it extended, or
       what were the conditions of it. ... On the 12th of May, the
       four commoners were condemned to die. Their sentence was
       carried into effect amidst the plaints of the bystanders. ...
       On the 15th of May, queen Anne and her brother Rochford were
       tried." The place of trial was in the Tower, "which concealed
       from the public eye whatever might be wanting in justice."
       Condemnation duly followed, and the unhappy queen was executed
       May 19, 1536. The king lost little time in wedding Jane
       Seymour. "She died in childbed of Edward VI. on the 13th of
       October, 1537. The next choice made by or for Henry, who
       remained a widower for the period of more than two years," was
       the "princess Anne, sister of the duke of Cleves, a
       considerable prince on the lower Rhine. ... The pencil of
       Holbein was employed to paint this lady for the king, who,
       pleased by the execution, gave the flattering artist credit
       for a faithful likeness. He met her at Dover, and almost
       immediately betrayed his disappointment. Without descending
       into disgusting particulars, it is necessary to state that,
       though the marriage was solemnised, the king treated the
       princess of Cleves as a friend." At length, by common action
       of an obsequious parliament and a more obsequious convocation
       of the church, the marriage was declared to be annulled, for
       reasons not specified. The consent of the repudiated wife was
       "insured by a liberal income of £3,000 a year, and she lived
       for 16 years in England with the title of princess Anne of
       Cleves. ... This annulment once more displayed the triumph of
       an English lady over a foreign princess." The lady who now
       captivated the brutally amorous monarch was lady Catherine
       Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, who became queen on the
       8th of August, 1540. In the following November, the king
       received such information of lady Catherine's dissolute life
       before marriage "as immediately caused a rigid inquiry into
       her behaviour. ... The confessions of Catherine and of lady
       Rochford, upon which they were attainted in parliament, and
       executed in the Tower on the 14th of February, are not said to
       have been at any time questioned. ... On the 10th of July,
       1543, Henry wedded Catherine Parr, the widow of Lord Latimer,
       a lady of mature age," who survived him.

          Sir J. Mackintosh,
          History of England (L. L. C.),
          volume 2, chapters 7-8.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Friedmann,
          Ann Boleyn.

          H. W. Herbert,
          Memoirs of Henry VIII. and his Six Wives.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.
       The Reformation checked.
       The Six Articles.

       "Yielding to the pressure of circumstances, he [Henry VIII.]
       had allowed the Reformers to go further than he really
       approved. The separation from the Church of Rome, the
       absorption by the Crown of the powers of the Papacy, the unity
       of authority over both Church and State centred in himself, had
       been his objects. In doctrinal matters he clung to the Church
       of which he had once been the champion. He had gained his
       objects because he had the feeling of the nation with him. In
       his eagerness he had even countenanced some steps of doctrinal
       reform. But circumstances had changed. ... Without detriment
       to his position he could follow his natural inclinations. He
       listened, therefore, to the advice of the reactionary party,
       of which Norfolk was the head. They were full of bitterness
       against the upstart Cromwell, and longed to overthrow him as
       they had overthrown Wolsey. The first step in their triumph
       was the bill of the Six Articles, carried in the Parliament of
       1539. These laid down and fenced round with extraordinary
       severity the chief points of the Catholic religion at that
       time questioned by the Protestants. The bill enacted, first,
       'that the natural body and blood of Jesus Christ were present
       in the Blessed Sacrament,' and that 'after consecration there
       remained no substance of bread and wine, nor any other but the
       substance of Christ'; whoever, by word or writing, denied this
       article was a heretic, and to be burned. Secondly, the
       Communion in both kinds was not necessary, both body and blood
       being present in each element; thirdly, priests might not
       marry; fourthly, vows of chastity by man or woman ought to be
       observed; fifthly, private masses ought to be continued;
       sixthly, auricular confession must be retained. Whoever wrote
       or spoke against these ... Articles, on the first offence his
       property was forfeited; on the second offence he was a felon,
       and was put to death. Under this 'whip with six strings' the
       kingdom continued for the rest of the reign. The Bishops at
       first made wild work with it. Five hundred persons are said to
       have been arrested in a fortnight; the king had twice to
       interfere and grant pardons. It is believed that only
       twenty-eight persons actually suffered death under it."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          volume 2, page 411.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Blunt,
          Reformation of the Church of England,
          volume 1, chapter 8-9.

          S. H. Burke,
          Men and Women of the English Reformation,
          volume 2, pages 17-24.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1542-1547.
       Alliance with Charles V. against Francis I.
       Capture and restoration of Boulogne.
       Treaty of Guines.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
       The wooing of Mary Queen of Scots.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1547.
       Accession of King Edward VI.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1547-1553.
       The completing of the Reformation.

       Henry VIII., dying on the 28th of January, 1547, was succeeded
       by his son Edward,--child of Jane Seymour,--then only nine
       years old. By the will of his father, the young king (Edward
       VI.) was to attain his majority at eighteen, and the
       government of his kingdom, in the meantime, was entrusted to a
       body of sixteen executors, with a second body of twelve
       councillors to assist with their advice. "But the first act of
       the executors and counsellors was to depart from the
       destination of the late king in a material article. No sooner
       were they met, than it was suggested that the government would
       lose its dignity for want of some head who might represent the
       royal majesty." The suggestion was opposed by none except the
       chancellor, Wriothesley,--soon afterwards raised to the
       peerage as Earl of Southampton. "It being therefore agreed to
       name a protector, the choice fell of course on the Earl of
       Hertford [afterwards Duke of Somerset], who, as he was the
       king's maternal uncle, was strongly interested in his safety."
    {833}
       The protector soon manifested an ambition to exercise his
       almost royal authority without any constraint, and, having
       found means to remove his principal opponent, Southampton,
       from the chancellorship, and to send him into disgrace, he
       procured a patent from the infant king which gave him
       unbounded power. With this power in his hand he speedily
       undertook to carry the work of church reform far beyond the
       intentions of Henry VIII. "The extensive authority and
       imperious character of Henry had retained the partisans of
       both religions in subjection; but upon his demise, the hopes
       of the Protestants, and the fears of the Catholics began to
       revive, and the zeal of these parties produced every where
       disputes and animosities, the usual preludes to more fatal
       divisions. The protector had long been regarded as a secret
       partisan of the reformers; and being now freed from restraint,
       he scrupled not to discover his intention of correcting all
       abuses in the ancient religion, and of adopting still more of
       the Protestant innovations. He took care that all persons
       intrusted with the king's education should be attached to the
       same principles; and as the young prince discovered a zeal for
       every kind of literature, especially the theological, far
       beyond his tender years, all men foresaw, in the course of his
       reign, the total abolition of the Catholic faith in England;
       and they early began to declare themselves in favour of those
       tenets which were likely to become in the end entirely
       prevalent. After Southhampton's fall, few members of the
       council seemed to retain any attachment to the Romish
       communion; and most of the counsellors appeared even sanguine
       in forwarding the progress of the reformation. The riches
       which most of them had acquired from the spoils of the clergy,
       induced them to widen the breach between England and Rome; and by
       establishing a contrariety of speculative tenets, as well as
       of discipline and worship, to render a coalition with the
       mother church altogether impracticable. Their rapacity, also,
       the chief source of their reforming spirit, was excited by the
       prospect of pillaging the secular, as they had already done
       the regular clergy; and they knew, that while any share of the
       old principles remained, or any regard to the ecclesiastics,
       they could never hope to succeed in that enterprise. The
       numerous and burdensome superstitions with which the Romish
       church was loaded had thrown many of the reformers, by the
       spirit of opposition, into an enthusiastic strain of devotion;
       and all rites, ceremonies, pomp, order, and extreme
       observances were zealously proscribed by them, as hindrances
       to their spiritual contemplations, and obstructions to their
       immediate converse with heaven."

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          volume 3, chapter 34.

       "'This year' [1547] says a contemporary, 'the Archbishop of
       Canterbury [Cranmer] did eat meat openly in Lent in the hall
       of Lambeth, the like of which was never seen since England was
       a Christian country.' This significant act was followed by a
       rapid succession of sweeping changes. The legal prohibitions
       of Lollardry were removed; the Six Articles were repealed; a
       royal injunction removed all pictures and images from the
       churches; priests were permitted to marry; the new communion
       which had taken the place of the mass was ordered to be
       administered in both kinds, and in the English tongue; an
       English Book of Common Prayer, the Liturgy, which with slight
       alterations is still used in the Church of England, replaced
       the missal and breviary, from which its contents are mainly
       drawn; a new catechism embodied the doctrines of Cranmer and
       his friends; and a Book of Homilies compiled in the same sense
       was appointed to be read in churches. ... The power of
       preaching was restricted by the issue of licenses only to the
       friends of the Primate. ... The assent of the nobles about the
       Court was won by the suppression of chantries and religious
       guilds, and by glutting their greed with the last spoils of
       the Church. German and Italian mercenaries were introduced to
       stamp out the wider popular discontent which broke out in the
       East, in the West, and in the Midland counties. ... The rule
       of the upstart nobles who formed the Council of Regency became
       simply a rule of terror. 'The greater part of the people,' one
       of their creatures, Cecil, avowed, 'is not in favour of
       defending this cause, but of aiding its adversaries, the
       greater part of the nobles who absent themselves from court,
       all the bishops save three or four, almost all the judges and
       lawyers, almost all the justices of the peace, the priests who
       can move their flocks any way; for the whole of the commonalty
       is in such a state of irritation that it will easily follow
       any stir towards change.' But with their triumph over the
       revolt, Cranmer and his colleagues advanced yet more boldly in
       the career of innovation. ... The Forty-two Articles of
       Religion, which were now [1552] introduced, though since
       reduced by omissions to thirty-nine, have remained to this day
       the formal standard of doctrine in the English Church."

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of the English People,
          chapter 7, section 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Strype,
          Memorials of Cranmer,
          book 2.

          G. Burnet,
          History of the Reformation of Church of England,
          volume 2, book 1.

          L. Von Ranke,
          History of England,
          book 2, chapter 6.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1548.
       First Act for encouragement of Newfoundland fisheries.

          See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
       The right of succession to the throne,
       on the death of Edward VI.

       "If Henry VII. be considered as the stock of a new dynasty, it
       is clear that on mere principles of hereditary right, the
       crown would descend, first, to the issue of Henry VIII.;
       secondly, to those of [his elder sister] Margaret Tudor, queen
       of Scots; thirdly, to those of [his younger sister] Mary
       Tudor, queen of France. The title of Edward was on all
       principles equally undisputed; but Mary and Elizabeth might be
       considered as excluded by the sentence of nullity, which had
       been pronounced in the case of Catharine and in that of Anne
       Boleyn, both which sentences had been confirmed in parliament.
       They had been expressly pronounced to be illegitimate
       children. Their hereditary right of succession seemed thus to
       be taken away, and their pretensions rested solely on the
       conditional settlement of the crown on them, made by their
       father's will, in pursuance of authority granted to him by act
       of parliament. After Elizabeth Henry had placed the
       descendants of Mary, queen of France, passing by the progeny
       of his eldest sister Margaret. Mary of France, by her second
       marriage with Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, had two
       daughters,--lady Frances, who wedded Henry Grey, marquis of
       Dorset, created duke of Suffolk; and lady Elinor, who espoused
       Henry Clifford, earl of Cumberland.
    {834}
       Henry afterwards settled the crown by his will on the heirs of
       these two ladies successively, passing over his nieces
       themselves in silence. Northumberland obtained the hand of
       lady Jane Grey, the eldest daughter of Grey duke of Suffolk,
       by lady Frances Brandon, for lord Guilford Dudley, the
       admiral's son. The marriage was solemnised in May, 1553, and
       the fatal right of succession claimed by the house of Suffolk
       devolved on the excellent and unfortunate lady Jane."

          Sir J. Mackintosh,
          History of England,
          volume 2, chapter 9.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
       Accession of Queen Mary.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
       The doubtful conflict of religions.

       "Great as was the number of those whom conviction or self
       interest enlisted under the Protestant banner, it appears
       plain that the Reformation moved on with too precipitate a
       step for the majority. The new doctrines prevailed in London,
       in many large towns, and in the eastern counties. But in the
       north and west of England, the body of the people were
       strictly Catholics. The clergy, though not very scrupulous
       about conforming to the innovations, were generally averse to
       most of them. And, in spite of the church lands, I imagine
       that most of the nobility, if not the gentry, inclined to the
       same persuasion. ... An historian, whose bias was certainly
       not unfavourable to Protestantism [Burnet, iii. 190, 196]
       confesses that all endeavours were too weak to overcome the
       aversion of the people towards reformation, and even intimates
       that German troops were sent for from Calais on account of the
       bigotry with which the bulk of the nation adhered to the old
       superstition. This is somewhat an humiliating admission, that
       the protestant faith was imposed upon our ancestors by a
       foreign army. ... It is certain that the re-establishment of
       popery on Mary's accession must have been acceptable to a
       large part, or perhaps to the majority, of the nation."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

       "Eight weeks and upwards passed between the proclaiming of
       Mary queen and the Parliament by her assembled; during which
       time two religions were together set on foot, Protestantism
       and Popery; the former hoping to be continued, the latter
       labouring to be restored. ... No small justling was there
       betwixt the zealous promoters of these contrary religions. The
       Protestants had possession on their side, and the protection
       of the laws lately made by King Edward, and still standing in
       free and full force unrepealed. ... The Papists put their
       ceremonies in execution, presuming on the queen's private
       practice and public countenance. ... Many which were neuters
       before, conceiving to which side the queen inclined, would not
       expect, but prevent her authority in alteration: so that
       superstition generally got ground in the kingdom. Thus it is
       in the evening twilight, wherein light and darkness at first
       may seem very equally matched, but the latter within little
       time doth solely prevail."

          T. Fuller,
          Church History of Britain,
          book 8, section 1, ¶ 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. II. Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England,
          volume 1; chapters 8-9.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1554.
       Wyat's Insurrection.

       Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain was opposed with
       great bitterness of popular feeling, especially in London and
       its neighborhood. Risings were undertaken in Kent, Devonshire,
       and the Midland counties, intended for the frustration of the
       marriage scheme; but they were ill-planned and soon
       suppressed. That in Kent, led by Sir Thomas Wyat, threatened
       to be formidable at first, and the Queen's troops retreated
       before it. Wyat, however, lost his opportunity for securing
       London, by delays, and his followers dispersed. He was taken
       prisoner and executed. "Four hundred persons are said to have
       suffered for this rebellion."

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          chapter 36.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.
       The restoration of Romanism.
       The persecution of Protestants by Queen Mary.

       "An attempt was made, by authority of King Edward's will, to
       set aside both his sisters from the succession, and raise Lady
       Jane Grey to the throne, who had lately been married to one of
       Northumberland's sons. This was Northumberland's doing; he was
       actuated by ambition, and the other members of the government
       assented to it, believing, like the late young King, that it
       was necessary for the preservation of the Protestant faith.
       Cranmer opposed the measure, but yielded. ... But the
       principles of succession were in fact well ascertained at that
       time, and, what was of more consequence, they were established
       in public opinion. Nor could the intended change be supported
       on the ground of religion, for popular feeling was decidedly
       against the Reformation. Queen Mary obtained possession of her
       rightful throne without the loss of a single life, so
       completely did the nation acknowledge her claim; and an after
       insurrection, rashly planned and worse conducted, served only
       to hasten the destruction of the Lady Jane and her husband.
       ... If any person may be excused for hating the Reformation,
       it was Mary. She regarded it as having arisen in this country
       from her mother's wrongs, and enabled the King to complete an
       iniquitous and cruel divorce. It had exposed her to
       inconvenience, and even danger, under her father's reign, to
       vexation and restraint under her brother; and, after having
       been bastardized in consequence of it, ... an attempt had been
       made to deprive her of the inheritance, because she continued
       to profess the Roman Catholic faith. ... Had the religion of
       the country been settled, she might have proved a good and
       beneficent, as well as conscientious, queen. But she delivered
       her conscience to the direction of cruel men; and, believing
       it her duty to act up to the worst principles of a persecuting
       Church, boasted that she was a virgin sent by God to ride and
       tame the people of England. ... The people did not wait till
       the laws of King Edward were repealed; the Romish doctrines
       were preached, and in some places the Romish clergy took
       possession of the churches, turned out the incumbents, and
       performed mass in jubilant anticipation of their approaching
       triumph. What course the new Queen would pursue had never been
       doubtful; and as one of her first acts had been to make
       Gardiner Chancellor, it was evident that a fiery persecution
       was at hand. Many who were obnoxious withdrew in time, some
       into Scotland, and more into Switzerland and the Protestant
       parts of Germany. Cranmer advised others to fly; but when his
       friends entreated him to preserve himself by the like
       precaution, he replied, that it was not fitting for him to
       desert his post. ... The Protestant Bishops were soon
       dispossessed of their sees; the marriages which the Clergy and
       Religioners had contracted were declared unlawful, and their
       children bastardized.
    {835}
       The heads of the reformed Clergy, having been brought forth to
       hold disputations, for the purpose rather of intimidating than
       of convincing them, had been committed to different prisons,
       and after these preparatories the fiery process began."

          R. Southey,
          Book of the Church,
          chapter 14.

       "The total number of those who suffered in this persecution,
       from the martyrdom of Rogers, in February, 1555, to September,
       1558, when its last ravages were felt, is variously related,
       in a manner sufficiently different to assure us that the
       relaters were independent witnesses, who did not borrow from
       each other, and yet sufficiently near to attest the general
       accuracy of their distinct statements. By Cooper they are
       estimated at about 290. According to Burnet they were 284.
       Speed calculates them at 274. The most accurate account is
       probably that of Lord Burleigh, who, in his treatise called
       'The Execution of Justice in England,' reckons the number of
       those who died in that reign by imprisonment, torments, famine
       and fire, to be near 400, of which those who were burnt alive
       amounted to 290. From Burnet's Tables of the separate years,
       it is apparent that the persecution reached its full force in
       its earliest year."

          Sir J. Mackintosh,
          History of England,
          volume 2, chapter 11.

       "Though Pole and Mary could have laid their hands on earl and
       baron, knight and gentleman, whose heresy was notorious,
       although, in the queen's own guard, there were many who never
       listened to a mass, they durst not strike where there was
       danger that they would be struck in return. ... They took the
       weaver from his loom, the carpenter from his workshop, the
       husbandman from his plough; they laid hands on maidens and
       boys 'who had never heard of any other religion than that
       which they were called on to abjure'; old men tottering into
       the grave, and children whose lips could but just lisp the
       articles of their creed; and of these they made their
       burnt-offerings; with these they crowded their prisons, and
       when filth and famine killed them, they flung them out to
       rot."

          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          chapter 24.

       Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain and his arbitrary
       disposition, "while it thoroughly alienated the kingdom from
       Mary, created a prejudice against the religion which the
       Spanish court so steadily favoured. ... Many are said to have
       become Protestants under Mary who, at her coming to the
       throne, had retained the contrary persuasion."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Collier,
          Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
          part 2, book 5.

          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 7, chapter 2-3.

          J. Fox,
          Book of Martyrs.

          P. Heylyn,
          Ecclesia Restaurata,
          volume 2.

          J. Strype,
          Memorials of Cranmer,
          book 3.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1557-1559.
       Involved by the Spanish husband of Queen Mary in war with France.
       Loss of Calais.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1558.
       Accession of Queen Elizabeth.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1588.
       The Age of Elizabeth:
       Recovery of Protestantism.

       "The education of Elizabeth, as well as her interest, led her
       to favour the reformation; and she remained not long in
       suspense with regard to the party which she should embrace.
       But though determined in her own mind, she resolved to proceed
       by gradual and secure steps, and not to imitate the example of
       Mary, in encouraging the bigots of her party to make
       immediately a violent invasion on the established religion.
       She thought it requisite, however, to discover such symptoms
       of her intentions as might give encouragement to the
       Protestants, so much depressed by the late violent
       persecutions. She immediately recalled all the exiles, and
       gave liberty to the prisoners who were confined on account of
       religion. ... Elizabeth also proceeded to exert, in favour of
       the reformers, some acts of power, which were authorized by
       the extent of royal prerogative during that age. Finding that
       the Protestant teachers, irritated by persecution, broke out
       in a furious attack on the ancient superstition, and that the
       Romanists replied with no less zeal and acrimony, she
       published a proclamation, by which she inhibited all preaching
       without a special licence; and though she dispensed with these
       orders in favour of some preachers of her own sect, she took
       care that they should be the most calm and moderate of the
       party. She also suspended the laws, so far as to order a great
       part of the service, the litany, the Lord's prayer, the creed,
       and the gospels, to be read in English. And, having first
       published injunctions that all churches should conform
       themselves to the practice of her own chapel, she forbad the
       host to be any more elevated in her presence: an innovation
       which, however frivolous it may appear, implied the most
       material consequences. These declarations of her intentions,
       concurring with preceding suspicions, made the bishops
       foresee, with certainty, a revolution in religion. They
       therefore refused to officiate at her coronation; and it was
       with some difficulty that the Bishop of Carlisle was at last
       prevailed on to perform the ceremony. ... Elizabeth, though
       she threw out such hints as encouraged the Protestants,
       delayed the entire change of religion till the meeting of the
       Parliament, which was summoned to assemble. The elections had
       gone entirely against the Catholics, who seem not indeed to
       have made any great struggle for the superiority; and the
       Houses met, in a disposition of gratifying the queen in every
       particular which she could desire of them. ... The first bill
       brought into Parliament, with a view of trying their
       disposition on the head of religion, was that for suppressing
       the monasteries lately erected, and for restoring the tenths
       and first-fruits to the queen. This point being gained without
       much difficulty, a bill was next introduced, annexing the
       supremacy to the crown; and though the queen was there
       denominated governess, not head, of the church, it conveyed
       the same extensive power, which, under the latter title, had
       been exercised by her father and brother. ... By this act, the
       crown, without the concurrence either of the Parliament or
       even of the convocation, was vested with the whole spiritual
       power; might repress all heresies, might establish or repeal
       all canons, might alter every point of discipline, and might
       ordain or abolish any religious rite or ceremony. ... A law
       was passed, confirming all the statutes enacted in King
       Edward's time with regard to religion; the nomination of
       bishops was given to the crown without any election of the
       chapters. ... A solemn and public disputation was held during
       this session, in presence of Lord Keeper Bacon, between the
       divines of the Protestant and those of the Catholic communion.
       The champions appointed to defend the religion of the
       sovereign were, as in all former instances, entirely
       triumphant; and the popish disputants, being pronounced
       refractory and obstinate, were even punished by imprisonment.
    {836}
       Emboldened by this victory, the Protestants ventured on the
       last and most important step, and brought into Parliament a
       bill for abolishing the mass, and re-establishing the liturgy
       of King Edward. Penalties were enacted as well against those
       who departed from this mode of worship, as against those who
       absented themselves from the church and the sacraments. And
       thus, in one session, without any violence, tumult, or
       clamour, was the whole system of religion altered, on the very
       commencement of a reign, and by the will of a young woman,
       whose title to the crown was by many thought liable to great
       objections."

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          chapter 38, pages 375-380 (volume 3).

       "Elizabeth ascended the throne much more in the character of a
       Protestant champion than her own convictions and inclinations
       would have dictated. She was, indeed, the daughter of Ann
       Boleyn, whom by this time the Protestants were beginning to
       regard as a martyr of the faith; but she was also the child of
       Henry VIII., and the heiress of his imperious will. Soon,
       however, she found herself Protestant almost in her own
       despite. The Papacy, in the first pride of successful
       reaction, offered her only the alternative of submission or
       excommunication, and she did not for a moment hesitate to
       choose the latter. Then commenced that long and close alliance
       between Catholicism and domestic treason which is so differently
       judged as it is approached from the religious or the political
       side. These seminary priests, who in every various disguise
       come to England, moving secretly about from manor-house to
       manor-house, celebrating the rites of the Church, confirming
       the wavering, consoling the dying, winning back the lapsed to
       the fold, too well acquainted with Elizabeth's prisons, and
       often finding their way to her scaffolds,--what are they but
       the intrepid missionaries, the self-devoted heroes, of a
       proscribed faith? On the other hand, the Queen is
       excommunicate, an evil woman, with whom it is not necessary to
       keep faith, to depose whom would be the triumph of the Church,
       whose death, however compassed, its occasion: how easy to
       weave plots under the cloak of religious intercourse, and to
       make the unity of the faith a conspiracy of rebellion! The
       next heir to the throne, Mary of Scotland, was a Catholic,
       and, as long as she lived, a perpetual centre of domestic and
       European intrigue: plot succeeded plot, in which the
       traitorous subtlety was all Catholic--the keenness of
       discovery, the watchfulness of defence, all Protestant. Then,
       too, the shadow of Spanish supremacy began to cast itself
       broadly over Europe: the unequal struggle with Holland was
       still prolonged: it was known that Philip's dearest wish was
       to recover to his empire and the Church the island kingdom
       which had once unwillingly accepted his rule. It was thus the
       instinct of self-defence which placed Elizabeth at the head of
       the Protestant interest in Europe: she sent Philip Sidney to
       die at Zutphen: her sailor buccaneers, whether there were
       peace at home or not, bit and tore at everything Spanish upon
       the southern main: till at last, 1588, Philip gathered up all
       his naval strength and hurled the Armada at our shores.
       'Afflavit Deus, et dissipati sunt.' The valour of England did
       much; the storms of heaven the rest. Mary of Scotland had gone
       to her death the year before, and her son had been trained to
       hate his mother's faith. There could be no question any more
       of the fixed Protestantism of the English people."

          C. Beard,
          Hibbert Lectures, 1883: The Reformation,
          lecture 9.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.
       The Age of Elizabeth:
       The Queen's chief councillors.

       "Sir William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burleigh, already
       officially experienced during three reigns, though still
       young, was the queen's chief adviser from first to last--that
       is to say, till he died in 1598. Philip II., who also died in
       that year, was thus his exact contemporary; for he mounted the
       Spanish throne just when Elizabeth and her minister began
       their work together. He was not long in discovering that there
       was one man, possessed of the most balanced judgment ever
       brought to the head of English affairs, who was capable of
       unwinding all his most secret intrigues; and, in fact, the two
       arch-enemies, the one in London and the other in Madrid, were
       pitted against each other for forty years. Elizabeth had also
       the good sense to select the wisest and most learned
       ecclesiastic of his day, Matthew Parker, for her Primate and
       chief adviser in Church affairs. It should be noted that both
       of these sages, as well as the queen herself, had been
       Conformists to the Papal obedience under Mary--a position far
       from heroic, but not for a moment to be confused with that of
       men whose philosophical indifference to the questions which
       exercised all the highest minds enabled them to join in the
       persecution of Romanists and Anglicans at different times with
       a sublime impartiality. ... It was under the advice of Cecil
       and Parker that Elizabeth, on coming to the throne, made her
       famous settlement or Establishment of religion."

          M. Burrows,
          Commentaries on the History of England,
          book 2, chapter 17.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
       The Age of Elizabeth: Parliament.

       "The house of Commons, upon a review of Elizabeth's reign, was
       very far, on the one hand, from exercising those
       constitutional rights which have long since belonged to it, or
       even those which by ancient precedent they might have claimed
       as their own; yet, on the other hand, was not quite so servile
       and submissive an assembly as an artful historian has
       represented it. If many of its members were but creatures of
       power, ... there was still a considerable party, sometimes
       carrying the house along with them, who with patient
       resolution and inflexible aim recurred in every session to the
       assertion of that one great privilege which their sovereign
       contested, the right of parliament to inquire into and suggest
       a remedy for every public mischief or danger. It may be
       remarked that the ministers, such as Knollys, Hatton, and
       Robert Cecil, not only sat among the commons, but took a very
       leading part in their discussions; a proof that the influence
       of argument could no more be dispensed with than that of
       power. This, as I conceive, will never be the case in any
       kingdom where the assembly of the estates is quite subservient
       to the crown. Nor should we put out of consideration the
       manner in which the commons were composed. Sixty-two members
       were added at different times by Elizabeth to the
       representation; as well from places which had in earlier times
       discontinued their franchise, as from those to which it was
       first granted; a very large proportion of them petty boroughs,
       evidently under the influence of the crown or peerage. The
       ministry took much pains with ejections, of which many proofs,
       remain.
    {837}
       The house accordingly was filled with placemen, civilians, and
       common lawyers grasping at preferment. The slavish tone of
       these persons, as we collect from the minutes of D'Ewes, is
       strikingly contrasted by the manliness of independent
       gentlemen. And as the house was by no means very fully
       attended, the divisions, a few of which are recorded, running
       from 200 to 250 in the aggregate, it may be perceived that the
       court, whose followers were at hand, would maintain a
       formidable influence. But this influence, however pernicious
       to the integrity of parliament, is distinguishable from that
       exertion of almost absolute prerogative which Hume has assumed
       as the sole spring of Elizabeth's government, and would never
       be employed till some deficiency of strength was experienced
       in the other."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 5.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
       The Age of Elizabeth: Literature.

       "The age of Elizabeth was distinguished beyond, perhaps, any
       other in our history by a number of great men, famous in
       different ways, and whose names have come down to us with
       unblemished honours: statesmen, warriors, divines, scholars,
       poets, and philosophers; Raleigh, Drake, Coke, Hooker,
       and--high and more sounding still, and still more frequent in
       our mouths--Shakespear, Spenser, Sidney, Bacon, Jonson,
       Beaumont, and Fletcher, men whom fame has eternised in her
       long and lasting scroll, and who, by their words and acts,
       were benefactors of their country, and ornaments of human
       nature. Their attainments of different kinds bore the same
       general stamp, and it was sterling; what they did had the mark
       of their age and country upon it. Perhaps the genius of Great
       Britain (if I may so speak without offence or flattery) never
       shone out fuller or brighter, or looked more like itself, than
       at this period. Our writers and great men had something in
       them that savoured of the soil from which they grew: they were
       not French; they were not Dutch, or German, or Greek, or
       Latin; they were truly English. They did not look out of
       themselves to see what they should be; they sought for truth
       and nature, and found it in themselves. There was no tinsel,
       and but little art; they were not the spoilt children of
       affectation and refinement, but a bold, vigorous, independent
       race of thinkers, with prodigious strength and energy, with
       none but natural grace, and heartfelt, unobtrusive delicacy.
       ... For such an extraordinary combination and development of
       fancy and genius many causes may be assigned; and we may seek
       for the chief of them in religion, in politics, in the
       circumstances of the time, the recent diffusion of letters, in
       local situation, and in the character of the men who adorned
       that period, and availed themselves so nobly of the advantages
       placed within their reach. ... The first cause I shall
       mention, as contributing to this general effect, was the
       Reformation, which had just then taken place. This event gave
       a mighty impulse and increased activity to thought and
       inquiry, and agitated the inert mass of accumulated prejudices
       throughout Europe. ... The translation of the Bible was the
       chief engine in the great work. It threw open, by a secret
       spring, the rich treasures of religion and morality, which had
       been there locked up as in a shrine. It revealed the visions
       of the prophets, and conveyed the lessons of inspired teachers
       (such they were thought) to the meanest of the people. It gave
       them a common interest in the common cause. Their hearts burnt
       within them as they read. It gave a mind to the people, by
       giving them common subjects of thought and feeling. ... The
       immediate use or application that was made of religion to
       subjects of imagination and fiction was not (from an obvious
       ground of separation) so direct or frequent as that which was
       made of the classical and romantic literature. For much about
       the same time, the rich and fascinating stores of the Greek
       and Roman mythology, and those of the romantic poetry of Spain
       and Italy, were eagerly explored by the curious, and thrown
       open in translations to the admiring gaze of the vulgar. ...
       What also gave an unusual impetus to the mind of man at this
       period, was the discovery of the New World, and the reading of
       voyages and travels. Green islands and golden sands seemed to
       arise, as by enchantment, out of the bosom of the watery
       waste, and invite the cupidity, or wing the imagination of the
       dreaming speculator. Fairyland was realised in new and unknown
       worlds. ... Again, the heroic and martial spirit which
       breathes in our elder writers, was yet in considerable
       activity in the reign of Elizabeth. The age of chivalry was
       not then quite gone, nor the glory of Europe extinguished
       forever. ... Lastly, to conclude this account: What gave a
       unity and common direction to all these causes, was the
       natural genius of the country, which was strong in these
       writers in proportion to their strength. We are a nation of
       islanders, and we cannot help it, nor mend ourselves if we
       would. We are something in ourselves, nothing when we try to
       ape others. Music and painting are not our forte: for what we
       have done in that way has been little, and that borrowed from
       others with great difficulty. But we may boast of our poets
       and philosophers. That's something. We have had strong heads
       and sound hearts among us. Thrown on one side of the world,
       and left to bustle for ourselves, we have fought out many a
       battle for truth and freedom. That is our natural style; and
       it were to be wished we had in no instance departed from it.
       Our situation has given us a certain cast of thought and
       character; and our liberty has enabled us to make the most of
       it. We are of a stiff clay, not moulded into every fashion,
       with stubborn joints not easily bent. We are slow to think,
       and therefore impressions do not work upon us till they act in
       masses. ... We may be accused of grossness, but not of
       flimsiness; of extravagance, but not of affectation; of want
       of art and refinement, but not of a want of truth and nature.
       Our literature, in a word, is Gothic and grotesque; unequal
       and irregular; not cast in a previous mould, nor of one
       uniform texture, but of great weight in the whole, and of
       incomparable value in the best parts. It aims at an excess of
       beauty or power, hits or misses, and is either very good
       indeed, or absolutely good for nothing. This character applies
       in particular to our literature in the age of Elizabeth, which
       is its best period, before the introduction of a rage for
       French rules and French models."

          W. Hazlitt,
          Lectures on the Literature of the Age of Elizabeth,
          lecture 1.

    {838}

       "Humanism, before it moulded the mind of the English, had
       already permeated Italian and French literature. Classical
       erudition had been adapted to the needs of modern thought.
       Antique authors had been collected, printed, annotated, and
       translated. They were fairly mastered in the south, and
       assimilated to the style of the vernacular. By these means
       much of the learning popularised by our poets, essayists, and
       dramatists came to us at second-hand, and bore the stamp of
       contemporary genius. In like manner, the best works of
       Italian, French, Spanish, and German literature were
       introduced into Great Britain together with the classics. The
       age favoured translation, and English readers before the close
       of the sixteenth century, were in possession of a cosmopolitan
       library in their mother tongue, including choice specimens of
       ancient and modern masterpieces. These circumstances
       sufficiently account for the richness and variety of
       Elizabethan literature. They also help to explain two points
       which must strike every student of that literature--its native
       freshness, and its marked unity of style. Elizabethan
       literature was fresh and native, because it was the utterance
       of a youthful race, aroused to vigorous self-consciousness
       under conditions which did not depress or exhaust its
       energies. The English opened frank eyes upon the discovery of
       the world and man, which had been effected by the Renaissance.
       They were not wearied with collecting, collating, correcting,
       transmitting to the press. All the hard work of assimilating
       the humanities had been done for them. They had only to survey
       and to enjoy, to feel and to express, to lay themselves open
       to delightful influences, to con the noble lessons of the
       past, to thrill beneath the beauty and the awe of an authentic
       revelation. Criticism had not laid its cold, dry finger on the
       blossoms of the fancy. The new learning was still young enough to
       be a thing of wonder and entrancing joy."

          J. A. Symonds,
          A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry
          (Fortnightly Rev., volume 45, page 56).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.
       The Act of Supremacy, the Act of Uniformity, and the Court of
       High Commission.

       "When Elizabeth's first Parliament met in January 1559,
       Convocation, of course, met too. It at once claimed that the
       clergy alone had authority in matters of faith, and proceeded
       to pass resolutions in favour of Transubstantiation, the Mass,
       and the Papal Supremacy. The bishops and the Universities
       signed a formal agreement to this effect. That in the
       constitution of the English Church, Convocation, as
       Convocation, has no such power as this, was proved by the
       steps now taken. The Crown, advised by the Council and
       Parliament, took the matter in hand. As every element, except
       the Roman, had been excluded from the clerical bodies, a
       consultation was ordered between the representatives of both
       sides, and all preaching was suspended till a settlement had
       been arrived at between the queen and the Three Estates of the
       realm. The consultation broke upon the refusal of the Romanist
       champions to keep to the terms agreed upon; but even before it
       took place Parliament restored the Royal Supremacy, repealed
       the laws of Mary affecting religion, and gave the queen by her
       own desire, not the title of 'Supreme Head,' but 'Supreme
       Governor,' of the Church of England."

          M. Burrows,
          Commentaries on the History of England,
          book 2, chapter 17.

       This first Parliament of Elizabeth passed two memorable acts
       of great importance in English history,--the Act of Supremacy
       and the Act of Uniformity of Common Prayer. "The former is
       entitled 'An act for restoring to the crown the ancient
       jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual; and
       for abolishing foreign power.' It is the same for substance
       with the 25th of Henry VIII. ... but the commons incorporated
       several other bills into it; for besides the title of 'Supreme
       Governor in all causes Ecclesiastical and Temporal,' which is
       restored to the Queen, the act revives those laws of King
       Henry VIII. and King Edward VI. which had been repealed in the
       late reign. It forbids all appeals to Rome, and exonerates the
       subjects from all exactions and impositions heretofore paid to
       that court; and as it revives King Edward's laws, it repeals a
       severe act made in the late reign for punishing heresy. ...
       'Moreover, all persons in any public employs, whether civil or
       ecclesiastical, are obliged to take an oath in recognition of
       the Queen's right to the crown, and of her supremacy in all
       causes ecclesiastical and civil, on penalty of forfeiting all
       their promotions in the church, and of being declared
       incapable of holding any public office.' ... Further, 'The act
       forbids all writing, printing, teaching, or preaching, and all
       other deeds or acts whereby any foreign jurisdiction over
       these realms is defended, upon pain that they and their
       abettors, being thereof convicted, shall for the first offence
       forfeit their goods and chattels; ... spiritual persons shall
       lose their benefices, and all ecclesiastical preferments; for
       the second offence they shall incur the penalties of a
       præmunire; and the third offence shall be deemed high
       treason.' There is a remarkable clause in this act, which gave
       rise to a new court, called 'The Court of High Commission.'
       The words are these, 'The Queen and her successors shall have
       power, by their letters patent under the great seal, to
       assign, name, and authorize, as often as they shall think
       meet, and for as long a time as they shall please, persons
       being natural-born subjects, to use, occupy, and exercise,
       under her and them, all manner of jurisdiction, privileges,
       and preeminences, touching any spiritual or ecclesiastical
       jurisdiction within the realms of England and Ireland, &c., to
       visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all errors,
       heresies, schisms, abuses, contempts, offences and enormities
       whatsoever. Provided, that they have no power to determine
       anything to be heresy, but what has been adjudged to be so by
       the authority of the canonical scripture, or by the first four
       general councils, or any of them; or by any other general
       council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express
       and plain words of canonical scripture; or such as shall
       hereafter be declared to be heresy by the high court of
       parliament, with the assent of the clergy in convocation.'
       Upon the authority of this clause the Queen appointed a
       certain number of 'Commissioners' for ecclesiastical causes,
       who exercised the same power that had been lodged in the hands
       of one vicegerent in the reign of King Henry VIII. And how
       sadly they abused their power in this and the two next reigns
       will appear in the sequel of this history. They did not
       trouble themselves much with the express words of scripture,
       or the four first general councils, but entangled their
       prisoners with oaths ex-officio, and the inextricable mazes of
       the popish canon law. ... The papists being vanquished, the
       next point was to unite the reformed among themselves. ...
       Though all the reformers were of one faith, yet they were far
       from agreeing about discipline and ceremonies, each party
       being for settling the church according to their own model. ...
    {839}
       The Queen ... therefore appointed a committee of divines to
       review King Edward's liturgy, and to see if in any particular
       it was fit to be changed; their names were Dr. Parker,
       Grindal, Cox, Pilkington, May, Bill, Whitehead, and Sir Thomas
       Smith, doctor of the civil law. Their instructions were, to
       strike out all offensive passages against the pope, and to
       make people easy about the belief of the corporal presence of
       Christ in the sacraments; but not a word in favour of the
       stricter protestants. Her Majesty was afraid of reforming too
       far; she was desirous to retain images in churches, crucifixes
       and crosses, vocal and instrumental music, with all the old
       popish garments; it is not therefore to be wondered, that in
       reviewing the liturgy of King Edward, no alterations were made
       in favour of those who now began to be called Puritans, from
       their attempting a purer form of worship and discipline than
       had yet been established. ... The book was presented to the
       two houses and passed into a law. ... The title of the act is
       'An act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the
       Church, and administration of the Sacraments.' It was brought
       into the House of Commons April 18th, and was read a third
       time April 20th. It passed the House of Lords April 28th, and
       took place from the 24th of June 1559."

          D. Neal,
          History of the Puritans,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Burnet,
          History of the Reformation of the Church of England.,
          volume 2, book 3.

          P. Heylyn,
          Ecclesia Restaurata: Elizabeth, Anno 1.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566.
       Puritanism taking form.

       "The Church of England was a latitudinarian experiment, a
       contrivance to enable men of opposing creeds to live together
       without shedding each others' blood. It was not intended, and
       it was not possible, that Catholics or Protestants should find
       in its formulas all that they required. The services were
       deliberately made elastic; comprehending in the form of
       positive statement only what all Christians agreed in
       believing, while opportunities were left open by the rubric to
       vary the ceremonial according to the taste of the
       congregations. The management lay with the local authorities
       in town or parish: where the people were Catholics the
       Catholic aspect could be made prominent; where Popery was a
       bugbear, the people were not disturbed by the obtrusion of
       doctrines which they had outgrown. In itself it pleased no
       party or section. To the heated controversialist its chief
       merit was its chief defect. ... Where the tendencies to Rome
       were strongest, there the extreme Reformers considered
       themselves bound to exhibit in the most marked contrast the
       unloveliness of the purer creed. It was they who furnished the
       noble element in the Church of England. It was they who had
       been its martyrs; they who, in their scorn of the world, in
       their passionate desire to consociate themselves in life and
       death to the Almighty, were able to rival in self-devotion the
       Catholic Saints. But they had not the wisdom of the serpent,
       and certainly not the harmlessness of the dove. Had they been
       let alone--had they been unharassed by perpetual threats of
       revolution and a return of the persecutions--they, too, were
       not disinclined to reason and good sense. A remarkable
       specimen survives, in an account of the Church of Northampton,
       of what English Protestantism could become under favouring
       conditions. ... The fury of the times unhappily forbade the
       maintenance of this wise and prudent spirit. As the power of
       evil gathered to destroy the Church of England, a fiercer
       temper was required to combat with them, and Protestantism
       became impatient, like David, of the uniform in which it was
       sent to the battle. It would have fared ill with England had
       there been no hotter blood there than filtered in the sluggish
       veins of the officials of the Establishment. There needed an
       enthusiasm fiercer far to encounter the revival of Catholic
       fanaticism; and if the young Puritans, in the heat and glow of
       their convictions, snapped their traces and flung off their
       harness, it was they, after all, who saved the Church which
       attempted to disown them, and with the Church saved also the
       stolid mediocrity to which the fates then and ever committed
       and commit the government of it."

          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          volume 10, chapter 20.

       "The compromise arranged by Cranmer had from the first been
       considered by a large body of Protestants as a scheme for
       serving two masters, as an attempt to unite the worship of the
       Lord with the worship of Baal. In the days of Edward VI. the
       scruples of this party had repeatedly thrown great
       difficulties in the way of the government. When Elizabeth came
       to the throne, those difficulties were much increased.
       Violence naturally engenders violence. The spirit of
       Protestantism was therefore far fiercer and more intolerant
       after the cruelties of Mary than before them. Many persons who
       were warmly attached to the new opinions had, during the evil
       days, taken refuge in Switzerland and Germany. They had been
       hospitably received by their brethren in the faith, had sate
       at the feet of the great doctors of Strasburg, Zurich and
       Geneva, and had been, during some years, accustomed to a more
       simple worship, and to a more democratical form of church
       government, than England had yet seen. These men returned to
       their country, convinced that the reform which had been
       effected under King Edward had been far less searching and
       extensive than the interests of pure religion required. But it
       was in vain that they attempted to obtain any concession from
       Elizabeth. Indeed, her system, wherever it differed from her
       brother's, seemed to them to differ for the worse. They were
       little disposed to submit, in matters of faith, to any human
       authority. ... Since these men could not be convinced, it was
       determined that they should be persecuted. Persecution
       produced its natural effect on them. It found them a sect: it
       made them a faction. ... The power of the discontented
       sectaries was great. They were found in every rank; but they
       were strongest among the mercantile classes in the towns, and
       among the small proprietors in the country. Early in the reign
       of Elizabeth they began to return a majority of the House of
       Commons. And doubtless, had our ancestors been then at liberty
       to fix their attention entirely on domestic questions, the
       strife between the crown and the Parliament would instantly
       have commenced. But that was no season for internal
       dissensions. ... Roman Catholic Europe and reformed Europe
       were struggling for death or life. ... Whatever might be the
       faults of Elizabeth, it was plain that, to speak humanly, the
       fate of the realm and of all reformed churches was staked on
       the security of her person and on the success of her
       administration. ...
    {840}
       The Puritans, even in the depths of the prisons to which she
       had sent them, prayed, and with no simulated fervour, that she
       might be kept from the dagger of the assassin, that rebellion
       might be put down under her feet, and that her arms might be
       victorious by sea and land."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

       "Two parties quickly evolved themselves out of the mass of
       Englishmen who held Calvinistic opinions; namely those who
       were willing to conform to the requirements of the Queen, and
       those who were not. To both is often given indiscriminately by
       historians the name of Puritan; but it seems more correct, and
       certainly is more convenient, to restrict the use of the name
       to those who are sometimes called conforming Puritans. ... To
       the other party fitly belongs the name of Nonconformist. ...
       It was against the Nonconformist organization that Elizabeth's
       efforts were chiefly directed. ... The war began in the
       enforcement by Archbishop Parker in 1565 of the Advertisements
       as containing the minimum of ceremonial that would be
       tolerated. In 1566 the clergy of London were required to make
       the declaration of Conformity which was appended to the
       Advertisements, and thirty-seven were suspended or deprived
       for refusal. Some of the deprived ministers continued to
       conduct services and preach in spite of their deprivation, and
       so were formed the first bodies of Nonconformists, organized
       in England."

          H. O. Wakeman,
          The Church and the Puritans,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Tulloch,
          English Puritanism and its Leaders,
          introduction.

          D. Neal,
          History of the Puritans,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          D. Campbell,
          The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
          chapters 8-10 (volume 1).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1562-1567.
       Hawkins' slave-trading voyages to America.
       First English enterprise in the New World.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1564-1565 (?).
       The first naming of the Puritans.

       "The English bishops, conceiving themselves empowered by their
       canons, began to show their authority in urging the clergy of
       their dioceses to subscribe to the Liturgy, ceremonies and
       discipline of the Church; and such as refused the same were
       branded with the odious name of Puritans. A name which in this
       notion first began in this year [A. D. 1564]; and the grief
       had not been great if it had ended in the same. The
       philosopher banisheth the term, (which is Polysæmon), that is
       subject to several senses, out of the predicaments, as
       affording too much covert for cavil by the latitude thereof.
       On the same account could I wish that the word Puritan were
       banished common discourse, because so various in the
       acceptations thereof. We need not speak of the ancient Cathari
       or primitive Puritans, sufficiently known by their heretical
       opinions. Puritan here was taken for the opposers of the
       hierarchy and church service, as resenting of superstition.
       But profane mouths quickly improved this nickname, therewith
       on every occasion to abuse pious people; some of them so far
       from opposing the Liturgy, that they endeavoured (according to
       the instructions thereof in the preparative to the Confession)
       'to accompany the minister with a pure heart,' and laboured
       (as it is in the Absolution) 'for a life pure and holy.' We
       will, therefore, decline the word to prevent exceptions;
       which, if casually slipping from our pen, the reader knoweth
       that only nonconformists are thereby intended."

          T. Fuller,
          Church History of Britain,
          book 9, section 1.

       "For in this year [1565] it was that the Zuinglian or
       Calvinian faction began to be first known by the name of
       Puritans, if Genebrard, Gualter, and Spondanus (being all of
       them right good chronologers) be not mistaken in the time.
       Which name hath ever since been appropriate to them, because
       of their pretending to a greater purity in the service of God
       than was held forth unto them (as they gave out) in the Common
       Prayer Book; and to a greater opposition to the rites and
       usages of the Church of Rome than was agreeable to the
       constitution of the Church of England."

          P. Heylyn,
          Ecclesia Restaurata: Elizabeth,
          Anno 7, section 6.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1568.
       Detention and imprisonment of Mary Queen of Scots.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1569.
       Quarrel with the Spanish governor of the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1580.
       Drake's piratical warfare with Spain and his famous voyage.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.
       Queen Elizabeth's treatment of the Roman Catholics.
       Persecution of the Seminary Priests and the Jesuits.

       "Camden and many others have asserted that by systematic
       connivance the Roman Catholics enjoyed a pretty free use of
       their religion for the first fourteen years of Elizabeth's
       reign. But this is not reconcilable to many passages in
       Strype's collections. We find abundance of persons harassed
       for recusancy, that is, for not attending the protestant
       church, and driven to insincere promises of conformity. Others
       were dragged before ecclesiastical commissions for harbouring
       priests, or for sending money to those who had fled beyond
       sea. ... A great majority both of clergy and laity yielded to
       the times; and of these temporizing conformists it cannot be
       doubted that many lost by degrees all thought of returning to
       their ancient fold. But others, while they complied with
       exterior ceremonies, retained in their private devotions their
       accustomed mode of worship. ... Priests ... travelled the
       country in various disguises, to keep alive a flame which the
       practice of outward conformity was calculated to extinguish.
       There was not a county throughout England, says a Catholic
       historian, where several of Mary's clergy did not reside, and
       were commonly called the old priests. They served as chaplains
       in private families. By stealth, at the dead of night, in
       private chambers, in the secret lurking places of an
       ill-peopled country, with all the mystery that subdues the
       imagination, with all the mutual trust that invigorates
       constancy, these proscribed ecclesiastics celebrated their
       solemn rites, more impressive in such concealment than if
       surrounded by all their former splendour. ... It is my
       thorough conviction that the persecution, for it can obtain no
       better name, carried on against the English Catholics, however
       it might serve to delude the government by producing an
       apparent conformity, could not but excite a spirit of
       disloyalty in many adherents of that faith. Nor would it be
       safe to assert that a more conciliating policy would have
       altogether disarmed their hostility, much less laid at rest
       those busy hopes of the future, which the peculiar
       circumstances of Elizabeth's reign had a tendency to produce."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 3.

    {841}

       "The more vehement Catholics had withdrawn from the country,
       on account of the dangers which there beset them. They had
       taken refuge in the Low Countries, and there Allen, one of the
       chief among them, had established a seminary at Douay, for the
       purpose of keeping up a supply of priests in England. To Douay
       numbers of young Englishmen from Oxford continually flocked.
       The establishment had been broken up by Requescens, and
       removed to Rheims, and a second college of the same
       description was established at Rome. From these two centres of
       intrigue numerous enthusiastic young men constantly repaired
       to England, and in the disguise of laymen carried on their
       priestly work and attempted to revive the Romanist religion.
       But abler and better disciplined workmen were now wanted.
       Allen and his friends therefore opened negotiations with
       Mercuriano, the head of the Jesuit order, in which many
       Englishmen had enrolled themselves. In 1580, as part of a
       great combined Catholic effort, a regular Jesuit mission,
       under two priests, Campion and Parsons, was despatched to
       England. ... The new missionaries were allowed to say that
       that part of the Bull [of excommunication issued against
       Elizabeth] which pronounced censures upon those who clung to
       their allegiance applied to heretics only, that Catholics
       might profess themselves loyal until the time arrived for
       carrying the Bull into execution; in other words, they were
       permitted to be traitors at heart while declaring themselves
       loyal subjects. This explanation of the Bull was of itself
       sufficient to justify severity on the part of the government.
       It was impossible henceforward to separate Roman Catholicism
       from disloyalty. Proclamations were issued requiring English
       parents to summon their children from abroad, and declaring
       that to harbour Jesuit priests was to support rebels. ...
       Early in December several priests were apprehended and closely
       examined, torture being occasionally used for the purpose. In
       view of the danger which these examinations disclosed,
       stringent measures were taken. Attendance at church was
       rendered peremptorily necessary. Parliament was summoned in
       the beginning of 1581 and laws passed against the action of
       the Jesuits. ... Had Elizabeth been conscious of the full
       extent of the plot against her, had she known the intention of
       the Guises [then dominant in France] to make a descent upon
       England in co-operation with Spain, and the many ramifications
       of the plot in her own country, it is reasonable to suppose
       that she would have been forced at length to take decided
       measures. But in ignorance of the abyss opening before her
       feet, she continued for some time longer her old temporizing
       policy." At last, in November, 1583, the discovery of a plot
       for the assassination of the queen, and the arrest of one
       Throgmorton, whose papers and whose confession were of
       startling import, brought to light the whole plan and extent
       of the conspiracy. "Some of her Council urged her at once to
       take a straightforward step, to make common cause with the
       Protestants of Scotland and the Netherlands, and to bid
       defiance to Spain. To this honest step, she as usual could not
       bring herself, but strong measures were taken in England.
       Great numbers of Jesuits and seminary priests were apprehended
       and executed, suspected magistrates removed, and those
       Catholic Lords whose treachery might have been fatal to her
       ejected from their places of authority and deprived of
       influence."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 2, pages 546-549.

       "That the conspiracy with which these men were charged was a
       fiction cannot be doubted. They had come to England under a
       prohibition to take any part in secular concerns, and with the
       sole view of exercising the spiritual functions of the
       priesthood. ... At the same time it must be owned that the
       answers which six of them gave to the queries were far from
       satisfactory. Their hesitation to deny the opposing power (a
       power then indeed maintained by the greater number of divines
       in Catholic kingdoms) rendered their loyalty very
       problematical, in case of an attempt to enforce the bull by
       any foreign prince. It furnished sufficient reason to watch
       their conduct with an eye of jealousy ... but could not
       justify their execution for an imaginary offence."

          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 8, chapter 3.

       "It is probable that not many more than 200 Catholics were
       executed, as such, in Elizabeth's reign, and this was ten
       score too many. ... 'Dod reckons them at 191; Milner has
       raised the list to 204. Fifteen of these, according to him,
       suffered for denying the Queen's supremacy, 126 for exercising
       their ministry, and the rest for being reconciled to the
       Romish church. Many others died of hardships in prison, and
       many were deprived of their property. There seems,
       nevertheless [says Hallam], to be good reason for doubting
       whether anyone who was executed might not have saved his life
       by explicitly denying the Pope's power to depose the Queen.'"

          J. L. Motley,
          History of the United Netherlands,
          chapter 17, with foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Foley,
          Records of the English Province of the Society of
          Jesus.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1574.
       Emancipation of villeins on the royal domains.
       Practical end of serfdom.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1575.
       Sovereignty of Holland and Zealand offered to Queen Elizabeth,
       and declined.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1581.
       Marriage proposals of the Duke of Anjou declined by Queen
       Elizabeth.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1583.
       The expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
       Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1584-1590.
       Raleigh's colonizing attempts in America.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1586.
       Leicester in the Low Countries.
       Queen Elizabeth's treacherous dealing with the
       struggling Netherlanders.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
       Mary Queen of Scots and the Catholic conspiracies.
       Her trial and execution.

       "Maddened by persecution, by the hopelessness of rebellion
       within or deliverance from without, the fiercer Catholics
       listened to schemes of assassination, to which the murder of
       William of Orange lent at the moment a terrible significance.
       The detection of Somerville, a fanatic who had received the
       host before setting out for London 'to shoot the Queen with
       his dagg,' was followed by measures of natural severity, by
       the flight and arrest of Catholic gentry, by a vigourous
       purification of the Inns of Court, where a few Catholics
       lingered, and by the dispatch of fresh batches of priests to
       the block. The trial and death of Parry, a member of the House
       of Commons who had served in the Queen's household, on a
       similar charge, brought the Parliament together in a transport
       of horror and loyalty.
    {842}
       All Jesuits and seminary priests were banished from the realm
       on pain of death. A bill for the security of the Queen
       disqualified any claimant of the succession who had instigated
       subjects to rebellion or hurt to the Queen's person from ever
       succeeding to the crown. The threat was aimed at Mary Stuart.
       Weary of her long restraint, of her failure to rouse Philip or
       Scotland to aid her, of the baffled revolt of the English
       Catholics and the baffled intrigues of the Jesuits, she bent
       for a moment to submission. 'Let me go,' she wrote to
       Elizabeth; 'let me retire from this island to some solitude
       where I may prepare my soul to die. Grant this and I will sign
       away every right which either I or mine can claim.' But the
       cry was useless, and her despair found a new and more terrible
       hope in the plots against Elizabeth's life. She knew and
       approved the vow of Anthony Babington and a band of young
       Catholics, for the most part connected with the royal
       household, to kill the Queen; but plot and approval alike
       passed through Walsingham's hands, and the seizure of Mary's
       correspondence revealed her guilt. In spite of her protests, a
       commission of peers sat as her judges at Fotheringay Castle;
       and their verdict of 'guilty' annihilated, under the
       provisions of the recent statute, her claim to the crown. The
       streets of London blazed with bonfires, and peals rang out
       from steeple to steeple, at the news of her condemnation; but,
       in spite of the prayer of Parliament for her execution, and
       the pressure of the Council, Elizabeth shrank from her death.
       The force of public opinion, however, was now carrying all
       before it, and the unanimous demand of her people wrested at
       last a sullen consent from the Queen. She flung the warrant
       signed upon the floor, and the Council took on themselves the
       responsibility of executing it. Mary died [February 8, 1587]
       on a scaffold which was erected in the castle hall at
       Fotheringay, as dauntlessly as she had lived. 'Do not weep,'
       she said to her ladies, 'I have given my word for you.' 'Tell
       my friends,' she charged Melville, 'that I die a good
       Catholic.'"

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of the English People,
          chapter 7, section 6.

       "'Who now doubts,' writes an eloquent modern writer, 'that it
       would have been wiser in Elizabeth to spare her life?' Rather,
       the political wisdom of a critical and difficult act has never
       in the world's history been more signally justified. It cut
       away the only interest on which the Scotch and English
       Catholics could possibly have combined. It determined Philip
       upon the undisguised pursuit of the English throne, and it
       enlisted against him and his projects the passionate
       patriotism of the English nobility."

          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          volume 12, chapter 34.

          ALSO IN:
          A. De Lamartine,
          Mary Stuart,
          chapter 31-34.

          L. S. F. Buckingham,
          Memoirs of Mary Stuart,
          volume 2, chapter 5-6.

          L. von Ranke,
          History of England,
          book 3, chapter 5.

          J. D. Leader,
          Mary Queen of Scots in Captivity.

          C. Nau,
          History of Mary Stuart.

          F. A. Mignet,
          History of Mary Queen of Scots,
          chapters 9-10.

    England: A. D. 1587-1588.
       The wrath of Catholic Europe.
       Spanish vengeance and ambition astir.

       "The death of Mary [Queen of Scots] may have preserved England
       from the religious struggle which would have ensued upon her
       accession to the throne, but it delivered Elizabeth from only
       one, and that the weakest of her enemies; and it exposed her
       to a charge of injustice and cruelty, which, being itself well
       founded, obtained belief for any other accusation, however
       extravagantly false. It was not Philip [of Spain] alone who
       prepared for making war upon her with a feeling of personal
       hatred: throughout Romish Christendom she was represented as a
       monster of iniquity; that representation was assiduously set
       forth, not in ephemeral libels, but in histories, in dramas,
       in poems, and in hawker's pamphlets; and when the king of
       Spain equipped an armament for the invasion of England,
       volunteers entered it with a passionate persuasion that they
       were about to bear a part in a holy war against the wickedest
       and most inhuman of tyrants. The Pope exhorted Philip to
       engage in this great enterprize for the sake of the Roman
       Catholic and apostolic church, which could not be more
       effectually nor more meritoriously extended than by the
       conquest of England; so should he avenge his own private and
       public wrongs; so should he indeed prove himself most worthy
       of the glorious title of Most Catholic King. And he promised,
       as soon as his troops should have set foot in that island, to
       supply him with a million of crowns of gold towards the
       expenses of the expedition. ... Such exhortations accorded
       with the ambition, the passions, and the rooted principles of
       the king of Spain. The undertaking was resolved."

          R. Southey,
          Lives of the British Admirals,
          volume 2, page 319.

       "The succours which Elizabeth had from time to time afforded
       to the insurgents of the Netherlands was not the only cause of
       Philip's resentment and of his desire for revenge. She had
       fomented the disturbances in Portugal, ... and her captains,
       among whom Sir Francis Drake was the most active, had for many
       years committed unjustifiable depredations on the Spanish
       possessions of South America, and more than once on the coasts
       of the Peninsula itself. ... By Spanish historians, these
       hostilities are represented as unprovoked in their origin, and
       as barbarous in their execution, and candor must allow that
       there is but too much justice in the complaint."

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          book 4, section 1, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          volume 12, chapter 35.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
       The Spanish Armada.

       "Perhaps in the history of mankind there has never been a vast
       project of conquest conceived and matured in so protracted and
       yet so desultory a manner, as was this famous Spanish
       invasion. ... At last, on the 28th, 29th and 30th May, 1588,
       the fleet, which had been waiting at Lisbon more than a month
       for favourable weather, set sail from that port, after having
       been duly blessed by the Cardinal Archduke Albert, viceroy of
       Portugal. There were rather more than 130 ships in all,
       divided into 10 squadrons. ... The total tonnage of the fleet
       was 59,120: the number of guns was 3,165. Of Spanish troops
       there were 19,295 on board: there were 8,252 sailors and 2,088
       galley-slaves. Besides these, there was a force of noble
       volunteers, belonging to the most illustrious houses of Spain,
       with their attendants, amounting to nearly 2,000 in all. ...
       The size of the ships ranged from 1,200 tons to 300. The
       galleons, of which there were about 60, were huge
       round-stemmed clumsy vessels, with bulwarks three or four feet
       thick, and built up at stem and stern, like castles.
    {843}
       The galeasses--of which there were four--were a third larger
       than the ordinary galley, and were rowed each by 300
       galley-slaves. They consisted of an enormous towering fortress
       at the stern, a castellated structure almost equally massive
       in front, with seats for the rowers amidships. At stem and
       stern and between each of the slaves' benches were heavy
       cannon. These galeasses were floating edifices, very wonderful
       to contemplate. They were gorgeously decorated. There were
       splendid state-apartments, cabins, chapels, and pulpits in
       each, and they were amply provided with awnings, cushions,
       streamers, standards, gilded saints and bands of music. To
       take part in an ostentatious pageant, nothing could be better
       devised. To fulfil the great objects of a war-vessel--to sail
       and to fight--they were the worst machines ever launched upon
       the ocean. The four galleys were similar to the galeasses in
       every respect except that of size, in which they were by
       one-third inferior. All the ships of the fleet--galeasses,
       galleys, galleons, and hulks--were so encumbered with
       top-hamper, so over-weighted in proportion to their draught of
       water, that they could bear but little canvas, even with
       smooth seas and light and favourable winds. ... Such was the
       machinery which Philip had at last set afloat, for the purpose
       of dethroning Elizabeth and establishing the inquisition in
       England. One hundred and forty ships, 11,000 Spanish veterans,
       as many more recruits, partly Spanish, partly Portuguese, 2,000
       grandees, as many galley slaves, and 300 barefooted friars and
       inquisitors. The plan was simple. Medina Sidonia [the
       captain-general of the Armada] was to proceed straight from
       Lisbon to Calais roads: there he was to wait for the Duke of
       Parma [Spanish commander in the Netherlands], who was to come
       forth from Newport, Sluys, and Dunkirk, bringing with him his
       17,000 veterans, and to assume the chief command of the whole
       expedition. They were then to cross the channel to Dover, land
       the army of Parma, reinforced with 6,000 Spaniards from the
       fleet, and with these 23,000 men Alexander was to march at
       once upon London. Medina Sidonia was to seize and fortify the
       Isle of Wight, guard the entrance of the harbours against any
       interference from the Dutch and English fleets, and--so soon
       as the conquest of England had been effected--he was to
       proceed to Ireland. ... A strange omission had however been
       made in the plan from first to last. The commander of the
       whole expedition was the Duke of Parma: on his head was the
       whole responsibility. Not a gun was to be fired--if it could
       be avoided--until he had come forth with his veterans to make
       his junction with the Invincible Armada off Calais. Yet there
       was no arrangement whatever to enable him to come forth--not
       the slightest provision to effect that junction. ... Medina
       could not go to Farnese [Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma],
       nor could Farnese come to Medina. The junction was likely to
       be difficult, and yet it had never once entered the heads of
       Philip or his counsellors to provide for that difficulty. ...
       With as much sluggishness as might have been expected from
       their clumsy architecture, the ships of the Armada consumed
       nearly three weeks in sailing from Lisbon to the neighbourhood
       of Cape Finisterre. Here they were overtaken by a tempest. ...
       Of the squadron of galleys, one was already sunk in the sea,
       and two of the others had been conquered by their own slaves.
       The fourth rode out the gale with difficulty, and joined the
       rest of the fleet, which ultimately reassembled at Coruña; the
       ships having, in distress, put in first at Vivera, Ribadeo,
       Gijon, and other northern ports of Spain. At the Groyne--as
       the English of that day were accustomed to call Coruña--they
       remained a month, repairing damages and recruiting; and on the
       22d of July (N. S.) the Armada set sail. Six days later, the
       Spaniards took soundings, thirty leagues from the Scilly
       Islands, and on Friday, the 29th of July, off the Lizard, they
       had the first glimpse of the land of promise presented them by
       Sixtus V. of which they had at last come to take possession.
       On the same day and night the blaze and smoke of ten thousand
       beacon-fires from the Land's End to Margate, and from the Isle
       of Wight to Cumberland, gave warning to every Englishman that
       the enemy was at last upon them."

          J. L. Motley,
          History of the United Netherlands,
          chapter 19.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          volume 12, chapter 36.

          J. A. Froude,
          The Spanish Story of the Armada.

          R. Southey,
          Lives of British Admirals,
          volume 2, pages 327-334.

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          5th series, chapter 27.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
       The Destruction of the Armada.

       "The great number of the English, the whole able-bodied
       population being drilled, counterbalanced the advantage
       possessed, from their universal use of firearms, by the
       invaders. In all the towns there were trained bands (a civic
       militia); and, either in regular service or as volunteers,
       thousands of all ranks had received a military training on the
       continent. The musters represented 100,000 men as ready to
       assemble at their head-quarters at a day's notice. It was, as
       nearly always, in its military administration that the
       vulnerable point of England lay. The fitting-out and
       victualling of the navy was disgraceful; and it is scarcely an
       excuse for the councillors that they were powerless against
       the parsimony of the Queen. The Government maintained its
       hereditary character from the days of Ethelred the Unready,
       and the arrangements for assembling the defensive forces were
       not really completed by them until after the Armada was
       destroyed. The defeat of the invaders, if they had landed,
       must have been accomplished by the people. The flame of
       patriotism never burnt purer: all Englishmen alike, Romanists,
       Protestant Episcopalians, and Puritans, were banded together
       to resist the invader. Every hamlet was on the alert for the
       beacon-signal. Some 15,000 men were already under arms in
       London; the compact Tilbury Fort was full, and a bridge of
       boats from Tilbury to Gravesend blocked the Thames. Philip's
       preparations had been commensurate with the grandeur of his
       scheme. The dockyards in his ports in the Low Countries, the
       rivers, the canals, and the harbours of Spain, Portugal,
       Naples, and Italy, echoed the clang of the shipwrights'
       hammers. A vast armament, named, as if to provoke Nemesis, the
       'Invincible Armada,' on which for three years the treasures of
       the American mines had been lavished, at length rode the seas,
       blessed with Papal benedictions and under the patronage of the
       saints. It comprised 65 huge galleons, of from 700 to 1,300
       tons, with sides of enormous thickness, and built high like
       castles; four great galleys, each carrying 50 guns and 450
       men, and rowed by 300 slaves; 56 armed merchantmen, and 20
       pinnaces. These 129 vessels were armed with 2,430 brass and
       iron guns of the best manufacture, but each gun was furnished
       only with 50 rounds.
    {844}
       They carried 5,000 seamen: Parma's army amounted to 30,000
       men--Spaniards, Germans, Italians and Walloons; and 19,000
       Castilians and Portuguese, with 1,000 gentlemen volunteers,
       were coming to join him. To maintain this army after it had
       effected a landing, a great store of provisions--sufficient
       for 40,000 men for six months--was placed on board. The
       overthrow of this armament was effected by the navy and the
       elements. From the Queen's parsimony the State had only 36
       ships in the fleet; but the City of London furnished 33
       vessels; 18 were supplied by the liberality of private
       individuals; and nearly 100 smaller ships were obtained on
       hire; so that the fleet was eventually brought up to nearly
       30,000 tons, carrying 16,000 men, and equipped with 837 guns.
       But there was sufficient ammunition for only a single day's
       fighting. Fortunately for Elizabeth's Government, the
       Spaniards, having been long driven from the channel by
       privateers, were now unacquainted with its currents; and they
       could procure, as the Dutch were in revolt, only two or three
       competent pilots. The Spanish commander was the Duke of
       Medina-Sidonia, an incapable man, but he had under him some of
       the ablest of Philip's officers. When the ships set out from
       the Tagus, on the 29th May, 1588, a storm came on, and the
       Armada had to put into Coruña to refit. From that port the
       Armada set out at the beginning of July, in lovely weather,
       with just enough wind to wave from the mastheads the red
       crosses which they bore as symbols of their crusade. The Duke
       of Medina entered the Channel on the 18th July, and the rear
       of his fleet was immediately harassed by a cannonade from the
       puny ships of England, commanded by Lord Howard of Effingham
       (Lord High Admiral), with Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher, Winter,
       Fenner, and other famous captains. With the loss of three
       galleons from fire or boarding, the Spanish commander, who was
       making for Flanders to embark Parma's army, anchored in Calais
       roads. In the night fire-ships--an ancient mode of warfare
       which had just been reintroduced by the Dutch--passed in among
       the Armada, a fierce gale completed their work, and morning
       revealed the remnant of the Invincible Armada scattered along
       the coast from Calais to Ostend. Eighty vessels remained to
       Medina, and with these he sailed up the North Sea, to round
       the British Isles. But the treacherous currents of the Orkneys
       and the Hebrides were unknown to his officers, and only a few
       ships escaped the tempests of the late autumn. More than
       two-thirds of the expedition perished, and of the remnant that
       again viewed the hills of Spain all but a few hundreds
       returned only to die."

          H. R. Clinton,
          From Crécy to Assye,
          chapter 7.

       In the fighting on the 23d of July, "the Spaniards' shot flew
       for the most part over the heads of the English, without doing
       execution, Cock being the only Englishman that died bravely in
       the midst of his enemies in a ship of his own. The reason of
       this was, that the English ships, being far less than the
       enemy's, made the attack with more quickness and agility; and
       when they had given a broadside, they presently sheered off to
       a convenient distance, and levelled their shot so directly at
       the bigger and more unwieldy ships of the Spaniards, as seldom
       to miss their aim; though the Lord Admiral did not think it
       safe or proper to grapple with them, as some advised, with
       much more heat than discretion, because that the enemy's fleet
       carried a considerable army within their sides, whereas ours had
       no such advantage. Besides their ships far exceeded ours in
       number and bulk, and were much stronger and higher built;
       insomuch that their men, having the opportunity to ply us from
       such lofty hatches, must inevitably destroy those that were
       obliged, as it were, to fight beneath them. ... On the 24th
       day of the month there was a cessation on both sides, and the
       Lord Admiral sent some of his smaller vessels to the nearest
       of the English harbours, to fetch a supply of powder and
       ammunition; then he divided the fleet into four squadrons, the
       first of which he commanded himself, the second he committed
       to Drake, the third to Hawkins, and the fourth to Frobisher.
       He likewise singled out of the main fleet some smaller vessels
       to begin the attack on all sides at once, in the very dead of
       the night; but a calm happening spoiled his design." On the
       26th "the Spanish fleet sailed forward with a fair and soft
       gale at southwest and by south; and the English chased them
       close at the heels; but so far was this Invincible Armada from
       alarming the sea-coasts with any frightful apprehensions, that
       the English gentry of the younger sort entered themselves
       volunteers, and taking leave of their parents, wives, and
       children, did, with incredible cheerfulness, hire ships at
       their own charge; and, in pure love to their country, joined
       the grand fleet in vast numbers. ... On the 27th of this month
       the Spanish Fleet came to an anchor before Calais, their
       pilots having acquainted them that if they ventured any
       farther there was some danger that the force of the current
       might drive them away into the Northern Channel. Not far from
       them came likewise the English Admiral to an anchor, and lay
       within shot of their ships. The English fleet consisted by
       this time of 140 sail; all of them ships of force, and very
       tight and nimble sailors, and easily manageable upon a tack.
       But, however, the main brunt of the engagement lay not upon
       more than 15 or 16 of them. ... The Lord Admiral got ready
       eight of his worst ships the very day after the Spaniards came
       to an anchor; and having bestowed upon them a good plenty of
       pitch, tar, and rosin, and lined them well with brimstone and
       other combustible matter, they sent them before the wind, in
       the dead time of the night, under the conduct of Young and
       Prowse, into the midst of the Spanish fleet. ... The Spaniards
       reported that the duke, upon the approach of the fire-ships,
       ordered the whole fleet to weigh anchor and stand to sea, but
       that when the danger was over every ship should return to her
       station. This is what he did himself, and he likewise
       discharged a great gun as a signal to the rest to do as he
       did; the report, however, was heard but by very few, by reason
       their fears had dispersed them at that rate that some of them
       ventured out of the main ocean, and others sailed up the
       shallows of Flanders. In the meantime Drake and Fenner played
       briskly with their cannon upon the Spanish fleet, as it was
       rendezvousing over against Graveling. ... On the last day of
       the month the wind blew hard at north-west early in the
       morning, and the Spanish fleet attempting to get back again to
       the Straits of Calais, was driven toward Zealand.
    {845}
       The English then gave over the chase, because, in the
       Spaniards' opinion, they perceived them making haste enough to
       their own destruction. For the wind, lying at the W. N. W.
       point, could not choose but force them on the shoals and sands
       on the coast of Zealand. But the wind happening to come about
       in a little time to Southwest and by West they went before the
       wind. ... Being now, therefore, clear of danger in the main
       ocean, they steered northward, and the English fleet renewed
       the chase after them. ... The Spaniards having now laid aside
       all the thoughts and hopes of returning to attempt the
       English, and perceiving their main safety lay in their flight,
       made no stay or stop at any port whatever. And thus this
       mighty armada, which had been three whole years fitting out,
       and at a vast expense, met in one month's time with several
       attacks, and was at last routed, with a vast slaughter on
       their side, and but a very few of the English missing, and not
       one ship lost, except that small vessel of Cock's. ... When,
       therefore, the Spanish fleet had taken a large compass round
       Britain, by the coasts of Scotland, the Orcades, and Ireland,
       and had weathered many storms, and suffered as many wrecks and
       blows, and all the inconveniences of war and weather, it made
       a shift to get home again, laden with nothing but shame and
       dishonour. ... Certain it is that several of their ships
       perished in their flight, being cast away on the coasts of
       Scotland and Ireland, and that above 700 soldiers were cast on
       shore in Scotland. ... As for those who had the ill fortune to
       be drove upon the Irish shore, they met with the most
       barbarous treatment; for some of them were butchered by the
       wild Irish, and the rest put to the sword by the Lord Deputy."

          W. Camden,
          History of Queen Elizabeth.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          Historical Biographies: Drake.

          E. S. Creasy,
          Fifteen Decisive Battles,
          chapter 10.

          C. Kingsley,
          Westward Ho!
          chapter 31.

          R. Hakluyt,
          Principal Navigations, &C.
          (E. Goldsmid's ed.), volume 7.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1596.
       Alliance with Henry IV. of France against Spain.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1593--1598.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1596.
       Dutch and English expedition against Cadiz.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1596.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1597.
       Abolition of the privileges of the Hanse merchants.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1600.
       The first charter to the East India Company.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1601.
       The first Poor Law.

          See POOR LAWS, THE ENGLISH.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.
       Accession of King James I.
       The Stuart family.

       On the death of Queen Elizabeth, in 1603, James VI. of
       Scotland became also the accepted king of England (under the
       title of James I.), by virtue of his descent from that
       daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII., Margaret
       Tudor, who married James IV. king of Scots. His grandfather
       was James V.; his mother was Marie Stuart, or Mary, Queen of
       Scots, born of her marriage with Lord Darnley. He was the
       ninth in the line of the Scottish dynasty of the Stuarts, or
       Stewarts, for an account of the origin of which see SCOTLAND:
       A. D. 1370. He had been carefully alienated from the religion
       of his mother and reared in Protestantism, to make him an
       acceptable heir to the English throne. He came to it at a time
       when the autocratic spirit of the Tudors, making use of the
       peculiar circumstances of their time, had raised the royal
       power and prerogative to their most exalted pitch; and he
       united the two kingdoms of Scotland and England under one
       sovereignty. "The noble inheritance fell to a race who,
       comprehending not one of the conditions by which alone it was
       possible to be retained, profligately misused until they lost
       it utterly. The calamity was in no respect foreseen by the
       statesman, Cecil, to whose exertion it was mainly due that
       James was seated on the throne: yet in regard to it he cannot
       be held blameless. He was doubtless right in the course he
       took, in so far as he thereby satisfied a national desire, and
       brought under one crown two kingdoms that with advantage to
       either could not separately exist; but it remains a reproach
       to his name that he let slip the occasion of obtaining for the
       people some ascertained and settled guarantees which could not
       then have been refused, and which might have saved half a
       century of bloodshed. None such were proposed to James. He was
       allowed to seize a prerogative, which for upwards of fifty
       years had been strained to a higher pitch than at any previous
       period of the English history; and his clumsy grasp closed on
       it without a sign of question or remonstrance from the leading
       statesmen of England. 'Do I mak the judges? Do I mak the
       bishops?' he exclaimed, as the powers of his new dominion
       dawned on his delighted sense: 'Then, God's wauns! I mak what
       likes me, law and gospel!' It was even so. And this license to
       make gospel and law was given, with other far more
       questionable powers, to a man whose personal appearance and
       qualities were as suggestive of contempt, as his public acts
       were provocative of rebellion. It is necessary to dwell upon
       this part of the subject; for it is only just to his not more
       culpable but far less fortunate successor to say, that in it
       lies the source and explanation of not a little for which the
       penalty was paid by him. What is called the Great Rebellion
       can have no comment so pregnant as that which is suggested by
       the character and previous career of the first of the Stuart
       kings."

          J. Forster,
          Historical and Biographical Essays,
          p.227.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
       The Hampton Court Conference.

       James I. "was not long seated on the English throne, when a
       conference was held at Hampton Court, to hear the complaints
       of the puritans, as those good men were called who scrupled to
       conform to the ceremonies, and sought a reformation of the
       abuses of the church of England. On this occasion, surrounded
       with his deans, bishops, and archbishops, who breathed into
       his ears the music of flattery, and worshipped him as an
       oracle, James, like king Solomon, to whom he was fond of being
       compared, appeared in all his glory, giving his judgment on
       every question, and displaying before the astonished prelates,
       who kneeled every time they addressed him, his polemic powers and
       theological learning. Contrasting his present honours with the
       scenes from which he had just escaped in his native country,
       he began by congratulating himself that, 'by the blessing of
       Providence, he was brought into the promised land, where
       religion was professed in its purity; where he sat among
       grave, learned, and reverend men; and that now he was not, as
       formerly, a king without state and honour, nor in a place
       where order was banished, and beardless boys would brave him
       to his face.'
    {846}
       After long conferences, during which the king gave the most
       extraordinary exhibitions of his learning, drollery, and
       profaneness, he was completely thrown off his guard by the
       word presbytery, which Dr. Reynolds, a representative of the
       puritans, had unfortunately employed. Thinking that he aimed
       at a 'Scotch presbytery,' James rose into a towering passion,
       declaring that presbytery agreed as well with monarchy as God
       and the devil. 'Then,' said he, 'Jack and Tom, and Will and
       Dick, shall meet, and at their pleasures censure me and my
       council, and all our proceedings. Then Will shall stand up and
       say, It must be thus: Then Dick shall reply, and say, Nay
       marry, but we will have it thus. And, therefore, here I must
       once reiterate my former speech, Le Roy s'avisera (the king
       will look after it). Stay, I pray you, for one seven years
       before you demand that of me; and if you then find me pursy
       and fat, and my wind-pipes stuffed, I will perhaps hearken to
       you; for let that government be once up, I am sure I shall be
       kept in breath; then we shall all of us have work enough, both
       our hands full. But, Dr. Reynolds, till you find that I grow
       lazy, let that alone." Then, putting his hand to his hat, 'My
       lords the bishops,' said his majesty, 'I may thank you that
       these men plead for my supremacy; they think they can't make
       their party good against you, but by appealing unto it. But if
       once you are out, and they in place, I know what would become
       of my supremacy; for no bishop, no king, as I said before.'
       Then rising from his chair, he concluded the conference with,
       'If this be all they have to say, I'll make them conform, or
       I'll harry them out of this land, or else do worse.' The
       English lords and prelates were so filled with admiration at
       the quickness of apprehension and dexterity in controversy
       shown by the king, that, as Dr. Barlow informs us, 'one of
       them said his majesty spoke by the instinct of the Spirit of
       God; and the lord chancellor, as he went out, said to the dean
       of Chester, I have often heard that Rex est mixta persona cum
       sacerdote (that a king is partly a priest), but I never saw
       the truth thereof till this day!' In these circumstances,
       buoyed up with flattery by his English clergy, and placed
       beyond the reach of the faithful admonitions of the Scottish
       ministry, we need not wonder to find James prosecuting, with
       redoubled ardour, his scheme of reducing the church of
       Scotland to the English model."

          T. McCrie,
          Sketches of Scottish Church History,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
          chapter 1, sections 3.

          G. G. Perry,
          History of the Church of England,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          T. Fuller,
          Church History of Britain,
          book 10, section 1 (volume 3).

    England: A. D. 1605.
       The Gunpowder Plot.

       "The Roman Catholics had expected great favour and indulgence
       on the accession of James, both as he was descended from Mary,
       whose life they believed to have been sacrificed to their
       cause, and as he himself, in his early youth, was imagined to
       have shown some partiality towards them. ... Very soon they
       discovered their mistake; and were at once surprised and
       enraged to find James, on all occasions, express his intention
       of strictly executing the laws enacted against them, and of
       persevering in all the rigorous measures of Elizabeth.
       Catesby, a gentleman of good parts and of an ancient family,
       first thought of a most extraordinary method of revenge; and
       he opened his intention to Piercy, a descendant of the
       illustrious house of Northumberland. In vain, said he, would
       you put an end to the king's life: he has children. ... To
       serve any good purpose, we must destroy, at one blow, the
       king, the royal family, the Lords, the Commons, and bury all
       our enemies in one common ruin. Happily, they are all
       assembled on the first meeting of Parliament, and afford us
       the opportunity of glorious and useful vengeance. Great
       preparations will not be requisite. A few of us, combining,
       may run a mine below the hall in which they meet, and choosing
       the very moment when the king harangues both Houses, consign over
       to destruction these determined foes to all piety and
       religion. ... Piercy was charmed with this project of Catesby;
       and they agreed to communicate the matter to a few more, and
       among the rest to Thomas Winter, whom they sent over to
       Flanders, in quest of Fawkes, an officer in the Spanish
       service, with whose zeal and courage they were all thoroughly
       acquainted. ... All this passed in the spring and summer of
       the year 1604; when the conspirators also hired a house in
       Piercy's name, adjoining to that in which the Parliament was
       to assemble. Towards the end of that year they began their
       operations. ... They soon pierced the wall, though three yards
       in thickness; but on approaching the other side they were
       somewhat startled at hearing a noise which they knew not how
       to account for. Upon inquiry, they found that it came from the
       vault below the House of Lords; that a magazine of coals had
       been kept there; and that, as the coals were selling off, the
       vault would be let to the highest bidder. The opportunity was
       immediately seized; the place hired by Piercy; thirty-six
       barrels of powder lodged in it; the whole covered up with
       faggots and billets; the doors of the cellar boldly flung
       open, and everybody admitted, as if it contained nothing
       dangerous. ... The day [November 5, 1605], so long wished for,
       now approached, on which the Parliament was appointed to
       assemble. The dreadful secret, though communicated to above
       twenty persons, had been religiously kept, during the space of
       near a year and a half. No remorse, no pity, no fear of
       punishment, no hope of reward, had as yet induced any one
       conspirator, either to abandon the enterprise or make a
       discovery of it." But the betrayal was unwittingly made, after
       all, by one in the plot, who tried to deter Lord Monteagle
       from attending the opening session of Parliament, by sending
       him a mysterious message of warning. Lord Monteagle showed the
       letter to Lord Salisbury, secretary of state, who attached
       little importance to it, but who laid it before the king. The
       Scottish Solomon read it with more anxiety and was shrewdly
       led by some expressions in the missive to order an inspection
       of the vaults underneath the parliamentary houses. The
       gunpowder was discovered and Guy Fawkes was found in the
       place, with matches for the firing of it on his person. Being
       put to the rack he disclosed the names of his accomplices.
       They were seized, tried and executed, or killed while
       resisting arrest.

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          volume 4, chapter 46.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England,
          chapter 6, (volume 1).

          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 9, chapter 1.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
       The chartering of the Virginia Company, with its London and
       Plymouth branches.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

    {847}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
       The Monopoly granted to the Council for New England.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A.. D. 1620-1623.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
       The exodus of the Pilgrims and the planting of their colony at
       New Plymouth.

          See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1621.
       Claims in North America conflicting with France.
       Grant of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1638.
       The grants in Newfoundland to Baltimore and Kirke.

          See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
       The Protestant Alliance in the Thirty Years War.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
       The gains of Parliament in the reign of James I.

       "The commons had now been engaged [at the end of the reign of
       James I.], for more than twenty years, in a struggle to
       restore and to fortify their own and their fellow subjects'
       liberties. They had obtained in this period but one
       legislative measure of importance, the late declaratory act
       against monopolies. But they had rescued from disuse their
       ancient right of impeachment. They had placed on record a
       protestation of their claim to debate all matters of public
       concern. They had remonstrated against the usurped
       prerogatives of binding the subject by proclamation, and of
       levying customs at the out-ports. They had secured beyond
       controversy their exclusive privilege of determining contested
       elections of their members. They had maintained, and carried
       indeed to an unwarrantable extent, their power of judging and
       inflicting punishment, even for offences not committed against
       their house. Of these advantages some were evidently
       incomplete; and it would require the most vigorous exertions
       of future parliaments to realize them. But such exertions the
       increased energy of the nation gave abundant cause to
       anticipate. A deep and lasting love of freedom had taken hold
       of every class except perhaps the clergy; from which, when
       viewed together with the rash pride of the court, and the
       uncertainty of constitutional principles and precedents,
       collected through our long and various history, a calm
       by-stander might presage that the ensuing reign would not pass
       without disturbance, nor perhaps end without confusion."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 6.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
       Marriage of Charles with Henrietta Maria of France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624--1626.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1625-1628.
       The accession of Charles I.
       Beginning of the struggle of King and Parliament.

       "The political and religious schism which had originated in
       the 16th century was, during the first quarter of the 17th
       century, constantly widening. Theories tending to Turkish
       despotism were in fashion at Whitehall. Theories tending to
       republicanism were in favour with a large portion of the House
       of Commons. ... While the minds of men were in this state, the
       country, after a peace of many years, at length engaged in a
       war [with Spain, and with Austria and the Emperor in the
       Palatinate] which required strenuous exertions. This war
       hastened the approach of the great constitutional crisis. It
       was necessary that the king should have a large military
       force. He could not have such a force without money. He could
       not legally raise money without the consent of Parliament. It
       followed, therefore, that he either must administer the
       government in conformity with the sense of the House of
       Commons, or must venture on such a violation of the
       fundamental laws of the land as had been unknown during
       several centuries. ... Just at this conjuncture James died
       [March 27, 1625]. Charles I. succeeded to the throne. He had
       received from nature a far better understanding, a far
       stronger will, and a far keener and firmer temper than his
       father's. He had inherited his father's political theories,
       and was much more disposed than his father to carry them into
       practice. ... His taste in literature and art was excellent,
       his manner dignified though not gracious, his domestic life
       without blemish. Faithlessness was the chief cause of his
       disasters, and is the chief stain on his memory. He was, in
       truth, impelled by an incurable propensity to dark and crooked
       ways. ... He seems to have learned from the theologians whom
       he most esteemed that between him and his subjects there could
       be nothing of the nature of mutual contract; that he could
       not, even if he would, divest himself of his despotic
       authority; and that, in every promise which he made, there was
       an implied reservation that such promise might be broken in
       case of necessity, and that of the necessity he was the sole
       judge. And now began that hazardous game on which were staked
       the destinies of the English people. It was played on the side
       of the House of Commons with keenness, but with admirable
       dexterity, coolness and perseverance. Great statesmen who
       looked far behind them and far before them were at the head of
       that assembly. They were resolved to place the king in such a
       situation that he must either conduct the administration in
       conformity with the wishes of his Parliament, or make
       outrageous attacks on the most sacred principles of the
       constitution. They accordingly doled out supplies to him very
       sparingly. He found that he must govern either in harmony with
       the House of Commons, or in defiance of all law. His choice
       was soon made. He dissolved his first Parliament, and levied
       taxes by his own authority. He convoked a second Parliament
       [1626] and found it more intractable than the first. He again
       resorted to the expedient of dissolution, raised fresh taxes
       without any show of legal right, and threw the chiefs of the
       opposition into prison. At the same time a new grievance,
       which the peculiar feelings and habits of the English nation
       made insupportably painful, and which seemed to all discerning
       men to be of fearful augury, excited general discontent and
       alarm. Companies of soldiers were billeted on the people; and
       martial law was, in some places, substituted for the ancient
       jurisprudence of the realm. The king called a third Parliament
       [1628], and soon perceived that the opposition was stronger
       and fiercer than ever. He now determined on a change of
       tactics. Instead of opposing an inflexible resistance to the
       demands of the commons, he, after much altercation and many
       evasions, agreed to a compromise which, if he had faithfully
       adhered to it, would have averted a long series of calamities.
       The Parliament granted an ample supply. The King ratified, in
       the most solemn manner, that celebrated law which is known by
       the name of the Petition of Right, and which is the second
       Great Charter of the liberties of England."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. R. Green,
          History of the English People,
          book 7, chapter 5 (volume 3).

          F. P. Guizot,
          History of the English Revolution,
          book 1.

    {848}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1627-1628.
       Buckingham's war with France and expedition to La Rochelle.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
       The Petition of Right.

       "Charles had recourse to many subterfuges in hopes to elude
       the passing of this law; rather perhaps through wounded pride,
       as we may judge from his subsequent conduct, than much
       apprehension that it would create a serious impediment to his
       despotic schemes. He tried to persuade them to acquiesce in
       his royal promise not to arrest anyone without just cause, or
       in a simple confirmation of the Great Charter and other
       statutes in favour of liberty. The peers, too pliant in this
       instance to his wishes, and half receding from the patriot
       banner they had lately joined, lent him their aid by proposing
       amendments (insidious in those who suggested them, though not
       in the body of the house) which the commons firmly rejected.
       Even when the bill was tendered to him for that assent which
       it had been necessary, for the last two centuries, that the
       king should grant or refuse in a word, he returned a long and
       equivocal answer, from which it could only be collected that
       he did not intend to remit any portion of what he had claimed
       as his prerogative. But on an address from both houses for a
       more explicit answer, he thought fit to consent to the bill in
       the usual form. The commons, of whose harshness towards Charles
       his advocates have said so much, immediately passed a bill for
       granting five subsidies, about £350,000; a sum not too great
       for the wealth of the kingdom or for his exigencies, but
       considerable according to the precedents of former times, to
       which men naturally look. ... The Petition of Right, ... this
       statute is still called, from its not being drawn in the
       common form of an act of parliament." Although the king had
       been defeated in his attempt to qualify his assent to the
       Petition of Right, and had been forced to accede to it
       unequivocally, yet "he had the absurd and audacious
       insincerity (for we can use no milder epithets), to circulate
       1,500 copies of it through the country, after the prorogation,
       with his first answer annexed; an attempt to deceive without
       the possibility of success. But instances of such ill-faith,
       accumulated as they are through the life of Charles, render
       the assertion of his sincerity a proof either of historical
       ignorance or of a want of moral delicacy."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

       The following is the text of the Petition of Right:

       "To the King's Most Excellent Majesty. Humbly show unto our
       Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
       Commons in Parliament assembled, that whereas it is declared
       and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King
       Edward the First, commonly called, 'Statutum de Tallagio non
       concedendo,' that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by
       the King or his heirs in this realm, without the goodwill and
       assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights,
       Burgesses, and other the freemen of the commonalty of this
       realm: and by authority of Parliament holden in the five and
       twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is
       declared and enacted, that from thenceforth no person shall be
       compelled to make any loans to the King against his will,
       because such loans were against reason and the franchise of
       the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that
       none should be charged by any charge or imposition, called a
       Benevolence, or by such like charge, by which the statutes
       before-mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this
       realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they
       should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage,
       aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in
       Parliament: Yet nevertheless, of late divers commissions
       directed to sundry Commissioners in several counties with
       instructions have issued, by means whereof your people have
       been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain
       sums of money unto your Majesty, and many of them upon their
       refusal so to do, have had an oath administered unto them, not
       warrantable by the laws or statutes of this realm, and have
       been constrained to become bound to make appearance and give
       attendance before your Privy Council, and in other places, and
       others of them have been therefore imprisoned, confined, and
       sundry other ways molested and disquieted: and divers other
       charges have been laid and levied upon your people in several
       counties, by Lords Lieutenants, Deputy Lieutenants,
       Commissioners for Musters, Justices of Peace and others, by
       command or direction from your Majesty or your Privy Council,
       against the laws and free customs of this realm: And where
       also by the statute called, 'The Great Charter of the
       Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no
       freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his
       freeholds or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or
       exiled; or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment
       of his peers, or by the law of the land: And in the eight and
       twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it was
       declared and enacted by authority of Parliament, that no man
       of what estate or condition that he be, should be put out of
       his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor
       disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer
       by due process of law: Nevertheless, against the tenor of the
       said statutes, and other the good laws and statutes of your
       realm, to that end provided, divers of your subjects have of
       late been imprisoned without any cause showed, and when for
       their deliverance they were brought before your Justices, by
       your Majesty's writs of Habeas Corpus, there to undergo and
       receive as the Court should order, and their keepers commanded
       to certify the causes of their detainer; no cause was
       certified, but that they were detained by your Majesty's
       special command, signified by the Lords of your Privy Council,
       and yet were returned back to several prisons, without being
       charged with anything to which they might make answer
       according to the law: And whereas of late great companies of
       soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers counties
       of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills have
       been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to
       suffer them to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this
       realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people:
       And whereas also by authority of Parliament, in the 25th year
       of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and
       enacted, that no man shall be forejudged of life or limb
       against the form of the Great Charter, and the law of the
       land:
    {849}
       and by the said Great Charter and other the laws and statutes
       of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death; but
       by the laws established in this your realm, either by the
       customs of the same realm or by Acts of Parliament: and
       whereas no offender of what kind soever is exempted from the
       proceedings to be used, and punishments to be inflicted by the
       laws and statutes of this your realm: nevertheless of late
       divers commissions under your Majesty's Great Seal have issued
       forth, by which certain persons have been assigned and
       appointed Commissioners with power and authority to proceed
       within the land, according to the justice of martial law
       against such soldiers and mariners, or other dissolute persons
       joining with them, as should commit any murder, robbery,
       felony, mutiny, or other outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever,
       and by such summary course and order, as is agreeable to
       martial law, and is used in armies in time of war, to proceed
       to the trial and condemnation of such offenders, and them to
       cause to be executed and put to death, according to the law
       martial: By pretext whereof, some of your Majesty's subjects
       have been by some of the said Commissioners put to death, when
       and where, if by the laws and statutes of the land they had
       deserved death, by the same laws and statutes also they might,
       and by no other ought to have been, adjudged and executed: And
       also sundry grievous offenders by colour thereof, claiming an
       exemption, have escaped the punishments due to them by the
       laws and statutes of this your realm, by reason that divers of
       your officers and ministers of justice have unjustly refused,
       or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to the
       same laws and statutes, upon pretence that the said offenders
       were punishable only by martial law, and by authority of such
       commissions as aforesaid, which commissions, and all other of
       like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws
       and statutes of this your realm: They do therefore humbly pray
       your Most Excellent Majesty, that no man hereafter be
       compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax,
       or such like charge, without common consent by Act of
       Parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take
       such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise
       molested or disquieted concerning the same, or for refusal
       thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is
       before-mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your
       Majesty will be pleased to remove the said soldiers and
       mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in time
       to come; and that the foresaid commissions for proceeding by
       martial law, may be revoked and annulled; and that hereafter
       no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or
       persons whatsoever, to be executed as aforesaid, lest by
       colour of them any of your Majesty's subjects be destroyed or
       put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land.
       All which they most humbly pray of your Most Excellent
       Majesty, as their rights and liberties according to the laws
       and statutes of this realm: and that your Majesty would also
       vouchsafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings
       to the prejudice of your people, in any of the premises, shall
       not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example: and that
       your Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further
       comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal will
       and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers
       and ministers shall serve you, according to the laws and
       statutes of this realm, as they tender the honour of your
       Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom. [Which Petition
       being read the 2nd of June 1628, the King's answer was thus
       delivered unto it. The King willeth that right be done
       according to the laws and customs of the realm; and that the
       statutes be put in due execution, that his subjects may have
       no cause to complain of any wrong or oppressions, contrary to
       their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof
       he holds himself as well obliged as of his prerogative. On
       June 7 the answer was given in the accustomed form, 'Soit
       droit fait comme il est désiré.']"

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England,
          chapter 63 (volume 6).

          S. R. Gardiner,
          Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
          page 1.

          J. L. De Lolme,
          The English Constitution,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
       Assassination of Buckingham.

       "While the struggle [over the Petition of Right] was going on,
       the popular hatred of Buckingham [the King's favourite, whose
       influence at court was supreme] showed itself in a brutal
       manner. In the streets of London, the Duke's physician, Dr.
       Lambe, was set upon by the mob, called witch, devil, and the
       Duke's conjuror, and absolutely beaten to death. The Council
       set inquiries on foot, but no individual was brought before
       it, and the rhyme went from mouth to mouth--'Let Charles and
       George do what they can, The Duke shall die like Doctor
       Lambe.' ... Charles, shocked and grieved, took his friend in
       his own coach through London to see the ten ships which were
       being prepared at Deptford for the relief of Rochelle. It was
       reported that he was heard to say, 'George, there are some
       that wish that both these and thou might perish. But care not
       thou for them. We will both perish together if thou dost.'
       There must have been something strangely attractive about the
       man who won and kept the hearts of four personages so
       dissimilar as James and Charles of England, Anne of Austria,
       and William Laud. ... In the meantime Rochelle held out." One
       attempt to relieve the beleaguered town had failed. Buckingham
       was to command in person the armament now in preparation for
       another attempt. "The fleet was at Portsmouth, and Buckingham
       went down thither in high spirits to take the command. The
       King came down to Sir Daniel Norton's house at Southwick. On
       the 23d of August Buckingham rose and 'cut a caper or two'
       before the barber dealt with his moustache and lovelocks. Then
       he was about to sit down to breakfast with a number of
       captains, and as he rose he received letters which made him
       believe that Rochelle had been relieved. He said he must tell
       the King instantly, but Soubise and the other refugees did not
       believe a word of it, and there was a good deal of disputing
       and gesticulation between them. He crossed a lobby, followed
       by the eager Frenchmen, and halted to take leave of an
       officer, Sir Thomas Fryar. Over the shoulder of this
       gentleman, as he bowed, a knife was thrust into Buckingham's
       breast. There was an effort to withdraw it; a cry 'The
       Villain!' and the great Duke, at 36 years old, was dead. The
       attendants at first thought the blow came from one of the
       noisy Frenchmen, and were falling on them." But a servant had
       seen the deed committed, and ran after the assassin, who was
       arrested and proved to be one John Felton, a soldier and a man
       of good family. He had suffered wrongs which apparently
       unhinged his mind.

    {850}

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          6th series, chapter 17.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England, 1603-1642,
          chapter 65.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1628-1632.
       Conquest and brief occupation of Canada and Nova Scotia.

          See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1635.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
       The royal charter granted to the Governor and Company of
       Massachusetts Bay.

          See: MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
       The King's Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
       Tonnage and Poundage.
       The tumult in Parliament and the dissolution.

       Charles' third Parliament, prorogued on the 26th of June,
       1628, reassembled on the 20th of January, 1629. "The
       Parliament Session proved very brief; but very energetic, very
       extraordinary. Tonnage and Poundage, what we now call
       Customhouse duties, a constant subject of quarrel between
       Charles and his Parliaments hitherto, had again been levied
       without Parliamentary consent; in the teeth of old 'Tallagio
       non concedendo,' nay even of the late solemnly confirmed
       Petition of Right; and naturally gave rise to Parliamentary
       consideration. Merchants had been imprisoned for refusing to
       pay it; Members of Parliament themselves had been 'supoena'd':
       there was a very ravelled coil to deal with in regard to
       Tonnage and Poundage. Nay the Petition of Right itself had
       been altered in the Printing; a very ugly business too. In
       regard to Religion also, matters looked equally ill. Sycophant
       Mainwaring, just censured in Parliament, had been promoted to
       a fatter living. Sycophant Montague, in the like
       circumstances, to a Bishopric: Laud was in the act of
       consecrating him at Croydon, when the news of Buckingham's
       death came thither. There needed to be a Committee of
       Religion. The House resolved itself into a Grand Committee of
       Religion; and did not want for matter. Bishop Neile of
       Winchester, Bishop Laud now of London, were a frightfully
       ceremonial pair of Bishops; the fountain they of innumerable
       tendencies to Papistry and the old clothes of Babylon. It was
       in this Committee of Religion, on the 11th day of February,
       1628-9, that Mr. Cromwell, Member for Huntingdon, stood up and
       made his first speech, a fragment of which has found its way
       into History. ... A new Remonstrance behoves to be resolved
       upon; Bishops Neile and Laud are even to be 'named' there.
       Whereupon, before they could get well 'named' ... the King
       hastily interfered. This Parliament, in a fortnight more, was
       dissolved; and that under circumstances of the most
       unparalleled sort. For Speaker Finch, as we have seen, was a
       Courtier, in constant communication with the King: one day,
       while these high matters were astir, Speaker Finch refused to
       'put the question' when ordered by the House! He said he had
       orders to the contrary; persisted in that;--and at last took
       to weeping. What was the House to do? Adjourn for two days;
       and consider what to do! On the second day, which was
       Wednesday, Speaker Finch signified that by his Majesty's
       command they were again adjourned till Monday next. On Monday
       next, Speaker Finch, still recusant, would not put the former
       nor indeed any question, having the King's order to adjourn
       again instantly. He refused; was reprimanded, menaced; once
       more took to weeping; then started up to go his ways. But
       young Mr. Holles, Denzil Holles, the Earl of Clare's second
       son, he and certain other honourable members were prepared for
       that movement: they seized Speaker Finch, set him down in his
       chair, and by main force held him there! A scene of such
       agitation as was never seen in Parliament before. 'The House
       was much troubled.' 'Let him go,' cried certain Privy
       Councillors, Majesty's Ministers as we should now call them,
       who in those days sat in front of the Speaker, 'Let Mr.
       Speaker go!' cried they imploringly. 'No!' answered Holles;
       'God's wounds, he shall sit there till it please the House to
       rise!' The House in a decisive though almost distracted
       manner, with their Speaker thus held down for them, locked
       their doors; redacted Three emphatic Resolutions, their
       Protest against Arminianism, Papistry, and illegal Tonnage and
       Poundage; and passed the same by acclamation; letting no man
       out, refusing to let even the King's Usher in; then swiftly
       vanishing so soon as the resolutions were passed, for they
       understood the soldiery was coming. For which surprising
       procedure, vindicated by Necessity the mother of Invention,
       and supreme of Lawgivers, certain honourable gentlemen, Denzil
       Holles, Sir John Eliot, William Strode, John Selden, and
       others less known to us, suffered fine, imprisonment, and much
       legal tribulation: nay Sir John Eliot, refusing to submit, was
       kept in the Tower till he died. This scene fell out on Monday,
       2d of March, 1629."

          T. Carlyle,
          Introduction to Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Forster,
          Sir John Eliot: a Biography,
          book 10, section 6-8 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1630.
       Emigration of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
       with their royal charter.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1631.
       Aid to Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

    ENGLAND: A. D: 1632.
       Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.

          See NOVA SCOTIA (ACADIA): A. D. 1621-1668.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1632.
        The Palatine grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore.

          See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.
       The Ecclesiastical despotism of Laud.

       "When Charles, having quarreled with his parliament, stood
       alone in the midst of his kingdom, seeking on all sides the
       means of governing, the Anglican clergy believed this day [for
       establishing the independent and uncontrolled power of their
       church] was come. They had again got immense wealth, and
       enjoyed it without dispute. The papists no longer inspired
       them with alarm. The primate of the church, Laud, possessed
       the entire confidence of the king and alone directed all
       ecclesiastical affairs. Among the other ministers, none
       professed, like lord Burleigh under Elizabeth, to fear and
       struggle against the encroachments of the clergy. The
       courtiers were indifferent, or secret papists. Learned men
       threw lustre over the church. The universities, that of Oxford
       more especially, were devoted to her maxims. Only one
       adversary remained--the people, each day more discontented
       with uncompleted reform, and more eager fully to accomplish
       it. But this adversary was also the adversary of the throne;
       it claimed at the same time, the one to secure the other,
       evangelical faith and civil liberty.
    {851}
       The same peril threatened the sovereignty of the crown and of
       episcopacy. The king, sincerely pious, seemed disposed to
       believe that he was not the only one who held his authority
       from God, and that the power of the bishops was neither of
       less high origin, nor of less sacred character. Never had so
       many favourable circumstances seemed combined to enable the
       clergy to achieve independence of the crown, dominion over the
       people. Laud set himself to work with his accustomed
       vehemence. First, it was essential that all dissensions in the
       bosom of the church itself should cease, and that the
       strictest uniformity should infuse strength into its
       doctrines, its discipline, its worship. He applied himself to
       this task with the most unhesitating and unscrupulous
       resolution. Power was exclusively concentrated into the hands
       of the bishops. The court of high commission, where they took
       cognizance of and decided everything relating to religious
       matters, became day by day more arbitrary, more harsh in its
       jurisdiction, its forms and its penalties. The complete
       adoption of the Anglican canons, the minute observance of the
       liturgy, and the rites enforced in cathedrals, were rigorously
       exacted on the part of the whole ecclesiastical body. A great
       many livings were in the hands of nonconformists; they were
       withdrawn from them. The people crowded to their sermons; they
       were forbidden to preach. ... Persecution followed and reached
       them everywhere. ... Meantime, the pomp of catholic worship
       speedily took possession of the churches deprived of their
       pastors; while persecution kept away the faithful,
       magnificence adorned the walls. They were consecrated amid
       great display, and it was then necessary to employ force to
       collect a congregation. Laud was fond of prescribing minutely
       the details of new ceremonies--sometimes borrowed from Rome,
       sometimes the production of his own imagination, at once
       ostentatious and austere. On the part of the nonconformists,
       every innovation, the least derogation from the canons or the
       liturgy, was punished as a crime; yet Laud innovated without
       consulting anybody, looking to nothing beyond the king's
       consent, and sometimes acting entirely upon his own authority.
       ... And all these changes had, if not the aim, at all events
       the result, of rendering the Anglican church more and more
       like that of Rome. ... Books were published to prove that the
       doctrine of the English bishops might very well adapt itself
       to that of Rome; and these books, though not regularly
       licensed, were dedicated to the king or to Laud, and openly
       tolerated. ... The splendour and exclusive dominion of
       episcopacy thus established, at least so he flattered himself,
       Laud proceeded to secure its independence. ... The divine
       right of bishops became, in a short time, the official
       doctrine, not only of the upper clergy, but of the king
       himself. ... By the time things had come to this pass, the
       people were not alone in their anger. The high nobility, part
       of them at least, took the alarm. They saw in the progress of
       the church far more than mere tyranny; it was a regular
       revolution, which, not satisfied with crushing popular
       reforms, disfigured and endangered the first reformation; that
       which kings had made and the aristocracy adopted."

          F. P. Guizot,
          History of the English Revolution of 1640,
          book 2.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Neal,
          History of the Puritans,
          volume 2, chapters 4-6.

          G. G. Perry,
          History of the Church of England,
          chapters 13-16 (volume l).

          P. Bayne,
          The Chief Actors of the Puritan Revolution,
          chapter 3.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
       Hostile measures against the Massachusetts Colony.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
       Ship-money.

       "The aspect of public affairs grew darker and darker. ... All
       the promises of the king were violated without scruple or
       shame. The Petition of Right, to which he had, in
       consideration of moneys duly numbered, given a solemn assent,
       was set at naught. Taxes were raised by the royal authority.
       Patents of monopoly were granted. The old usages of feudal
       times were made pretexts for harassing the people with
       exactions unknown during many years. The Puritans were
       persecuted with cruelty worthy of the Holy Office. They were
       forced to fly from the country. They were imprisoned. They
       were whipped. Their ears were cut off. Their noses were slit.
       Their cheeks were branded with red-hot iron. But the cruelty
       of the oppressor could not tire out the fortitude of the
       victims. ... The hardy sect grew up and flourished, in spite
       of everything that seemed likely to stunt it, struck its roots
       deep into a. barren soil, and spread its branches wide to an
       inclement sky. ... For the misgovernment of this disastrous
       period, Charles himself is principally responsible. After the
       death of Buckingham, he seemed to have been his own prime
       minister. He had, however, two counsellors who seconded him,
       or went beyond him, in intolerance and lawless violence; the
       one a superstitious driveller, as honest as a vile temper
       would suffer him to be; the other a man of great valour and
       capacity, but licentious, faithless, corrupt, and cruel. Never
       were faces more strikingly characteristic of the individuals
       to whom they belonged than those of Laud and Strafford, as
       they still remain portrayed by the most skilful hand of that
       age. The mean forehead, the pinched features, the peering eyes
       of the prelate suit admirably with his disposition. They mark
       him out as a lower kind of Saint Dominic. ... But
       Wentworth--whoever names him without thinking of those harsh
       dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the
       majesty of an antique Jupiter! ... Among the humbler tools of
       Charles were Chief-Justice Finch, and Noy, the
       attorney-general. Noy had, like Wentworth, supported the cause
       of liberty in Parliament, and had, like Wentworth, abandoned that
       cause for the sake of office. He devised, in conjunction with
       Finch, a scheme of exaction which made the alienation of the
       people from the throne complete. A writ was issued by the
       king, commanding the city of London to equip and man ships of
       war for his service. Similar writs were sent to the towns
       along the coast. These measures, though they were direct
       violations of the Petition of Right, had at least some show of
       precedent in their favour. But, after a time, the government
       took a step for which no precedent could be pleaded, and sent
       writs of ship-money to the inland counties. This was a stretch
       of power on which Elizabeth herself had not ventured, even at
       a time when all laws might with propriety have been made to
       bend to that highest law, the safety of the state. The inland
       counties had not been required to furnish ships, or money in
       the room of ships, even when the Armada was approaching our
       shores.
    {852}
       It seemed intolerable that a prince, who, by assenting to the
       Petition of Right, had relinquished the power of levying
       ship-money even in the outports, should be the first to levy
       it on parts of the kingdom where it had been unknown, under
       the most absolute of his predecessors. Clarendon distinctly
       admits that this tax was intended, not only for the support of
       the navy, but 'for a spring and magazine that should have no
       bottom, and for an everlasting supply on all occasions.' The
       nation well understood this; and from one end of England to
       the other, the public mind was strongly excited.
       Buckinghamshire was assessed at a ship of 450 tons, or a sum
       of £4,500. The share of the tax which fell to Hampden was very
       small [twenty shillings]; so small, indeed, that the sheriff
       was blamed for setting so wealthy a man at so low a rate. But,
       though the sum demanded was a trifle, the principle of the
       demand was despotism. Hampden, after consulting the most
       eminent constitutional lawyers of the time, refused to pay the
       few shillings at which he was assessed; and determined to
       incur all the certain expense and the probable danger of
       bringing to a solemn hearing this great controversy between
       the people and the crown. ... Towards the close of the year
       1636, this great cause came on in the Exchequer Chamber before
       all the judges of England. The leading counsel against the
       writ was the celebrated Oliver St. John; a man whose temper
       was melancholy, whose manners were reserved, and who was as
       yet little known in Westminster Hall; but whose great talents
       had not escaped the penetrating eye of Hampden. The arguments
       of the counsel occupied many days; and the Exchequer Chamber
       took a considerable time for deliberation. The opinion of the
       bench was divided. So clearly was the law in favour of
       Hampden, that though the judges held their situations only
       during the royal pleasure, the majority against him was the
       least possible. Four of the twelve pronounced decidedly in his
       favour; a fifth took a middle course. The remaining seven gave
       their voices in favour of the writ. The only effect of this
       decision was to make the public indignation stronger and
       deeper. 'The judgment,' says Clarendon, 'proved of more
       advantage and credit to the gentleman condemned than to the
       king's service.' The courage which Hampden had shown on this
       occasion, as the same historian tells us, 'raised his
       reputation to a great height generally throughout the
       kingdom.'"

          Lord Macaulay,
          Essays,
          volume 2 (Nugent's Memorials of Hampden).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Hampden.

          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England, 1603-1642,
          chapter 74 (volume 7),
          and chapters 77 and 82 (volume 8);

          ALSO

          Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
          pages 37-53, and 115.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
       Presbyterianism of the Puritan party.
       Rise of the independents.

       "It is the artifice of the favourers of the Catholic and of
       the prelatical party to call all who are sticklers for the
       constitution in church or state, or would square their actions
       by any rule, human or divine, Puritans."

          J. Rushworth,
          Historical Collection,
          volume 2, 1355.

       "These men [the Puritan party], at the commencement of the
       civil war, were presbyterians: and such had at that time been
       the great majority of the serious, the sober, and the
       conscientious people of England. There was a sort of
       imputation of laxness of principles, and of a tendency to
       immorality of conduct, upon the adherents of the
       establishment, which was infinitely injurious to the episcopal
       church. But these persons, whose hearts were in entire
       opposition to the hierarchy, had for the most part no
       difference of opinion among themselves, and therefore no
       thought of toleration for difference of opinion in others.
       Their desire was to abolish episcopacy and set up presbytery.
       They thought and talked much of the unity of the church of
       God, and of the cordial consent and agreement of its members,
       and considered all sects and varieties of sentiment as a
       blemish and scandal upon their holy religion. They would put
       down popery and episcopacy with the strong hand of the law,
       and were disposed to employ the same instrument to suppress
       all who should venture to think the presbyterian church itself
       not yet sufficiently spiritual and pure. Against this party,
       which lorded it for a time almost without contradiction,
       gradually arose the party of the independents. ... Before the
       end of the civil war they became almost as strong as the party
       of the presbyterians, and greatly surpassed them in abilities,
       intellectual, military and civil."

          W. Godwin,
          History of the Commonwealth,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2).

          See, also,
          INDEPENDENTS; ENGLAND:
          A. D. 1643 (JULY) and (JULY-SEPTEMBER),
          A. D. 1646 (MARCH),
          A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST),
          and A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
       The First Bishops' War in Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
       The Short Parliament and the Second Bishops' War.
       The Scots Army in England.

       "His Majesty having burnt Scotch paper Declarations 'by the
       hands of the common hangman,' and almost cut the Scotch
       Chancellor Loudon's head off, and being again resolute to
       chastise the rebel Scots with an Army, decides on summoning a
       Parliament for that end, there being no money attainable
       otherwise. To the great and glad astonishment of England;
       which, at one time, thought never to have seen another
       Parliament! Oliver Cromwell sat in this Parliament for
       Cambridge; recommended by Hampden, say some; not needing any
       recommendation in those Fen-countries, think others. Oliver's
       Colleague was a Thomas Meautys, Esq. This Parliament met, 13th
       April, 1640: it was by no means prompt enough with supplies
       against the rebel Scots; the king dismissed it in a huff, 5th
       May; after a Session of three weeks: Historians call it the
       Short Parliament. His Majesty decides on raising money and an
       Army 'by other methods': to which end Wentworth, now Earl
       Strafford and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who had advised that
       course in the Council, did himself subscribe £20,000.
       Archbishop Laud had long ago seen 'a cloud rising' against the
       Four surplices at Allhallowtide; and now it is covering the
       whole sky in a most dismal and really thundery-looking manner.
       His Majesty by 'other methods,' commission of array, benevolence,
       forced loan, or how he could, got a kind of Army on foot, and
       set it marching out of the several Counties in the South
       towards the Scotch Border; but it was a most hopeless Army.
       The soldiers called the affair a Bishops' War; they mutinied
       against their officers, shot some of their officers: in
       various Towns on their march, if the Clergyman were reputed
       Puritan, they went and gave him three cheers; if of
       Surplice-tendency, they sometimes threw his furniture out of
       the window.
    {853}
       No fighting against poor Scotch Gospellers was to be hoped for
       from these men. Meanwhile the Scots, not to be behindhand, had
       raised a good Army of their own; and decided on going into
       England with it, this time, 'to present their grievances to
       the King's Majesty.' On the 20th of August, 1640, they cross
       the Tweed at Coldstream; Montrose wading in the van of them
       all. They wore uniform of hodden gray, with blue caps; and
       each man had a moderate haversack of oatmeal on his back.
       August 28th, the Scots force their way across the Tyne, at
       Newburn, some miles above Newcastle; the King's Army making
       small fight, most of them no fight; hurrying from Newcastle,
       and all town and country quarters, towards York again, where
       his Majesty and Strafford were. The Bishops' War was at an
       end. The Scots, striving to be gentle as doves in their
       behaviour, and publishing boundless brotherly Declarations to
       all the brethren that loved Christ's Gospel and God's Justice
       in England,--took possession of Newcastle next day; took
       possession gradually of all Northumberland and Durham,--and
       stayed there, in various towns and villages, about a year. The
       whole body of English Puritans looked upon them as their
       saviours. ... His Majesty and Strafford, in a fine frenzy at
       the turn of affairs, found no refuge, except to summon a
       'Council of Peers,' to enter upon a 'Treaty' with the Scots;
       and alas, at last, summon a New Parliament. Not to be helped
       in any way. ... A Parliament was appointed for the 3d of
       November next;--whereupon London cheerfully lent £200,000; and
       the Treaty with the Scots at Ripon, 1st October, 1640, by and
       by transferred to London, went peaceably on at a very
       leisurely pace. The Scotch Army lay quartered at Newcastle,
       and over Northumberland and Durham, on an allowance of £850 a
       day; an Army indispensable for Puritan objects; no haste in
       finishing its Treaty. The English army lay across in
       Yorkshire; without allowance except from the casualties of the
       King's Exchequer; in a dissatisfied manner, and occasionally
       getting into 'Army-Plots.' This Parliament, which met on the
       3d of November; 1640, has become very celebrated in History by
       the name of the 'Long Parliament.'"

          T. Carlyle,
          Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 1: 1640.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford.

          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England, 1603-1642,
          chapter 91-94.

          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 72-73 (volume 7).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
       Acquisition and settlement of Madras.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.
       The Long Parliament and the beginning of its work.
       Impeachment and Execution of Strafford.

       "The game of tyranny was now up. Charles had risked and lost
       his last stake. It is impossible to trace the mortifications
       and humiliations which this bad man now had to endure without
       a feeling of vindictive pleasure. His army was mutinous; his
       treasury was empty; his people clamoured for a Parliament;
       addresses and petitions against the government were presented.
       Strafford was for shooting those who presented them by martial
       law, but the king could not trust the soldiers. A great
       council of Peers was called at York, but the king would not
       trust even the Peers. He struggled, he evaded, he hesitated,
       he tried every shift rather than again face the
       representatives of his injured people. At length no shift was
       left. He made a truce with the Scots, and summoned a
       Parliament. ... On the 3d of November, 1640--a day to be long
       remembered--met that great Parliament, destined to every
       extreme of fortune--to empire and to servitude, to glory and
       to contempt;--at one time the sovereign of its sovereign, at
       another time the servant of its servants, and the tool of its
       tools. From the first day of its meeting the attendance was
       great, and the aspect of the members was that of men not
       disposed to do the work negligently. The dissolution of the
       late Parliament had convinced most of them that half measures
       would no longer suffice. Clarendon tells us that 'the same men
       who, six months before, were observed to be of very moderate
       tempers, and to wish that gentle remedies might be applied,
       talked now in another dialect both of kings and persons; and
       said that they must now be of another temper than they were
       the last Parliament.' The debt of vengeance was swollen by all
       the usury which had been accumulating during many years; and
       payment was made to the full. This memorable crisis called
       forth parliamentary abilities, such as England had never
       before seen. Among the most distinguished members of the House
       of Commons were Falkland, Hyde, Digby, Young, Harry Vane, Oliver
       St. John, Denzil Hollis, Nathaniel Fiennes. But two men
       exercised a paramount influence over the legislature and the
       country--Pym and Hampden; and, by the universal consent of
       friends and enemies, the first place belonged to Hampden."

          Lord Macaulay,
          Nugent's Memorials of Hampden
          (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2).

       "The resolute looks of the members as they gathered at
       Westminster contrasted with the hesitating words of the king,
       and each brought from borough or county a petition of
       grievances. Fresh petitions were brought every day by bands of
       citizens or farmers. Forty committees were appointed to
       examine and report on them, and their reports formed the
       grounds on which the Commons acted. One by one the illegal
       acts of the Tyranny were annulled. Prynne and his fellow
       'martyrs' recalled from their prisons, entered London in
       triumph, amid the shouts of a great multitude who strewed
       laurel in their path. The civil and criminal jurisdiction of
       the Privy Council, the Star Chamber, the Court of High
       Commission, the irregular jurisdictions of the Council of the
       North, of the Duchy of Lancaster, the County of Chester, and a
       crowd of lesser tribunals, were summarily abolished.
       Ship-money was declared illegal, and the judgment in Hampden's
       case annulled. A statute declaring 'the ancient right of the
       subjects of this kingdom that no subsidy, custom, impost, or
       any charge whatsoever, ought or may be laid or imposed upon
       any merchandize exported or imported by subjects, denizens or
       allies, without common consent of Parliament,' put an end
       forever to all pretensions to a right of arbitrary taxation on
       the part of the crown. A Triennial Bill enforced the Assembly
       of the Houses every three years, and bound the sheriff and
       citizens to proceed to election if the Royal writ failed to
       summon them. Charles protested, but gave way. He was forced to
       look helplessly on at the wreck of his Tyranny, for the Scotch
       army was still encamped in the north. ... Meanwhile the
       Commons were dealing roughly with the agents of the Royal
       system. ...
    {854}
       Windebank, the Secretary of State, with the Chancellor, Finch,
       fled in terror over sea. Laud himself was flung into prison.
       ... But even Laud, hateful as he was to all but the poor
       neighbours whose prayers his alms had won, was not the centre
       of so great and universal a hatred as the Earl of Strafford.
       Strafford's guilt was more than the guilt of a servile
       instrument of tyranny--it was the guilt of 'that grand
       apostate to the Commonwealth who,' in the terrible words which
       closed Lord Digby's invective, 'must not expect to be pardoned
       in this world till he be dispatched to the other.' He was
       conscious of his danger, but Charles forced him to attend the
       Court.' He came to London with the solemn assurance of his
       master that, "while there was a king in England, not a hair of
       Strafford's head should be touched by the Parliament."
       Immediately impeached of high treason by the Commons, and sent
       to the Tower, he received from the king a second and more
       solemn pledge, by letter, that, "upon the word of a king, you
       shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune." But the "word of
       a king" like Charles Stuart, had neither honor nor gratitude, nor
       a decent self respect behind it. He could be false to a friend
       as easily as to an enemy. When the Commons, fearing failure on
       the trial of their impeachment, resorted to a bill of
       attainder, Charles signed it with a little resistance, and
       Strafford went bravely and manfully to the block. "As the axe
       fell, the silence of the great multitude was broken by a
       universal shout of joy. The streets blazed with bonfires. The
       bells clashed out from every steeple."

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of England,
          chapter 8, section 6.

       The king "was as deeply pledged to Strafford as one man could
       be to another; he was as vitally concerned in saving the life
       and prolonging the service of incomparably his ablest servant
       as was ever any sovereign in the case of any minister; yet it
       is clear that for some days past, probably ever since the
       first signs of popular tumult began to manifest themselves, he
       had been wavering. Four days before the Bill passed the Lords,
       Strafford as is well known, entreated the king to assent to
       it. There is no reason to doubt the absolute sincerity with
       which, at the moment of its conception, the prisoner penned
       his famous letter from the Tower. That passionate chivalry of
       loyalty, which has never animated any human heart in equal
       intensity since Strafford's ceased to beat, inspires every
       line. ... Charles turned distractedly from one adviser to
       another, not so much for counsel as for excuse. He did not
       want his judgment guided, but his conscience quieted; and his
       counsellors knew it. They had other reasons, too, for urging
       him to his dishonour. Panic seems to have seized upon them
       all. The only man who would not have quailed before the fury
       of the populace was the man himself whose life was trembling
       in the balance. The judges were summoned to declare their
       opinion, and replied, with an admirable choice of
       non-committing terms, that 'upon all that which their
       Lordships have voted to be proved the Earl of Strafford doth
       deserve to undergo the pains and forfeitures of high treason.'
       Charles sent for the bishops, and the bishops, with the
       honourable exception of Juxon, informed him that he had two
       consciences,--a public and a private conscience,--and that
       'his public conscience as a king might not only dispense with,
       but oblige him to do, that which was against his conscience as
       a man.' What passed between these two tenants in common of the
       royal breast during the whole of Sunday, May 9th, 1641, is
       within no earthly knowledge; but at some time on that day
       Charles's public conscience got the better of its private
       rival. He signed a commission for giving the royal assent to
       the Bill, and on Monday, May 10th, in the presence of a House
       scarcely able to credit the act of betrayal which was taking
       place before them, the Commissioners pronounced the fatal Le
       roi le veult over the enactment which condemned his Minister
       to the block. Charles, of course, might still have reprieved
       him by an exercise of the prerogative, but the fears which
       made him acquiesce in the sentence availed to prevent him from
       arresting its execution."

          H. D. Traill,
          Lord Stafford,
          pages 195-198.

       "It is a sorry office to plant the foot on a worm so crushed
       and writhing as the wretched king ... [who abandoned
       Strafford] for it was one of the few crimes of which he was in
       the event thoroughly sensible, and friend has for once
       cooperated with foe in the steady application to it of the
       branding iron. There is in truth hardly any way of relieving
       the 'damned spot' of its intensity of hue even by distributing
       the concentrated infamy over other portions of Charles's
       character. ... When we have convinced ourselves that this
       'unthankful king' never really loved Strafford; that, as much
       as in him lay, he kept the dead Buckingham in his old
       privilege of mischief, by adopting his aversions and abiding
       by his spleenful purposes; that, in his refusals to award
       those increased honours for which his minister was a
       petitioner, on the avowed ground of the royal interest, may be
       discerned the petty triumph of one who dares not dispense with
       the services thrust upon him, but revenges himself by
       withholding their well-earned reward;--still does the
       blackness accumulate to baffle our efforts. The paltry tears
       he is said to have shed only burn that blackness in. If his
       after conduct indeed had been different, he might have availed
       himself of one excuse,--but that the man, who, in a few short
       months, proved that he could make so resolute a stand
       somewhere, should have judged this event no occasion for
       attempting it, is either a crowning infamy or an infinite
       consolation, according as we may judge wickedness or weakness
       to have preponderated in the constitution of Charles I. ... As
       to Strafford's death, the remark that the people had no
       alternative, includes all that it is necessary to urge. The
       king's assurances of his intention to afford him no further
       opportunity of crime, could surely weigh nothing with men who
       had observed how an infinitely more disgusting minister of his
       will had only seemed to rise the higher in his master's
       estimation for the accumulated curses of the nation. Nothing
       but the knife of Felton could sever in that case the weak head
       and the wicked instrument, and it is to the honour of the
       adversaries of Strafford that they were earnest that their
       cause should vindicate itself completely, and look for no
       adventitious redress. Strafford had outraged the people--this
       was not denied. He was defended on the ground of those
       outrages not amounting to a treason against the king. For my
       own part, this defence appears to me decisive, looking at it
       in a technical view, and with our present settlement of
       evidence and treason.
    {855}
       But to concede that point, after the advances they had made,
       would have been in that day to concede all. It was to be shown
       that another power had claim to the loyalty and the service of
       Strafford--and if a claim, then a vengeance to exact for its
       neglect. And this was done. ... One momentary emotion ...
       escaped ... [Strafford] when he was told to prepare for death.
       He asked if the king had indeed assented to the bill.
       Secretary Carleton answered in the affirmative; and Strafford,
       laying his hand on his heart, and raising his eyes to heaven,
       uttered the memorable words,--'Put not your trust in princes,
       nor in the sons of men, for in them there is no salvation.'
       Charles's conduct was indeed incredibly monstrous."

          R. Browning,
          Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford
          (Eminent British Statesmen, by John Forster, volume 2,
          pages 403-406).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford; Pym.

          Earl of Clarendon,
          History of the Rebellion,
          book 3 (volume 1).

          Lord Nugent,
          Memorials of Hampden.
          parts 5-6 (volumes 1-2).

          Lady T. Lewis,
          Life of Lord Falkland.

       The following are the Articles of Impeachment under which
       Strafford was tried and condemned:

       "Articles of the Commons, assembled in Parliament, against
       Thomas Earl of Strafford, in Maintenance of their Accusation,
       whereby he stands charged with High Treason.

       I. That he the said Thomas earl of Strafford hath traiterously
       endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of
       the realms of England and Ireland, and, instead thereof, to
       introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government, against law,
       which he hath declared by traiterous words, counsels, and
       actions, and by giving his majesty advice, by force of arms,
       to compel his loyal subjects to submit thereunto.

       II. That he hath traiterously assumed to himself regal power
       over the lives, liberties of persons, lands, and goods of his
       majesty's subjects, in England and Ireland, and hath exercised
       the same tyrannically, to the subversion and undoing of many,
       both peers and others, of his majesty's liege people.

       III. The better to inrich, and enable himself to go through
       with his traiterous designs, he hath detained a great part of
       his majesty's revenue, without giving any legal accounts; and
       hath taken great sums of money out of the exchequer,
       converting them to his own use, when his majesty was
       necessitated for his own urgent occasions, and his army had
       been a long time unpaid.

       IV. That he hath traiterously abused the power and authority
       of his government, to the increasing, countenancing, and
       encouraging of Papists, that so he might settle a mutual
       dependence and confidence betwixt himself and that party, and
       by their help prosecute and accomplish his malicious and
       tyrannical designs.

       V. That he hath maliciously endeavoured to stir up enmity and
       hostility between his majesty's subjects of England and those
       of Scotland.

       VI. That he hath traiterously broken the great trust reposed
       in him by his majesty, of lieutenant general of his Army, by
       wilfully betraying divers of his majesty's subjects to death,
       his majesty's Army to a dishonourable defeat by the Scots at
       Newborne, and the town of Newcastle into their hands, to the
       end that, by effusion of blood, by dishonour, by so great a
       loss as of Newcastle, his majesty's realm of England might be
       engaged in a national and irreconcilable quarrel with the
       Scots.

       VII. That, to preserve himself from being questioned for these
       and other his traiterous courses, he laboured to subvert the
       right of parliaments, and the ancient course of parliamentary
       proceedings, and, by false and malicious slanders, to incense
       his maj. against parliaments.--By which words, counsels, and
       actions, he hath traiterously, and contrary to his allegiance,
       laboured to alienate the hearts of the king's liege people
       from his maj. to set a division between them, and to ruin and
       destroy his majesty's kingdoms, for which they do impeach him
       of High Treason against our sovereign lord the king, his crown
       and dignity. And he the said earl of Strafford was lord deputy
       of Ireland, or lord lieutenant of Ireland, and lieutenant
       general of the Army there, under his majesty, and a sworn
       privy counsellor to his maj. for his kingdoms both of England
       and Ireland, and lord president of the North, during the time
       that all and every of the crimes and offences before set forth
       were done and committed; and he the said earl was lieutenant
       general of his majesty's Army in the North parts of England,
       during the time that the crimes and offences in the 5th and
       6th Articles set forth were done and committed.--And the said
       commons, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of
       exhibiting at any time hereafter any other Accusation or
       Impeachment against the said earl, and also of replying to the
       Answer that he the said earl shall make unto the said
       Articles, or to any of them, and of offering proof also of the
       premises, or any of them, or of any other Accusation or
       Impeachment that shall be by them exhibited, as the case
       shall, according to the course of parliaments, require; and do
       pray that the said earl may be put to answer to all and every
       the premises; and that such proceedings, examination, trial,
       and judgment, may be upon every of them had and used, as is
       agreeable to law and justice."

          Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
          volume 2, pages 737-739.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (March-May).
       The Root and Branch Bill.

       "A bill was brought in [March, 1641], known as the Restraining
       Bill, to deprive Bishops of their rights of voting in the
       House of Lords. The opposition it encountered in that House
       induced the Commons to follow it up [May 27] with a more
       vehement measure, 'for the utter abolition of Archbishops,
       Bishops. Deans, Archdeacons, Prebendaries and Canons,' a
       measure known by the title of the Root and Branch Bill. By the
       skill of the royal partisans, this bill was long delayed in
       Committee."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 2 (volume 2), page 650.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          volume 2, book 2, chapter 3.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (October).
       Roundheads and Cavaliers.
       The birth of English parties.

       "After ten months of assiduous toil, the Houses, in September,
       1641, adjourned for a short vacation and the king visited
       Scotland. He with difficulty pacified that kingdom, by
       consenting not only to relinquish his plans of ecclesiastical
       reform, but even to pass, with a very bad grace, an act
       declaring that episcopacy was contrary to the word of God. The
       recess of the English Parliament lasted six weeks. The day on
       which the houses met again is one of the most remarkable
       epochs in our history. From that day dates the corporate
       existence of the two great parties which have ever since
       alternately governed the country. ...
    {856}
       During the first months of the Long Parliament, the
       indignation excited by many years of lawless oppression was so
       strong and general that the House of Commons acted as one man.
       Abuse after abuse disappeared without a struggle. If a small
       minority of the representative body wished to retain the Star
       Chamber and the High Commission, that minority, overawed by
       the enthusiasm and by the numerical superiority of the
       reformers, contented itself with secretly regretting
       institutions which could not, with any hope of success, be
       openly defended. At a later period the Royalists found it
       convenient to antedate the separation between themselves and
       their opponents, and to attribute the Act which restrained the
       king from dissolving or proroguing the Parliament, the
       Triennial Act, the impeachment of the ministers, and the
       attainder of Strafford, to the faction which afterwards made
       war on the king. But no artifice could be more disingenuous.
       Everyone of those strong measures was actively promoted by the
       men who were afterwards foremost among the Cavaliers. No
       republican spoke of the long misgovernment of Charles more
       severely than Colepepper. The most remarkable speech in favour
       of the Triennial Bill was made by Digby. The impeachment of
       the Lord Keeper was moved by Falkland. The demand that the
       Lord Lieutenant should be kept close prisoner was made at the
       bar of the Lords by Hyde. Not till the law attainting
       Strafford was proposed did the signs of serious disunion
       become visible. Even against that law, a law which nothing but
       extreme necessity could justify, only about sixty members of
       the House of Commons voted. It is certain that Hyde was not in
       the minority, and that Falkland not only voted with the
       majority, but spoke strongly for the bill. Even the few who
       entertained a scruple about inflicting death by a
       retrospective enactment thought it necessary to express the
       utmost abhorrence of Strafford's character and administration.
       But under this apparent concord a great schism was latent; and
       when, in October 1641, the Parliament reassembled after a
       short recess, two hostile parties, essentially the same with
       those which, under different names, have ever since contended,
       and are still contending, for the direction of public affairs,
       appeared confronting each other. During some years they were
       designated as Cavaliers and Roundheads. They were subsequently
       called Tories and Whigs; nor does it seem that these
       appellations are likely soon to become obsolete."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 1.

       It was not until some months later, however, that the name of
       Roundheads was applied to the defenders of popular rights by
       their royalist adversaries.

          See ROUNDHEADS.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (November).
       The Grand Remonstrance.

       Early in November, 1641, the king being in Scotland, and news
       of the insurrection in Ireland having just reached London, the
       party of Pym, Hampden, and Cromwell "resolved on a great
       pitched battle between them and the opposition, which should
       try their relative strengths before the king's return; and
       they chose to fight this battle over a vast document, which
       they entitled 'A Declaration and Remonstrance of the State of
       the Kingdom,' but which has come to be known since as The
       Grand Remonstrance. ... The notion of a great general document
       which, under the name of 'A Remonstrance,' should present to
       the king in one view a survey of the principal evils that had
       crept into the kingdom in his own and preceding reigns, with a
       detection of their causes, and a specification of the
       remedies, had more than once been before the Commons. It had
       been first mooted by Lord Digby while the Parliament was not a
       week old. Again and again set aside for more immediate work, it
       had recurred to the leaders of the Movement party, just before
       the king's departure for Scotland, as likely to afford the
       broad battle-ground with the opposition then becoming
       desirable. 'A Remonstrance to be made, how we found the
       Kingdom and the Church, and how the state of it now stands,'
       such was the description of the then intended document (August
       7). The document had doubtless been in rehearsal through the
       Recess, for on the 8th of November the rough draft of it was
       presented to the House and read at the clerk's table. When we
       say that the document in its final form occupies thirteen
       folio pages of rather close print in Rushworth, and consists
       of a preamble followed by 206 articles or paragraphs duly
       numbered, one can conceive what a task the reading of even the
       first draft of it must have been, and through what a storm of
       successive debates over proposed amendments and additions it
       reached completeness. There had been no such debates yet in
       the Parliament."

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          volume 2, book 2, chapter 6.

       "It [The Grand Remonstrance] embodies the case of the
       Parliament against the Ministers of the king. It is the most
       authentic statement ever put forth of the wrongs endured by
       all classes of the English people, during the first fifteen
       years of the reign of Charles I.; and, for that reason, the
       most complete justification upon record of the Great
       Rebellion." The debates on The Grand Remonstrance were begun
       November 9 and ended November 22, when the vote was taken:
       Ayes, 159.--Noes, 148.--So evenly were the parties in the
       great struggle then divided.

          J. Forster,
          History and Biographical Essays,
          volume 1: Debates on the Grand Remonstrance.

       The following is the text of "The Grand Remonstrance," with
       that of the Petition preceding it:

       "Most Gracious Sovereign: Your Majesty's most humble and
       faithful subjects the Commons in this present Parliament
       assembled, do with much thankfulness and joy acknowledge the
       great mercy and favour of God, in giving your Majesty a safe
       and peaceable return out of Scotland into your kingdom of
       England, where the pressing dangers and distempers of the
       State have caused us with much earnestness to desire the
       comfort of your gracious presence, and likewise the unity and
       justice of your royal authority, to give more life and power
       to the dutiful and loyal counsels and endeavours of your
       Parliament, for the prevention of that eminent ruin and
       destruction wherein your kingdoms of England and Scotland are
       threatened. The duty which we owe to your Majesty and our
       country, cannot but make us very sensible and apprehensive,
       that the multiplicity, sharpness and malignity of those evils
       under which we have now many years suffered, are fomented and
       cherished by a corrupt and ill-affected party, who amongst
       other their mischievous devices for the alteration of religion
       and government, have sought by many false scandals and
       imputations, cunningly insinuated and dispersed amongst the
       people, to blemish and disgrace our proceedings in this
       Parliament, and to get themselves a party and faction amongst
       your subjects, for the better strengthening themselves in
       their wicked courses; and hindering those provisions and
       remedies which might, by the wisdom of your Majesty and
       counsel of your Parliament, be opposed against them.
    {857}
       For preventing whereof, and the better information of your
       Majesty, your Peers and all other your loyal subjects, we have
       been necessitated to make a declaration of the state of the
       kingdom, both before and since the assembly of this
       Parliament, unto this time, which we do humbly present to your
       Majesty, without the least intention to lay any blemish upon
       your royal person, but only to represent how your royal
       authority and trust have been abused, to the great prejudice
       and danger of your Majesty, and of all your good subjects. And
       because we have reason to believe that those malignant
       parties, whose proceedings evidently appear to be mainly for
       the advantage and increase of Popery, is composed, set up, and
       acted by the subtile practice of the Jesuits and other
       engineers and factors for Rome, and to the great danger of
       this kingdom, and most grievous affliction of your loyal
       subjects, have so far prevailed as to corrupt divers of your
       Bishops and others in prime places of the Church, and also to
       bring divers of these instruments to be of your Privy Council,
       and other employments of trust and nearness about your
       Majesty, the Prince, and the rest of your royal children. And
       by this means have had such an operation in your counsel and
       the most important affairs and proceedings of your government,
       that a most dangerous division and chargeable preparation for
       war betwixt your kingdoms of England and Scotland, the
       increase of jealousies betwixt your Majesty and your most
       obedient subjects, the violent distraction and interruption of
       this Parliament, the insurrection of the Papists in your
       kingdom of Ireland, and bloody massacre of your people, have
       been not only endeavoured and attempted, but in a great
       measure compassed and effected. For preventing the final
       accomplishment whereof, your poor subjects are enforced to
       engage their persons and estates to the maintaining of a very
       expensive and dangerous war, notwithstanding they have already
       since the beginning of this Parliament undergone the charge of
       £150,000 sterling, or thereabouts, for the necessary support
       and supply of your Majesty in these present and perilous
       designs. And because all our most faithful endeavours and
       engagements will be ineffectual for the peace, safety and
       preservation of your Majesty and your people, if some present,
       real and effectual course be not taken for suppressing this
       wicked and malignant party:--We, your most humble and obedient
       subjects, do with all faithfulness and humility beseech your
       Majesty,

       1. That you will be graciously pleased to concur with the
       humble desires of your people in a parliamentary way, for the
       preserving the peace and safety of the kingdom from the
       malicious designs of the Popish party:

          For depriving the Bishops of their votes in Parliament, and
          abridging their immoderate power usurped over the Clergy,
          and other your good subjects, which they have perniciously
          abused to the hazard of religion, and great prejudice and
          oppression of the laws of the kingdom, and just liberty of
          your people:

          For the taking away such oppressions in religion, Church
          government and discipline, as have been brought in and
          fomented by them;

          For uniting all such your loyal subjects together as join
          in the same fundamental truths against the Papists, by
          removing some oppressions and unnecessary ceremonies by
          which divers weak consciences have been scrupled, and seem
          to be divided from the rest, and for the due execution of
          those good laws which have been made for securing the
          liberty of your subjects.

       2. That your Majesty will likewise be pleased to remove from
       your council all such as persist to favour and promote any of
       those pressures and corruptions wherewith your people have
       been grieved, and that for the future your Majesty will
       vouchsafe to employ such persons in your great and public
       affairs, and to take such to be near you in places of trust,
       as your Parliament may have cause to confide in; that in your
       princely goodness to your people you will reject and refuse
       all mediation and solicitation to the contrary, how powerful
       and near soever.

       3. That you will be pleased to forbear to alienate any of the
       forfeited and escheated lands in Ireland which shall accrue to
       your Crown by reason of this rebellion, that out of them the
       Crown may be the better supported, and some satisfaction made
       to your subjects of this kingdom for the great expenses they
       are like to undergo [in] this war. Which humble desires of
       ours being graciously fulfilled by your Majesty, we will, by
       the blessing and favour of God, most cheerfully undergo the
       hazard and expenses of this war, and apply ourselves to such
       other courses and counsels as may support your real estate
       with honour and plenty at home, with power and reputation
       abroad, and by our loyal affections, obedience and service,
       lay a sure and lasting foundation of the greatness and
       prosperity of your Majesty, and your royal prosperity in
       future times.

       The Commons in this present Parliament assembled, having with
       much earnestness and faithfulness of affection and zeal to the
       public good of this kingdom, and His Majesty's honour and
       service for the space of twelve months, wrestled with great
       dangers and fears, the pressing miseries and calamities, the
       various distempers and disorders which had not only assaulted,
       but even overwhelmed and extinguished the liberty, peace and
       prosperity of this kingdom, the comfort and hopes of all His
       Majesty's good subjects, and exceedingly weakened and
       undermined the foundation and strength of his own royal
       throne, do yet find an abounding malignity and opposition in
       those parties and factions who have been the cause of those
       evils, and do still labour to cast aspersions upon that which
       hath been done, and to raise many difficulties for the
       hindrance of that which remains yet undone, and to foment
       jealousies between the King and Parliament, that so they may
       deprive him and his people of the fruit of his own gracious
       intentions, and their humble desires of procuring the public
       peace, safety and happiness of this realm. For the preventing
       of those miserable effects which such malicious endeavours may
       produce, we have thought good to declare the root and the
       growth of these mischievous designs: the maturity and ripeness
       to which they have attained before the beginning of the
       Parliament: the effectual means which have been used for the
       extirpation of those dangerous evils, and the progress which
       hath therein been made by His Majesty's goodness and the
       wisdom of the Parliament: the ways of obstruction and
       opposition by which that progress hath been interrupted: the
       courses to be taken for the removing those obstacles, and for
       the accomplishing of our most dutiful and faithful intentions
       and endeavours of restoring and establishing the ancient
       honour, greatness and security of this Crown and nation.
    {858}
       The root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and
       pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and
       principles of government, upon which the religion and justice
       of this kingdom are firmly established. The actors and
       promoters hereof have been:

       1. The Jesuited Papists, who hate the laws, as the obstacles
       of that change and subversion of religion which they so much
       long for.

       2. The Bishops, and the corrupt part of the Clergy, who
       cherish formality and superstition as the natural effects and
       more probable supports of their own ecclesiastical tyranny and
       usurpation.

       3. Such Councillors and Courtiers as for private ends have
       engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign
       princes or states to the prejudice of His Majesty and the
       State at home. The common principles by which they moulded and
       governed all their particular counsels and actions were these:
       First, to maintain continual differences and discontents
       between the King and the people, upon questions of prerogative
       and liberty, that so they might have the advantage of siding
       with him, and under the notions of men addicted to his
       service, gain to themselves and their parties the places of
       greatest trust and power in the kingdom. A second, to suppress
       the purity and power of religion, and such persons as were
       best affected to it, as being contrary to their own ends, and
       the greatest impediment to that change which they thought to
       introduce. A third, to conjoin those parties of the kingdom
       which were most propitious to their own ends, and to divide
       those who were most opposite, which consisted in many
       particular observations. To cherish the Arminian part in those
       points wherein they agree with the Papists, to multiply and
       enlarge the difference between the common Protestants and
       those whom they call Puritans, to introduce and countenance
       such opinions and ceremonies as are fittest for accommodation
       with Popery, to increase and maintain ignorance, looseness and
       profaneness in the people; that of those three parties,
       Papists, Arminians and Libertines, they might compose a body
       fit to act such counsels and resolutions as were most
       conducible to their own ends. A fourth, to disaffect the King
       to Parliaments by slander and false imputations, and by
       putting him upon other ways of supply, which in show and
       appearance were fuller of advantage than the ordinary course
       of subsidies, though in truth they brought more loss than gain
       both to the King and people, and have caused the great
       distractions under which we both suffer. As in all compounded
       bodies the operations are qualified according to the
       predominant element, so in this mixed party, the Jesuited
       counsels, being most active and prevailing, may easily be
       discovered to have had the greatest sway in all their
       determinations, and if they be not prevented, are likely to
       devour the rest, or to turn them into their own nature. In the
       beginning of His Majesty's reign the party began to revive and
       flourish again, having been somewhat damped by the breach with
       Spain in the last year of King James, and by His Majesty's
       marriage with France; the interests and counsels of that State
       being not so contrary to the good of religion and the
       prosperity of this kingdom as those of Spain; and the Papists
       of England, having been ever more addicted to Spain than
       France, yet they still retained a purpose and resolution to
       weaken the Protestant parties in all parts, and even in
       France, whereby to make way for the change of religion which
       they intended at home.

       1. The first effect and evidence of their recovery and
       strength was the dissolution of the Parliament at Oxford,
       after there had been given two subsidies to His Majesty, and
       before they received relief in any one grievance many other
       more miserable effects followed.

       2. The loss of the Rochel fleet, by the help of our shipping,
       set forth and delivered over to the French in opposition to
       the advice of Parliament, which left that town without defence
       by sea, and made way, not only to the loss of that important
       place, but likewise to the loss of all the strength and
       security of the Protestant religion in France.

       3. The diverting of His Majesty's course of wars from the West
       Indies, which was the most facile and hopeful way for this
       kingdom to prevail against the Spaniard, to an expenseful and
       successless attempt upon Cadiz, which was so ordered as if it
       had rather been intended to make us weary of war than to
       prosper in it.

       4. The precipitate breach with France, by taking their ships
       to a great value without making recompense to the English,
       whose goods were thereupon imbarred and confiscated in that
       kingdom.

       5. The peace with Spain without consent of Parliament,
       contrary to the promise of King James to both Houses, whereby
       the Palatine's cause was deserted and left to chargeable and
       hopeless treaties, which for the most part were managed by
       those who might justly be suspected to be no friends to that
       cause.

       6. The charging of the kingdom with billeted soldiers in all
       parts of it, and the concomitant design of German horse, that
       the land might either submit with fear or be enforced with
       rigour to such arbitrary contributions as should be required
       of them.

       7. The dissolving of the Parliament in the second year of His
       Majesty's reign, after a declaration of their intent to grant
       five subsidies.

       8. The exacting of the like proportion of five subsidies,
       after the Parliament dissolved, by commission of loan, and
       divers gentlemen and others imprisoned for not yielding to pay
       that loan, whereby many of them contracted such sicknesses as
       cost them their lives.

       9. Great sums of money required and raised by privy seals.

       10. An unjust and pernicious attempt to extort great payments
       from the subject by way of excise, and a commission issued
       under the seal to that purpose.

       11. The Petition of Right, which was granted in full
       Parliament, blasted, with an illegal declaration to make it
       destructive to itself, to the power of Parliament, to the
       liberty of the subject, and to that purpose printed with it,
       and the Petition made of no use but to show the bold and
       presumptuous injustice of such ministers as durst break the
       laws and suppress the liberties of the kingdom, after they had
       been so solemnly and evidently declared.

       12. Another Parliament dissolved 4 Car., the privilege of
       Parliament broken, by imprisoning divers members of the House,
       detaining them close prisoners for many months together,
       without the liberty of using books, pen, ink or paper; denying
       them all the comforts of life, all means of preservation of
       health, not permitting their wives to come unto them even in
       the time of their sickness.

    {859}

       13. And for the completing of that cruelty, after years spent
       in such miserable durance, depriving them of the necessary
       means of spiritual consolation, not suffering them to go
       abroad to enjoy God's ordinances in God's House, or God's
       ministers to come to them to minister comfort to them in their
       private chambers.

       14. And to keep them still in this oppressed condition, not
       admitting them to be bailed according to law, yet vexing them
       with informations in inferior courts, sentencing and fining
       some of them for matters done in Parliament; and extorting the
       payments of those fines from them, enforcing others to put in
       security of good behaviour before they could be released.

       15. The imprisonment of the rest, which refused to be bound,
       still continued, which might have been perpetual if necessity
       had not the last year brought another Parliament to relieve
       them, of whom one died [Sir John Eliot] by the cruelty and
       harshness of his imprisonment, which would admit of no
       relaxation, notwithstanding the imminent danger of his life,
       did sufficiently appear by the declaration of his physician,
       and his release, or at least his refreshment, was sought by
       many humble petitions, and his blood still cries either for
       vengeance or repentance of those Ministers of State, who have
       at once obstructed the course both of His Majesty's justice
       and mercy.

       16. Upon the dissolution of both these Parliaments, untrue and
       scandalous declarations were published to asperse their
       proceedings, and some of their members unjustly; to make them
       odious, and colour the violence which was used against them;
       proclamations set out to the same purpose; and to the great
       dejecting of the hearts of the people, forbidding them even to
       speak of Parliaments.

       17. After the breach of the Parliament in the fourth of His
       Majesty, injustice, oppression and violence broke in upon us
       without any restraint or moderation, and yet the first project
       was the great sums exacted through the whole kingdom for
       default of knighthood, which seemed to have some colour and
       shadow of a law, yet if it be rightly examined by that
       obsolete law which was pretended for it, it will be found to
       be against all the rules of justice, both in respect of the
       persons charged, the proportion of the fines demanded, and the
       absurd and unreasonable manner of their proceedings.

       18. Tonnage and Poundage hath been received without colour or
       pretence of law; many other heavy impositions continued
       against law, and some so unreasonable that the sum of the
       charge exceeds the value of the goods.

       19. The Book of Rates lately enhanced to a high proportion,
       and such merchants that would not submit to their illegal and
       unreasonable payments, were vexed and oppressed above measure;
       and the ordinary course of justice, the common birthright of
       the subject of England, wholly obstructed unto them.

       20. And although all this was taken upon pretence of guarding
       the seas, yet a new unheard-of tax of ship-money was devised,
       and upon the same pretence, by both which there was charged
       upon the subject near £700,000 some years, and yet the
       merchants have been left so naked to the violence of the
       Turkish pirates, that many great ships of value and thousands
       of His Majesty's subjects have been taken by them, and do
       still remain in miserable slavery.

       21. The enlargements of forests, contrary to 'Carta de
       Foresta,' and the composition thereupon.

       22. The exactions of coat and conduct money and divers other
       military charges.

       23. The taking away the arms of trained bands of divers
       counties.

       24. The desperate design of engrossing all the gunpowder into
       one hand, keeping it in the Tower of London, and setting so
       high a rate upon it that the poorer sort were not able to buy
       it, nor could any have it without licence, thereby to leave
       the several parts of the kingdom destitute of their necessary
       defence, and by selling so dear that which was sold to make an
       unlawful advantage of it, to the great charge and detriment of
       the subject.

       25. The general destruction of the King's timber, especially
       that in the Forest of Deane, sold to Papists, which was the
       best store-house of this kingdom for the maintenance of our
       shipping.

       26. The taking away of men's right, under the colour of the
       King's title to land, between high and low water marks.

       27. The monopolies of soap, salt, wine, leather, sea-coal, and
       in a manner of all things of most common and necessary use.

       28. The restraint of the liberties of the subjects in their
       habitation, trades and other interests.

       29. Their vexation and oppression by purveyors, clerks of the
       market and saltpetre men.

       30. The sale of pretended nuisances, as building in and about
       London.

       31. Conversion of arable into pasture, continuance of pasture,
       under the name of depopulation, have driven many millions out
       of the subjects' purses, without any considerable profit to
       His Majesty.

       32. Large quantities of common and several grounds hath been
       taken from the subject by colour of the Statute of
       Improvement, and by abuse of the Commission of Sewers, without
       their consent, and against it.

       33. And not only private interest, but also public faith, have
       been broken in seizing of the money and bullion in the mint,
       and the whole kingdom like to be robbed at once in that
       abominable project of brass money.

       34. Great numbers of His Majesty's subjects for refusing those
       unlawful charges, have been vexed with long and expensive
       suits, some fined and censured, others committed to long and
       hard imprisonments and confinements, to the loss of health in
       many, of life in some, and others have had their houses broken
       up, their goods seized, some have been restrained from their
       lawful callings.

       35. Ships have been interrupted in their voyages, surprised at
       sea in a hostile manner by projectors, as by a common enemy.

       36. Merchants prohibited to unlade their goods in such ports
       as were for their own advantage, and forced to bring them to
       those places which were much for the advantage of the
       monopolisers and projectors.

    {860}

       37. The Court of Star Chamber hath abounded in extravagant
       censures, not only for the maintenance and improvement of
       monopolies and other unlawful taxes, but for divers other
       causes where there hath been no offence, or very small;
       whereby His Majesty's subjects have been oppressed by grievous
       fines, imprisonments, stigmatisings, mutilations, whippings,
       pillories, gags, confinements, banishments; after so rigid a
       manner as hath not only deprived men of the society of their
       friends, exercise of their professions, comfort of books, use
       of paper or ink, but even violated that near union which God
       hath established between men and their wives, by forced and
       constrained separation, whereby they have been bereaved of the
       comfort and conversation one of another for many years
       together, without hope of relief, if God had not by His
       overruling providence given some interruption to the
       prevailing power, and counsel of those who were the authors
       and promoters of such peremptory and heady courses.

       38. Judges have been put out of their places for refusing to
       do against their oaths and consciences; others have been so
       awed that they durst not do their duties, and the better to
       hold a rod over them, the clause 'Quam diu se bene gesserit'
       was left out of their patents, and a new clause 'Durante bene
       placito' inserted.

       39. Lawyers have been checked for being faithful to their
       clients; solicitors and attorneys have been threatened, and
       some punished, for following lawful suits. And by this means
       all the approaches to justice were interrupted and forecluded.

       40. New oaths have been forced upon the subject against law.

       41. New judicatories erected without law. The Council Table
       have by their orders offered to bind the subjects in their
       freeholds, estates, suits and actions.

       42. The pretended Court of the Earl Marshal was arbitrary and
       illegal in its being and proceedings.

       43. The Chancery, Exchequer Chamber, Court of Wards, and other
       English Courts, have been grievous in exceeding their
       jurisdiction.

       44. The estate of many families weakened, and some ruined by
       excessive fines, exacted from them for compositions of
       wardships.

       45. All leases of above a hundred years made to draw on
       wardship contrary to law.

       46. Undue proceedings used in the finding of offices to make
       the jury find for the King.

       47. The Common Law Courts, feeling all men more inclined to
       seek justice there, where it may be fitted to their own
       desire, are known frequently to forsake the rules of the
       Common Law, and straying beyond their bounds, under pretence
       of equity, to do injustice.

       48. Titles of honour, judicial places, sergeantships at law,
       and other offices have been sold for great sums of money,
       whereby the common justice of the kingdom hath been much
       endangered, not only by opening a way of employment in places
       of great trust, and advantage to men of weak parts, but also
       by giving occasion to bribery, extortion, partiality, it
       seldom happening that places ill-gotton are well used.

       49. Commissions have been granted for examining the excess of
       fees, and when great exactions have been discovered,
       compositions have been made with delinquents, not only for the
       time past, but likewise for immunity and security in offending
       for the time to come, which under colour of remedy hath but
       confirmed and increased the grievance to the subject.

       50. The usual course of pricking Sheriffs not observed, but
       many times Sheriffs made in an extraordinary way, sometimes as
       a punishment and charge unto them; sometimes such were pricked
       out as would be instruments to execute whatsoever they would
       have to be done.

       51. The Bishops and the rest of the Clergy did triumph in the
       suspensions, ex-communications, deprivations, and degradations
       of divers painful, learned and pious ministers, in the
       vexation and grievous oppression of great numbers of His
       Majesty's good subjects.

       52. The High Commission grew to such excess of sharpness and
       severity as was not much less than the Romish Inquisition, and
       yet in many cases by the Archbishop's power was made much more
       heavy, being assisted and strengthened by authority of the
       Council Table.

       53. The Bishops and their Courts were as eager in the country;
       although their jurisdiction could not reach so high in rigour
       and extremity of punishment, yet were they no less grievous in
       respect of the generality and multiplicity of vexations, which
       lighting upon the meaner sort of tradesmen and artificers did
       impoverish many thousands.

       54. And so afflict and trouble others, that great numbers to
       avoid their miseries departed out of the kingdom, some into
       New England and other parts of America, others into Holland.

       55. Where they have transported their manufactures of cloth,
       which is not only a loss by diminishing the present stock of
       the kingdom, but a great mischief by impairing and endangering
       the loss of that particular trade of clothing, which hath been
       a plentiful fountain of wealth and honour to this nation.

       56. Those were fittest for ecclesiastical preferment, and
       soonest obtained it, who were most officious in promoting
       superstition, most virulent in railing against godliness and
       honesty.

       57. The most public and solemn sermons before His Majesty were
       either to advance prerogative above law, and decry the
       property of the subject, or full of such kind of invectives.

       58. Whereby they might make those odious who sought to
       maintain the religion, laws and liberties of the kingdom, and
       such men were sure to be weeded out of the commission of the
       peace, and out of all other employments of power in the
       government of the country.

       59. Many noble personages were councillors in name, but the
       power and authority remained in a few of such as were most
       addicted to this party, whose resolutions and determinations
       were brought to the table for countenance and execution, and
       not for debate and deliberation, and no man could offer to
       oppose them without disgrace and hazard to himself.

       60. Nay, all those that did not wholly concur and actively
       contribute to the furtherance of their designs, though
       otherwise persons of never so great honour and abilities, were
       so far from being employed in any place of trust and power,
       that they were neglected, discountenanced, and upon all
       occasions injured and oppressed.

       61. This faction was grown to that height and entireness of
       power, that now they began to think of finishing their work,
       which consisted of these three parts.

       62. I. The government must be set free from all restraint of
       laws concerning our persons and estates.

    {861}

       63. II. There must be a conjunction between Papists and
       Protestants in doctrine, discipline and ceremonies; only it
       must not yet be called Popery.

       64. III. The Puritans, under which name they include all those
       that desire to preserve the laws and liberties of the kingdom,
       and to maintain religion in the power of it, must be either
       rooted out of the kingdom with force, or driven out with fear.

       65. For the effecting of this it was thought necessary to
       reduce Scotland to such Popish superstitions and innovations
       as might make them apt to join with England in that great
       change which was intended.

       66. Whereupon new canons and a new liturgy were pressed upon
       them, and when they refused to admit of them, an army was
       raised to force them to it, towards which the Clergy and the
       Papists were very forward in their contribution.

       67. The Scots likewise raised an army for their defence.

       68. And when both armies were come together, and ready for a
       bloody encounter, His Majesty's own gracious disposition, and
       the counsel of the English nobility and dutiful submission of
       the Scots, did so far prevail against the evil counsel of
       others, that a pacification was made, and His Majesty returned
       with peace and much honour to London.

       69. The unexpected reconciliation was most acceptable to all
       the kingdom, except to the malignant party; whereof the
       Archbishop and the Earl of Strafford being heads, they and
       their faction begun to inveigh against the peace, and to
       aggravate the proceedings of the states, which so increased
       [incensed?] His Majesty, that he forthwith prepared again for
       war.

       70. And such was their confidence, that having corrupted and
       distempered the whole frame and government of the kingdom,
       they did now hope to corrupt that which was the only means to
       restore all to a right frame and temper again.

       71. To which end they persuaded His Majesty to call a
       Parliament, not to seek counsel and advice of them, but to
       draw countenance and supply from them, and to engage the whole
       kingdom in their quarrel.

       72. And in the meantime continued all their unjust levies of
       money, resolving either to make the Parliament pliant to their
       will, and to establish mischief by a law, or else to break it,
       and with more colour to go on by violence to take what they
       could not obtain by consent. The ground alleged for the
       justification of this war was this,

       73. That the undutiful demands of the Parliaments in Scotland
       was a sufficient reason for His Majesty to take arms against
       them, without hearing the reason of those demands, and
       thereupon a new army was prepared against them, their ships
       were seized in all ports both of England and Ireland, and at
       sea, their petitions rejected, their commissioners refused
       audience.

       74. The whole kingdom most miserably distempered with levies
       of men and money, and imprisonments of those who denied to
       submit to those levies.

       75. The Earl of Strafford passed into Ireland, caused the
       Parliament there to declare against the Scots, to give four
       subsidies towards that war, and to engage themselves, their
       lives and fortunes, for the prosecution of it, and gave
       directions for an army of eight thousand foot and one thousand
       horse to be levied there, which were for the most part
       Papists.

       76. The Parliament met upon the 13th of April, 1640. The Earl
       of Strafford and Archbishop of Canterbury, with their party,
       so prevailed with His Majesty, that the House of Commons was
       pressed to yield a supply for maintenance of the war with
       Scotland, before they had provided any relief for the great
       and pressing grievances of the people, which being against the
       fundamental privilege and proceeding of Parliament, was yet in
       humble respect to His Majesty, so far admitted as that they
       agreed to take the matter of supply into consideration, and
       two several days it was debated.

       77. Twelve subsidies were demanded for the release of
       ship-money alone, a third day was appointed for conclusion,
       when the heads of that party begun to fear the people might
       close with the King, in falsifying his desires of money; but
       that withal they were like to blast their malicious designs
       against Scotland, finding them very much indisposed to give
       any countenance to that war.

       78. Thereupon they wickedly advised the King to break off the
       Parliament and to return to the ways of confusion, in which
       their own evil intentions were most likely to prosper and
       succeed.

       79. After the Parliament ended the 5th of May, 1640, this
       party grew so bold as to counsel the King to supply himself
       out of his subjects' estates by his own power, at his own
       will, without their consent.

       80. The very next day some members of both Houses had their
       studies and cabinets, yea, their pockets searched: another of
       them not long after was committed close prisoner for not
       delivering some petitions which he received by authority of
       that House.

       81. And if harsher courses were intended (as was reported) it
       is very probable that the sickness of the Earl of Strafford,
       and the tumultuous rising in Southwark and about Lambeth were
       the causes that such violent intentions were not brought to
       execution.

       82. A false and scandalous Declaration against the House of
       Commons was published in His Majesty's name, which yet wrought
       little effect with the people, but only to manifest the
       impudence of those who were authors of it.

       83. A forced loan of money was attempted in the City of
       London.

       84. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen in their several wards,
       enjoined to bring in a list of the names of such persons as
       they judged fit to lend, and of the sums they should lend. And
       such Aldermen as refused to do so were committed to prison.

       85. The Archbishop and the other Bishops and Clergy continued
       the Convocation, and by a new commission turned it into a
       provincial Synod, in which, by an unheard-of presumption, they
       made canons that contain in them many matters contrary to the
       King's prerogative, to the fundamental laws and statutes of
       the realm, to the right of Parliaments, to the property and
       liberty of the subject, and matters tending to sedition and of
       dangerous consequence, thereby establishing their own
       usurpations, justifying their altar-worship, and those other
       superstitious innovations which they formerly introduced
       without warrant of law.

    {862}

       86. They imposed a new oath upon divers of His Majesty's
       subjects, both ecclesiastical and lay, for maintenance of
       their own tyranny, and laid a great tax on the Clergy, for
       supply of His Majesty, and generally they showed themselves
       very affectionate to the war with Scotland, which was by some
       of them styled 'Bellum Episeopale,' and a prayer composed and
       enjoined to be read in all churches, calling the Scots rebels,
       to put the two nations in blood and make them irreconcilable.

       87. All those pretended canons and constitutions were armed
       with the several censures of suspension, excommunication,
       deprivation, by which they would have thrust out all the good
       ministers, and most of the well-affected people of the
       kingdom, and left an easy passage to their own design of
       reconciliation with Rome.

       88. The Popish party enjoyed such exemptions from penal laws
       as amounted to a toleration, besides many other encouragements
       and Court favours.

       89. They had a Secretary of State, Sir Francis Windebanck, a
       powerful agent for speeding all their desires.

       90. A Pope's Nuncio residing here, to act and govern them
       according to such influences as he received from Rome, and to
       intercede for them with the most powerful concurrence of the
       foreign princes of that religion.

       91. By his authority the Papists of all sorts, nobility,
       gentry, and clergy were convocated after the manner of a
       Parliament.

       92. New jurisdictions were erected of Romish Archbishops,
       taxes levied, another state moulded within this state
       independent in government, contrary in interest and affection,
       secretly corrupting the ignorant or negligent professors of
       our religion, and closely uniting and combining themselves
       against such as were found in this posture, waiting for an
       opportunity by force to destroy those whom they could not hope
       to seduce.

       93. For the effecting whereof they were strengthened with arms
       and munitions, encouraged by superstitious prayers, enjoined
       by the Nuncio to be weekly made for the prosperity of some
       great design.

       94. And such power had they at Court, that secretly a
       commission was issued out, or intended to be issued to some
       great men of that profession, for the levying of soldiers, and
       to command and employ them according to private instructions,
       which we doubt were framed for the advantage of those who were
       the contrivers of them.

       95. His Majesty's treasure was consumed, his revenue
       anticipated.

       96. His servants and officers compelled to lend great sums of
       money.

       97. Multitudes were called to the Council Table, who were
       tired with long attendances there for refusing illegal
       payments.

       98. The prisons were filled with their commitments; many of
       the Sheriffs summoned into the Star Chamber, and some
       imprisoned for not being quick enough in levying the
       ship-money; the people languished under grief and fear, no
       visible hope being left but in desperation.

       99. The nobility began to weary of their silence and patience,
       and sensible of the duty and trust which belongs to them: and
       thereupon some of the most ancient of them did petition His
       Majesty at such a time, when evil counsels were so strong,
       that they had occasion to expect more hazard to themselves,
       than redress of those public evils for which they interceded.

       100. Whilst the kingdom was in this agitation and distemper,
       the Scots, restrained in their trades, impoverished by the
       loss of many of their ships, bereaved of all possibility of
       satisfying His Majesty by any naked supplication, entered with
       a powerful army into the kingdom, and without any hostile act
       or spoil in the country they passed, more than forcing a
       passage over the Tyne at Newburn, near Newcastle, possessed
       themselves of Newcastle, and had a fair opportunity to press
       on further upon the King's army.

       101. But duty and reverence to His Majesty, and brotherly love
       to the English nation, made them stay there, whereby the King
       had leisure to entertain better counsels.

       102. Wherein God so blessed and directed him that he summoned
       the Great Council of Peers to meet at York upon the 24th of
       September, and there declared a Parliament to begin the 3d of
       November then following.

       103. The Scots, the first day of the Great Council, presented
       an humble Petition to His Majesty, whereupon the Treaty was
       appointed at Ripon.

       104. A present cessation of arms agreed upon, and the full
       conclusion of all differences referred to the wisdom and care
       of the Parliament.

       105. At our first meeting, all oppositions seemed to vanish,
       the mischiefs were so evident which those evil counsellors
       produced, that no man durst stand up to defend them: yet the
       work itself afforded difficulty enough.

       106. The multiplied evils and corruption of fifteen years,
       strengthened by custom and authority, and the concurrent
       interest of many powerful delinquents, were now to be brought
       to judgment and reformation.

       107. The King's household was to be provided for:--they had
       brought him to that want, that he could not supply his
       ordinary and necessary expenses without the assistance of his
       people.

       108. Two armies were to be paid, which amounted very near to
       eighty thousand pounds a month.

       109. The people were to be tenderly charged, having been
       formerly exhausted with many burdensome projects.

       110. The difficulties seemed to be insuperable, which by the
       Divine Providence we have overcome. The contrarieties
       incompatible, which yet in a great measure we have reconciled.

       111. Six subsidies have been granted and a Bill of poll-money,
       which if it be duly levied, may equal six subsidies more, in
       all £600,000.

       112. Besides we have contracted a debt to the Scots of
       £220,000, yet God hath so blessed the endeavours of this
       Parliament, that the kingdom is a great gainer by all these
       charges.

       113. The ship-money is abolished, which cost the kingdom about
       £200,000 a year.

       114. The coat and conduct-money, and other military charges
       are taken away, which in many countries amounted to little
       less than the ship-money.

       115. The monopolies are all suppressed, whereof some few did
       prejudice the subject, above £1,000,000 yearly.

       116. The soap £100,000.

       117. The wine £300,000.

       118. The leather must needs exceed both, and salt could be no
       less than that.

    {863}

       119. Besides the inferior monopolies, which, if they could be
       exactly computed, would make up a great sum.

       120. That which is more beneficial than all this is, that the
       root of these evils is taken away, which was the arbitrary
       power pretended to be in His Majesty of taxing the subject, or
       charging their estates without consent in Parliament, which is
       now declared to be against law by the judgment of both Houses,
       and likewise by an Act of Parliament.

       121. Another step of great advantage is this, the living
       grievances, the evil counsellors and actors of these mischiefs
       have been so quelled.

       122. By the justice done upon the Earl of Strafford, the
       flight of the Lord Finch and Secretary Windebank.

       123. The accusation and imprisonment of the Archbishop of
       Canterbury, of Judge Berkeley; and

       124. The impeachment of divers other Bishops and Judges, that
       it is like not only to be an ease to the present times, but a
       preservation to the future.

       125. The discontinuance of Parliaments is prevented by the
       Bill for a triennial Parliament, and the abrupt dissolution of
       this Parliament by another Bill, by which it is provided it
       shall not be dissolved or adjourned without the consent of
       both Houses.

       126. Which two laws well considered may be thought more
       advantageous than all the former, because they secure a full
       operation of the present remedy, and afford a perpetual spring
       of remedies for the future.

       127. The Star Chamber.

       128. The High Commission.

       129. The Courts of the President and Council in the North were
       so many forges of misery, oppression and violence, and are all
       taken away, whereby men are more secured in their persons,
       liberties and estates, than they could be by any law or
       example for the regulation of those Courts or terror of the
       Judges.

       130. The immoderate power of the Council Table, and the
       excessive abuse of that power is so ordered and restrained,
       that we may well hope that no such things as were frequently
       done by them, to the prejudice of the public liberty, will
       appear in future times but only in stories, to give us and our
       posterity more occasion to praise God for His Majesty's
       goodness, and the faithful endeavours of this Parliament.

       131. The canons and power of canon-making are blasted by the
       votes of both Houses.

       132. The exorbitant power of Bishops and their courts are much
       abated, by some provisions in the Bill against the High
       Commission Court, the authors of the many innovations in
       doctrine and ceremonies.

       133. The ministers that have been scandalous in their lives,
       have been so terrified in just complaints and accusations,
       that we may well hope they will be more modest for the time to
       come; either inwardly convicted by the sight of their own
       folly, or outwardly restrained by the fear of punishment.

       134. The forests are by a good law reduced to their right
       bounds.

       135. The encroachments and oppressions of the Stannary Courts,
       the extortions of the clerk of the market.

       136. And the compulsion of the subject to receive the Order of
       Knighthood against his will, paying of fines for not receiving
       it, and the vexatious proceedings thereupon for levying of
       those fines, are by other beneficial laws reformed and
       prevented.

       137. Many excellent laws and provisions are in preparation for
       removing the inordinate power, vexation and usurpation of
       Bishops, for reforming the pride and idleness of many of the
       clergy, for easing the people of unnecessary ceremonies in
       religion, for censuring and removing unworthy and unprofitable
       ministers, and for maintaining godly and diligent preachers
       through the kingdom.

       138. Other things of main importance for the good of this
       kingdom are in proposition, though little could hitherto be
       done in regard of the many other more pressing businesses,
       which yet before the end of this Session we hope may receive
       some progress and perfection.

       139. The establishing and ordering the King's revenue, that so
       the abuse of officers and superfluity of expenses may be cut
       off, and the necessary disbursements for His Majesty's honour,
       the defence and government of the kingdom, may be more
       certainly provided for.

       140. The regulating of courts of justice, and abridging both
       the delays and charges of lawsuits.

       141. The settling of some good courses for preventing the
       exportation of gold and silver, and the inequality of
       exchanges between us and other nations, for the advancing of
       native commodities, increase of our manufactures, and well
       balancing of trade, whereby the stock of the kingdom may be
       increased, or at least kept from impairing, as through neglect
       hereof it hath done for many years last past.

       142. Improving the herring-fishing upon our coasts, which will
       be of mighty use in the employment of the poor, and a
       plentiful nursery of mariners for enabling the kingdom in any
       great action.

       143. The oppositions, obstructions and other difficulties
       wherewith we have been encountered, and which still lie in our
       way with some strength and much obstinacy, are these: the
       malignant party whom we have formerly described to be the
       actors and promoters of all our misery, they have taken heart
       again.

       144. They have been able to prefer some of their own factors
       and agents to degrees of honour, to places of trust and
       employment, even during the Parliament.

       145. They have endeavoured to work in His Majesty ill
       impressions and opinions of our proceedings, as if we had
       altogether done our own work, and not his; and had obtained
       from him many things very prejudicial to the Crown, both in
       respect of prerogative and profit.

       146. To wipe out this slander we think good only to say thus
       much: that all that we have done is for His Majesty, his
       greatness, honour and support, when we yield to give £25,000 a
       month for the relief of the Northern Counties; this was given
       to the King, for he was bound to protect his subjects.

       147. They were His Majesty's evil counsellors, and their ill
       instruments that were actors in those grievances which brought
       in the Scots.

       148. And if His Majesty please to force those who were the
       authors of this war to make satisfaction, as he might justly
       and easily do, it seems very reasonable that the people might
       well be excused from taking upon them this burden, being
       altogether innocent and free from being any cause of it.

    {864}

       149. When we undertook the charge of the army, which cost
       above £50,000 a month, was not this given to the King? Was it
       not His Majesty's army? Were not all the commanders under
       contract with His Majesty, at higher rates and greater wages
       than ordinary?

       150. And have not we taken upon us to discharge all the
       brotherly assistance of £300,000, which we gave the Scots? Was
       it not toward repair of those damages and losses which they
       received from the King's ships and from his ministers?

       151. These three particulars amount to above £1,100,000.

       152. Besides, His Majesty hath received by impositions upon
       merchandise at least £400,000.

       153. So that His Majesty hath had out of the subjects' purse
       since the Parliament began, £1,500,000 and yet these men can
       be so impudent as to tell His Majesty that we have done
       nothing for him.

       154. As to the second branch of this slander, we acknowledge
       with much thankfulness that His Majesty hath passed more good
       Bills to the advantage of the subjects than have been in many
       ages.

       155. But withal we cannot forget that these venomous councils
       did manifest themselves in some endeavours to hinder these
       good acts.

       156. And for both Houses of Parliament we may with truth and
       modesty say thus much: that we have ever been careful not to
       desire anything that should weaken the Crown either in just
       profit or useful power.

       157. The triennial Parliament for the matter of it, doth not
       extend to so much as by law we ought to have required (there
       being two statutes still in force for a Parliament to be once
       a year), and for the manner of it, it is in the King's power
       that it shall never take effect, if he by a timely summons
       shall prevent any other way of assembling.

       158. In the Bill for continuance of this present Parliament,
       there seems to be some restraint of the royal power in
       dissolving of Parliaments, not to take it out of the Crown,
       but to suspend the execution of it for this time and occasion
       only: which was so necessary for the King's own security and
       the public peace, that without it we could not have undertaken
       any of these great charges, but must have left both the armies
       to disorder and confusion, and the whole kingdom to blood and
       rapine.

       159. The Star Chamber was much more fruitful in oppression
       than in profit, the great fines being for the most part given
       away, and the rest stalled at long times.

       160. The fines of the High Commission were in themselves
       unjust, and seldom or never came into the King's purse. These
       four Bills are particularly and more specially instanced.

       161. In the rest there will not be found so much as a shadow
       of prejudice to the Crown.

       162. They have sought to diminish our reputation with the
       people, and to bring them out of love with Parliaments.

       163. The aspersions which they have attempted this way have
       been such as these:

       164. That we have spent much time and done little, especially
       in those grievances which concern religion.

       165. That the Parliament is a burden to the kingdom by the
       abundance of protections which hinder justice and trade; and
       by many subsidies granted much more heavy than any formerly
       endured.

       166. To which there is a ready answer; if the time spent in
       this Parliament be considered in relation backward to the long
       growth and deep root of those grievances, which we have
       removed, to the powerful supports of those delinquents, which
       we have pursued, to the great necessities and other charges of
       the commonwealth for which we have provided.

       167. Or if it be considered in relation forward to many
       advantages, which not only the present but future ages are
       like to reap by the good laws and other proceedings in this
       Parliament, we doubt not but it will be thought by all
       indifferent judgments, that our time hath been much better
       employed than in a far greater proportion of time in many
       former Parliaments put together; and the charges which have
       been laid upon the subject, and the other inconveniences which
       they have borne, will seem very light in respect of the
       benefit they have and may receive.

       168. And for the matter of protections, the Parliament is so
       sensible of it that therein they intended to give them
       whatsoever ease may stand with honour and justice, and are in
       a way of passing a Bill to give them satisfaction.

       169. They have sought by many subtle practices to cause
       jealousies and divisions betwixt us and our brethren of
       Scotland, by slandering their proceedings and intentions
       towards us, and by secret endeavours to instigate and incense
       them and us one against another.

       170. They have had such a party of Bishops and Popish lords in
       the House of Peers, as hath caused much opposition and delay
       in the prosecution of delinquents, hindered the proceedings of
       divers good Bills passed in the Commons' House, concerning the
       reformation of sundry great abuses and corruptions both in
       Church and State.

       171. They have laboured to seduce and corrupt some of the
       Commons' House to draw them into conspiracies and combinations
       against the liberty of the Parliament.

       172. And by their instruments and agents they have attempted
       to disaffect and discontent His Majesty's army, and to engage
       it for the maintenance of their wicked and traitorous designs;
       the keeping up of Bishops in votes and functions, and by force
       to compel the Parliament to order, limit and dispose their
       proceedings in such manner as might best concur with the
       intentions of this dangerous and potent faction.

       173. And when one mischievous design and attempt of theirs to
       bring on the army against the Parliament and the City of
       London, hath been discovered and prevented;

       174. They presently undertook another of the same damnable
       nature, with this addition to it, to endeavour to make the
       Scottish army neutral, whilst the English army, which they had
       laboured to corrupt and envenom against us by their false and
       slanderous suggestions, should execute their malice to the
       subversion of our religion and the dissolution of our
       government.

       175. Thus they have been continually practising to disturb the
       peace, and plotting the destruction even of all the King's
       dominions; and have employed their emissaries and agents in
       them, all for the promoting their devilish designs, which the
       vigilancy of those who were well affected hath still
       discovered and defeated before they were ripe for execution in
       England and Scotland.

    {865}

       176. Only in Ireland, which was farther off, they have had
       time and opportunity to mould and prepare their work, and had
       brought it to that perfection that they had possessed
       themselves of that whole kingdom, totally subverted the
       government of it, routed out religion, and destroyed all the
       Protestants whom the conscience of their duty to God, their
       King and country, would not have permitted to join with them,
       if by God's wonderful providence their main enterprise upon
       the city and castle of Dublin, had not been detected and
       prevented upon the very eve before it should have been
       executed.

       177. Notwithstanding they have in other parts of that kingdom
       broken out into open rebellion, surprising towns and castles,
       committed murders, rapes and other villainies, and shaken off
       all bonds of obedience to His Majesty and the laws of the
       realm.

       178. And in general have kindled such a fire, as nothing but
       God's infinite blessing upon the wisdom and endeavours of this
       State will be able to quench it.

       179. And certainly had not God in His great mercy unto this
       land discovered and confounded their former designs, we had
       been the prologue to this tragedy in Ireland, and had by this
       been made the lamentable spectacle of misery and confusion.

       180. And now what hope have we but in God, when as the only
       means of our subsistence and power of reformation is under Him
       in the Parliament?

       181. But what can we the Commons, without the conjunction of
       the House of Lords, and what conjunction can we expect there,
       when the Bishops and recusant lords are so numerous and
       prevalent that they are able to cross and interrupt our best
       endeavours for reformation, and by that means give advantage
       to this malignant party to traduce our proceedings?

       182. They infuse into the people that we mean to abolish all
       Church government, and leave every man to his own fancy for
       the service and worship of God, absolving him of that
       obedience which he owes under God unto His Majesty, whom we
       know to be entrusted with the ecclesiastical law as well as
       with the temporal, to regulate all the members of the Church
       of England, by such rules of order and discipline as are
       established by Parliament, which is his great council in all
       affairs both in Church and State.

       183. We confess our intention is, and our endeavours have
       been, to reduce within bounds that exorbitant power which the
       prelates have assumed unto themselves, so contrary both to the
       Word of God and to the laws of the land, to which end we
       passed the Bill for the removing them from their temporal
       power and employments, that so the better they might with
       meekness apply themselves to the discharge of their functions,
       which Bill themselves opposed, and were the principal
       instruments of crossing it.

       184. And we do here declare that it is far from our purpose or
       desire to let loose the golden reins of discipline and
       government in the Church, to leave private persons or
       particular congregations to take up what form of Divine
       Service they please, for we hold it requisite that there
       should be throughout the whole realm a conformity to that
       order which the laws enjoin according to the Word of God. And
       we desire to unburden the consciences of men of needless and
       superstitious ceremonies, suppress innovations, and take away
       the monuments of idolatry.

       185. And the better to effect the intended reformation, we
       desire there may be a general synod of the most grave, pious,
       learned and judicious divines of this island; assisted with
       some from foreign parts, professing the same religion with us,
       who may consider of all things necessary for the peace and
       good government of the Church, and represent the results of
       their consultations unto the Parliament, to be there allowed
       of and confirmed, and receive the stamp of authority, thereby
       to find passage and obedience throughout the kingdom.

       186. They have maliciously charged us that we intend to
       destroy and discourage learning, whereas it is our chiefest
       care and desire to advance it, and to provide a competent
       maintenance for conscionable and preaching ministers
       throughout the kingdom, which will be a great encouragement to
       scholars, and a certain means whereby the want, meanness and
       ignorance, to which a great part of the clergy is now subject,
       will be prevented.

       187. And we intended likewise to reform and purge the
       fountains of learning, the two Universities, that the streams
       flowing from thence may be clear and pure, and an honour and
       comfort to the whole land.

       188. They have strained to blast our proceedings in
       Parliament, by wresting the interpretations of our orders from
       their genuine intention.

       189. They tell the people that our meddling with the power of
       episcopacy hath caused sectaries and conventicles, when
       idolatrous and Popish ceremonies, introduced into the Church
       by the command of the Bishops have not only debarred the
       people from thence, but expelled them from the kingdom.

       190. Thus with Elijah, we are called by this malignant party
       the troublers of the State, and still, while we endeavour to
       reform their abuses, they make us the authors of those
       mischiefs we study to prevent.

       191. For the perfecting of the work begun, and removing all
       future impediments, we conceive these courses will be very
       effectual, seeing the religion of the Papists hath such
       principles as do certainly tend to the destruction and
       extirpation of all Protestants, when they shall have
       opportunity to effect it.

       192. It is necessary in the first place to keep them in such
       condition as that they may not be able to do us any hurt, and
       for avoiding of such connivance and favour as hath heretofore
       been shown unto them.

       193. That His Majesty be pleased to grant a standing
       Commission to some choice men named in Parliament, who may
       take notice of their increase, their counsels and proceedings,
       and use all due means by execution of the laws to prevent all
       mischievous designs against the peace and safety of this
       kingdom.

       194. Thus some good course be taken to discover the
       counterfeit and false conformity of Papists to the Church, by
       colour whereof persons very much disaffected to the true
       religion have been admitted into place of greatest authority
       and trust in the kingdom.

    {866}

       195. For the better preservation of the laws and liberties of
       the kingdom, that all illegal grievances and exactions be
       presented and punished at the sessions and assizes.

       196. And that Judges and Justices be very careful to give this
       in charge to the grand jury, and both the Sheriff and Justices
       to be sworn to the due execution of the Petition of Right and
       other laws.

       197. That His Majesty be humbly petitioned by both Houses to
       employ such counsellors, ambassadors and other ministers, in
       managing his business at home and abroad as the Parliament may
       have cause to confide in, without which we cannot give His
       Majesty such supplies for support of his own estate, nor such
       assistance to the Protestant party beyond the sea, as is
       desired.

       198. It may often fall out that the Commons may have just
       cause to take exceptions at some men for being councillors,
       and yet not charge those men with crimes, for there be grounds
       of diffidence which lie not in proof.

       199. There are others, which though they may be proved, yet
       are not legally criminal.

       200. To be a known favourer of Papists, or to have been very
       forward in defending or countenancing some great offenders
       questioned in Parliament; or to speak contemptuously of either
       Houses of Parliament or Parliamentary proceedings.

       201. Or such as are factors or agents for any foreign prince
       of another religion; such are justly suspected to get
       councillors' places, or any other of trust concerning public
       employment for money; for all these and divers others we may
       have great reason to be earnest with His Majesty, not to put
       his great affairs into such hands, though we may be unwilling
       to proceed against them in any legal way of charge or
       impeachment.

       202. That all Councillors of State may be sworn to observe
       those laws which concern the subject in his liberty, that they
       may likewise take an oath not to receive or give reward or
       pension from any foreign prince, but such as they shall within
       some reasonable time discover to the Lords of His Majesty's
       Council.

       203. And although they should wickedly forswear themselves,
       yet it may herein do good to make them known to be false and
       perjured to those who employ them, and thereby bring them into
       as little credit with them as with us.

       204. That His Majesty may have cause to be in love with good
       counsel and good men, by shewing him in an humble and dutiful
       manner how full of advantage it would be to himself, to see
       his own estate settled in a plentiful condition to support his
       honour; to see his people united in ways of duty to him, and
       endeavours of the public good; to see happiness, wealth, peace
       and safety derived to his own kingdom, and procured to his
       allies by the influence of his own power and government."

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY).
       The King's attempt against the Five Members.

       On the 3d of January, "the king was betrayed into ... an
       indiscretion to which all the ensuing disorders and civil wars
       ought immediately and directly to be ascribed. This was the
       impeachment of Lord Kimbolton and the five members. ...
       Herbert, attorney-general, appeared in the House of Peers,
       and, in his majesty's name, entered an accusation of high
       treason against Lord Kimbolton and five commoners, Hollis, Sir
       Arthur Hazlerig, Hambden, Pym, and Strode. The articles were,
       That they had traitorously endeavoured to subvert the
       fundamental laws and government of the kingdom, to deprive the
       king of his regal power, and to impose on his subjects an
       arbitrary and tyrannical authority; that they had endeavoured,
       by many foul aspersions on his majesty and his government, to
       alienate the affections of his people, and make him odious to
       them; that they had attempted to draw his late army to
       disobedience of his royal commands, and to side with them in
       their traitorous designs; that they had invited and encouraged
       a foreign power to invade the kingdom; that they had aimed at
       subverting the rights and very being of Parliament; that, in
       order to complete their traitorous designs, they had
       endeavoured, as far as in them lay, by force and terror, to
       compel the Parliament to join with them, and to that end had
       actually raised and countenanced tumults against the king and
       Parliament; and that they had traitorously conspired to levy,
       and actually had levied, war against the king. The whole world
       stood amazed at this important accusation, so suddenly entered
       upon, without concert, deliberation or reflection. ... But men
       had not leisure to wonder at the indiscretion of this measure:
       their astonishment was excited by new attempts, still more
       precipitate and imprudent. A sergeant at arms, in the king's
       name, demanded of the House the five members, and was sent
       back without any positive answer. Messengers were employed to
       search for them and arrest them. Their trunks, chambers, and
       studies, were sealed and locked. The House voted all these
       acts of violence to be breaches of privilege, and commanded
       everyone to defend the liberty of the members. The king,
       irritated by all this opposition, resolved next day to come in
       person to the House, with an intention to demand, perhaps
       seize, in their presence, the persons whom he had accused.
       This resolution was discovered to the Countess of Carlisle,
       sister to Northumberland, a lady of spirit, wit, and intrigue.
       She privately sent intelligence to the five members; and they
       had time to withdraw, a moment before the king entered. He was
       accompanied by his ordinary retinue, to the number of above
       two hundred, armed as usual, some with halberts, some with
       walking swords. The king left them at the door, and he himself
       advanced alone through the hall, while all the members rose to
       receive him. The speaker withdrew from his chair, and the king
       took possession of it. The speech which he made was as
       follows: 'Gentlemen, I am sorry for this occasion of coming to
       you. Yesterday, I sent a sergeant at arms, to demand some,
       who, by my order, were accused of high treason. Instead of
       obedience, I received a message. ... Therefore am I come to
       tell you, that I must have these men wheresoever I can find
       them. Well, since I see all the birds are flown, I do expect
       that you will send them to me as soon as they return. But I
       assure you, on the word of a king, I never did intend any
       force, but shall proceed against them in a fair and legal way,
       for I never meant any other.' ... When the king was looking
       around for the accused members, he asked the speaker, who
       stood below, whether any of these persons were in the House?
       The speaker, falling on his knee, prudently replied: 'I have,
       sir, neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, in this place,
       but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am.
    {867}
       And I humbly ask pardon, that I cannot give any other answer
       to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.' The Commons
       were in the utmost disorder; and when the king was departing,
       some members cried aloud so as he might hear them, Privilege!
       Privilege! and the House immediately adjourned till next day.
       That evening, the accused members, to show the greater
       apprehension, removed into the city, which was their fortress.
       The citizens were the whole night in arms. ... When the House
       of Commons met, they affected the greatest dismay; and
       adjourning themselves for some days, ordered a committee to
       sit in Merchant-Tailors' hall in the city. ... The House again
       met, and after confirming the votes of their committee, instantly
       adjourned, as if exposed to the most imminent perils from the
       violence of their enemies. This practice they continued for
       some time. When the people, by these affected panics, were
       wrought up to a sufficient degree of rage and terror, it was
       thought proper, that the accused members should, with a
       triumphant and military procession, take their seats in the
       House. The river was covered with boats, and other vessels,
       laden with small pieces of ordnance, and prepared for fight.
       Skippon, whom the Parliament had appointed, by their own
       authority, major-general of the city militia, conducted the
       members, at the head of this tumultuary army, to
       Westminster-hall. And when the populace, by land and by water,
       passed Whitehall, they still asked, with insulting shouts,
       What has become of the king and his cavaliers? And whither are
       they fled? The king, apprehensive of danger from the enraged
       multitude, had retired to Hampton-court, deserted by all the
       world, and overwhelmed with grief, shame, and remorse for the
       fatal measures into which he had been hurried."

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          volume 5, chapter 55, pages 85-91.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
          chapter 6, section 5.

          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England, 1603-1642,
          chapter 103 (volume 10).

          J. Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Pym; Hampden.

          L. von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th Cent.,
          book 8, chapter 10 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
       Preparations for war.
       The marshalling of forces.
       The raising of the King's standard.

       "January 10th. The King with his Court quits Whitehall; the
       Five Members and Parliament proposing to return tomorrow, with
       the whole City in arms round them. He left Whitehall; never
       saw it again till he came to lay down his head there.

       March 9th. The King has sent away his Queen from Dover, 'to be
       in a place of safety,'--and also to pawn the Crown-jewels in
       Holland, and get him arms. He returns Northward again,
       avoiding London. Many messages between the Houses of
       Parliament and him: 'Will your Majesty grant us Power of the
       Militia; accept this list of Lord-Lieutenants?' On the 9th of
       March, still advancing Northward without affirmative response,
       he has got to Newmarket; where another Message overtakes him,
       earnestly urges itself upon him: 'Could not your Majesty
       please to grant us Power of the Militia for a limited time?'
       'No, by God!' answers his Majesty, 'not for an hour.'

       On the 19th of March he is at York; where his Hull Magazine,
       gathered for service against the Scots, is lying near; where a
       great Earl of Newcastle, and other Northern potentates, will
       help him; where at least London and its Puritanism, now grown
       so fierce, is far off. There we will leave him; attempting
       Hull Magazine, in vain; exchanging messages with his
       Parliament; messages, missives, printed and written Papers
       without limit: Law-pleadings of both parties before the great
       tribunal of the English Nation, each party striving to prove
       itself right and within the verge of Law: preserved still in
       acres of typography, once thrillingly alive in every fibre of
       them; now a mere torpor, readable by few creatures, not
       rememberable by any."

          T. Carlyle,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 2, preliminary.

       "As early as June 2 a ship had arrived on the North English
       coast, bringing the King arms and ammunition from Holland,
       purchased by the sale of the crown-jewels which the Queen had
       taken abroad. On the 22d of the same month more than forty of
       the nobles and others in attendance on the King at York had
       put down their names for the numbers of armed horse they would
       furnish respectively for his service. Requisitions in the
       King's name were also out for supplies of money; and the two
       Universities, and the Colleges in each, were invited to send
       in their plate. On the other hand, the Parliament had not been
       more negligent. There had been contributions or promises from
       all the chief Parliamentarian nobles and others; there was a
       large loan from the city; and hundreds of thousands, on a
       smaller scale, were willing to subscribe. And already, through
       all the shires, the two opposed powers were grappling and
       jostling with each other in raising levies. On the King's side
       there were what were called Commissions of Array, or powers
       granted to certain nobles and others by name to raise troops
       for the King. On the side of Parliament, in addition to the
       Volunteering which had been going on in many places (as, for
       example, in Cambridgeshire, where Oliver Cromwell was forming
       a troop of Volunteer horse ... ), there was the Militia
       Ordinance available wherever the persons named in that
       ordinance were really zealous for Parliament, and able to act
       personally in the districts assigned them. And so on the 12th
       of July the Parliament had passed the necessary vote for
       supplying an army, and had appointed the Earl of Essex to be
       its commander-in-chief, and the Earl of Bedford to be its
       second in command as general of horse. It was known, on the
       other side, that the Earl of Lindsey, in consideration of his
       past experience of service both on sea and land, was to have
       the command of the King's army, and that his master of horse
       was to be the King's nephew, young Prince Rupert, who was
       expected from the Continent on purpose. Despite all these
       preparations, however, it was probably not till August had
       begun that the certainty of Civil War was universally
       acknowledged. It was on the 9th of that month that the King
       issued his proclamation 'for suppressing the present Rebellion
       under the command of Robert, Earl of Essex,' offering pardon
       to him and others if within six days they made their
       submission. The Parliamentary answer to this was on the 11th;
       on which day the Commons resolved, each man separately rising
       in his place and giving his word, that they would stand by the
       Earl of Essex with their lives and fortunes to the end. Still,
       even after that, there were trembling souls here and there who
       hoped for a reconciliation.
    {868}
       Monday the 22d of August put an end to all such fluttering:
       --On that day, the King, who had meanwhile left York, and come
       about a hundred miles farther south, into the very heart of
       England, ... made a backward movement as far as the town of
       Nottingham, where preparations had been made for the great
       scene that was to follow. ... This consisted in bringing out
       the royal standard and setting it up in due form. It was about
       six o'clock in the evening when it was done. ... A herald read
       a proclamation, declaring the cause why the standard had been
       set up, and summoning all the lieges to assist his Majesty.
       Those who were present cheered and threw up their hats, and,
       with a beating of drums and a sounding of trumpets, the
       ceremony ended. ... From that evening of the 22d of August,
       1642, the Civil War had begun."

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          John Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Pym; Hampden.

          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England, 1603-1642,
          chapters 104-105 (volume 10).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
       The nation choosing sides.

       "In wealth, in numbers, and in cohesion the Parliament was
       stronger than the king. To him there had rallied most of the
       greater nobles, many of the lesser gentry, some proportion of
       the richer citizens, the townsmen of the west, and the rural
       population generally of the west and north of England. For the
       Parliament stood a strong section of the peers and greater
       gentry, the great bulk of the lesser gentry, the townsmen of
       the richer parts of England, the whole eastern and home
       counties, and lastly, the city of London. But as the Civil War
       did not sharply divide classes, so neither did it
       geographically bisect England. Roughly speaking, aristocracy
       and peasantry, the Church, universities, the world of culture,
       fashion, and pleasure were loyal: the gentry, the yeomanry,
       trade, commerce, morality, and law inclined to the Parliament.
       Broadly divided, the north and west went for the king; the
       south and east for the Houses; but the lines of demarcation
       were never exact: cities, castles, and manor-houses long held
       out in an enemy's county. There is only one permanent
       limitation. Draw a line from the Wash to the Solent. East of
       that line the country never yielded to the king; from first to
       last it never failed the Parliament. Within it are enclosed
       Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Bedford,
       Bucks, Herts, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Sussex. This was the
       wealthiest, the most populous, and the most advanced portion
       of England. With Gloucester, Reading, Bristol, Leicester, and
       Northampton, it formed the natural home of Puritanism."

          F. Harrison,
          Oliver Cromwell,
          chapter 4.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
       Edgehill--the opening battle of the war.
       The Eastern Association.

       Immediately after the raising of his standard at Nottingham,
       the King, "aware at last that he could not rely on the
       inhabitants of Yorkshire, moved to Shrewsbury, at once to
       collect the Catholic gentry of Lancashire and Cheshire, to
       receive the Royalist levies of Wales, and to secure the valley
       of the Severn. The movement was successful. In a few days his
       little army was increased fourfold, and he felt himself strong
       enough to make a direct march towards the capital. Essex had
       garrisoned Northampton, Coventry and Warwick, and lay himself
       at Worcester; but the King, waiting for no sieges, left the
       garrisoned towns unmolested and passed on towards London, and
       Essex received peremptory orders to pursue and interpose if
       possible between the King and London. On the 22nd of October
       he was close upon the King's rear at Keynton, between
       Stratford and Banbury. But his army was by no means at its
       full strength; some regiments had been left to garrison the
       West, others, under Hampden had not yet joined him. But delay
       was impossible, and the first battle of the war was fought on
       the plain at the foot of the north-west slope of Edgehill,
       over which the royal army descended, turning back on its
       course to meet Essex. Both parties claimed the victory. In
       fact it was with the King. The Parliamentary cavalry found
       themselves wholly unable to withstand the charge of Rupert's
       cavaliers. Whole regiments turned and fled without striking a
       blow; but, as usual, want of discipline ruined the royal
       cause. Rupert's men fell to plundering the Parliamentary
       baggage, and returned to the field only in time to find that
       the infantry, under the personal leading of Essex, had
       reestablished the fight. Night closed the battle [which is
       sometimes named from Edgehill and sometimes from Keynton]. The
       King's army withdrew to the vantage-ground of the hills, and
       Essex, reinforced by Hampden, passed the night upon the field.
       But the Royalist army was neither beaten nor checked in its
       advance, while the rottenness of the Parliamentary troops had
       been disclosed." Some attempts at peace-making followed this
       doubtful first collision; but their only effect was to
       embitter the passions on both sides. The King advanced,
       threatening London, but the citizens of the capital turned out
       valiantly to oppose him, and he "fell back upon Oxford, which
       henceforward became the centre of their operations. ... War
       was again the only resource, and speedily became universal.
       ... There was local fighting over the whole of England. ...
       The headquarters of the King were constantly at Oxford, from
       which, as from a centre, Rupert would suddenly make rapid
       raids, now in one direction, now in another. Between him and
       London, about Reading, Aylesbury, and Thame, lay what may be
       spoken of as the main army of Parliament, under the command of
       Lord-General Essex. ... The other two chief scenes of the war
       were Yorkshire and the West. In Yorkshire the Fairfaxes,
       Ferdinando Lord Fairfax and his son Sir Thomas, made what head
       they could against what was known as the Popish army under the
       command of the Earl, subsequently Marquis of Newcastle, which
       consisted mainly of the troops of the Northern counties, which
       had become associated under Newcastle in favour of Charles.
       Newark, in Nottinghamshire, was early made a royal garrison,
       and formed the link of connection between the operations in
       Yorkshire and at Oxford. In the extreme South-west, Lord
       Stamford, the Parliamentary General, was making a somewhat
       unsuccessful resistance against Sir Ralph, afterwards Lord
       Hopton. Wales was wholly Royalist, and one of the chief
       objects of Charles's generals was to secure the Severn valley,
       and thus connect the war in Devonshire with the central
       operations at Oxford. In the Eastern counties matters assumed
       rather a different form. The principle of forming several
       counties into an association ... was adopted by the
       Parliament, and several such associations were formed, but
       none of these came to much except that of the Eastern
       counties, which was known by way of preeminence as 'The
       Association.' Its object was to keep the war entirely beyond
       the borders of the counties of which it consisted. The reason
       of its success was the genius and energy of Cromwell."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England, period 2,
          page 659.

    {869}

       "This winter there arise among certain Counties 'Associations'
       for mutual defence, against Royalism and plunderous Rupertism;
       a measure cherished by the Parliament, condemned as
       treasonable by the King. Of which 'Associations,' countable to
       the number of five or six, we name only one, that of Norfolk,
       Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Herts; with Lord Gray of Wark for
       Commander; where and under whom Oliver was now serving. This
       'Eastern Association' is alone worth naming. All the other
       Associations, no man of emphasis being in the midst of them,
       fell in a few months to pieces; only this of Cromwell
       subsisted, enlarged itself, grew famous;--and kept its own
       borders clear of invasion during the whole course of the War."

          T. Carlyle,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 2, preliminary.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of the Great Civil War,
          chapters 2-4 (volume l).

          W. Godwin,
          History of the Commonwealth,
          chapter 2 (volume 1).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (May).
       Cromwell's Ironsides.

       "It was ... probably, a little before Edgehill, that there
       took place between Cromwell and Hampden the memorable
       conversation which fifteen years afterwards the Protector
       related in a speech to his second Parliament. It is a piece of
       autobiography so instructive and pathetic that it must be set
       forth in full in the words of Cromwell himself:

       'I was a person who, from my first employment, was suddenly
       preferred and lifted up from lesser trusts to greater; from my
       first being Captain of a Troop of Horse. ... I had a very
       worthy friend then; and he was a very noble person, and I know
       his memory was very grateful to all,--Mr. John Hampden. At my
       first going out into this engagement, I saw our men were
       beaten at every hand. ... Your troops, said I, are most of
       them old decayed serving-men, and tapsters, and such kind of
       fellows; and, said I, their troops are gentlemen's sons,
       younger sons and persons of quality: do you think that the
       spirits of such base mean fellows will ever be able to
       encounter gentlemen, that have honour and courage and
       resolution in them? Truly I did represent to him in this
       manner conscientiously; and truly I did tell him: You must get
       men of a spirit: and take it not ill what I say,--I know you
       will not,--of a spirit that is likely to go on as far as
       gentlemen will go: or else you will be beaten still. I told
       him so; I did truly. He was a wise and worthy person; and he
       did think that I talked a good notion, but an impracticable
       one. ... I raised such men as had the fear of God before them,
       as made some conscience of what they did; and from that day
       forward, I must say to you, they were never beaten, and
       wherever they were engaged against the enemy they beat
       continually.' ... The issue of the whole war lay in that word.
       It lay with 'such men as had some conscience in what they
       did.' 'From that day forward they were never beaten.' ... As
       for Colonel Cromwell,' writes a news-letter of May, 1643, 'he
       hath 2,000 brave men, well disciplined; no man swears but he
       pays his twelve-pence; if he be drunk, he is set in the
       stocks, or worse; if one calls the other roundhead he is
       cashiered: insomuch that the countries where they come leap
       for joy of them, and come in and join with them. How happy
       were it if all the forces were thus disciplined!' These were
       the men who ultimately decided the war, and established the
       Commonwealth. On the field of Marston, Rupert gave Cromwell
       the name of Ironside, and from thence this famous name passed
       to his troopers. There are two features in their history which
       we need to note. They were indeed 'such men as had some
       conscience in their work'; but they were also much more. They
       were disciplined and trained soldiers. They were the only body
       of 'regulars' on either side. The instinctive genius of
       Cromwell from the very first created the strong nucleus of a
       regular army, which at last in discipline, in skill, in
       valour, reached the highest perfection ever attained by
       soldiers either in ancient or modern times. The fervour of
       Cromwell is continually pressing towards the extension of this
       'regular' force. Through all the early disasters, this body of
       Ironsides kept the cause alive: at Marston it overwhelmed the
       king: as soon as, by the New Model, this system was extended
       to the whole army, the Civil War was at an end."

          F. Harrison,
          Oliver Cromwell,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
       The King calls in the Irish.

       "To balance the accession of power which the alliance with
       Scotland brought to the Parliament, Charles was so unwise, men
       then said so guilty, as to conclude a peace with the Irish
       rebels, with the intent that thus those of his forces which
       had been employed against them, might be set free to join his
       army in England. No act of the King, not the levying of
       ship-money, not the crowd of monopolies which enriched the
       court and impoverished the people, neither the extravagance of
    Buckingham, the tyranny of Strafford nor the prelacy of Laud, not
       even the attempted arrest of the five members, raised such a
       storm of indignation and hatred throughout the kingdom, as did
       this determination of the King to withdraw (as men said), for
       the purpose of subduing his subjects, the force which had been
       raised to avenge the blood of 100,000 Protestant martyrs. ...
       To the England of the time this act was nauseous, was
       exasperating to the highest degree, while to the cause of the
       King it was fatal; for, from this moment, the condition of the
       Parliamentary party began to mend."

          N. L. Walford,
          Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
          chapter 2.

       "None of the king's schemes proved so fatal to his cause as
       these. On their discovery, officer after officer in his own
       army flung down their commissions, the peers who had fled to
       Oxford fled back again to London, and the Royalist reaction in
       the Parliament itself came utterly to an end."

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of England,
          chapter 8, section 7.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of the Great Civil War,
          chapter 11 (volume 1).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY).
       Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.

       At the beginning of July, 1643, "London was astir with a new
       event of great consequence in the course of the national
       revolution. This was the meeting of the famous Westminster
       Assembly. The necessity of an ecclesiastical Synod or
       Convocation, to cooperate with the Parliament, had been long
       felt.
    {870}
       Among the articles of the Grand Remonstrance of December 1641
       had been one desiring a convention of 'a General Synod of the
       most grave, pious, learned, and judicious divines of this
       island, assisted by some from foreign parts,' to consider of
       all things relating to the Church and report thereon to
       Parliament. It is clear from the wording of this article that
       it was contemplated that the Synod should contain
       representatives from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
       Indeed, by that time, the establishment of a uniformity of
       Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship between the Churches of
       England and Scotland was the fixed idea of those who chiefly
       desired a Synod. ... In April, 1642 ... it was ordered by the
       House, in pursuance of previous resolutions on the subject,
       'that the names of such divines as shall be thought fit to be
       consulted with concerning the matter of the Church be brought
       in tomorrow morning,' the understood rule being that the
       knights and burgesses of each English county should name to
       the House two divines, and those of each Welsh county one
       divine, for approval. Accordingly, on the 20th, the names were
       given in. ... By the stress of the war the Assembly was
       postponed. At last, hopeless of a bill that should pass in the
       regular way by the King's consent, the Houses resorted, in
       this as in other things, to their peremptory plan of Ordinance
       by their own authority. On the 13th of May, 1643, an Ordinance
       for calling an Assembly was introduced in the Commons; which
       Ordinance, after due going and coming between the two Houses,
       came to maturity June 12, when it was entered at full length
       in the Lords' Journals. 'Whereas, amongst the infinite
       blessings of Almighty God upon this nation,'--so runs the
       preamble of the Ordinance,--'none is, or can be, more dear to
       us than the purity of our religion; and for as much as many
       things yet remain in the discipline, liturgy and government of
       the Church which necessarily require a more perfect
       reformation: and whereas it has been declared and resolved, by
       the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, that the
       present Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, their
       Chancellors, Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters,
       Archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical officers depending on
       the hierarchy, is evil and justly offensive and burdensome to
       the kingdom, and a great impediment to reformation and growth
       of religion, and very prejudicial to the state and government
       of this kingdom, and that therefore they are resolved the same
       shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be
       settled in the Church as may be agreeable to God's Holy Word,
       and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church
       at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and
       other reformed Churches abroad. ... Be it therefore ordained,
       &c.' What is ordained is that 149 persons, enumerated by name
       in the Ordinance ... shall meet on the 1st of July next in
       King Henry VII.'s Chapel at Westminster; ... 'to confer and
       treat among themselves of such matters and things, concerning
       the liturgy, discipline and government of the Church of
       England ... as shall be proposed by either or both Houses of
       Parliament, and no other.' ... Notwithstanding a Royal
       Proclamation from Oxford, dated June 22, forbidding the
       Assembly and threatening consequences, the first meeting duly
       took place on the day appointed--Saturday, July 1, 1643; and
       from that day till the 22d of February, 1648-9, or for more
       than five years and a half, the Westminster Assembly is to be
       borne in mind as a power or institution in the English realm,
       existing side by side with the Long Parliament, and in
       constant conference and cooperation with it. The number of its
       sittings during these five years and a half was 1,163 in all;
       which is at the rate of about four sittings every week for the
       whole time. The earliest years of the Assembly were the most
       important."

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          A. F. Mitchell,
          The Westminster Assembly,
          lectures 4-5.

          D. Neal,
          History of the Puritans,
          volume 3, chapters 2 and 4.

          SEE, also, INDEPENDENTS.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
       The Solemn League and Covenant with the Scottish nation.

       "Scotland had been hitherto kept aloof from the English
       quarrel. ... Up to this time the pride and delicacy of the
       English patriots withheld them, for obvious reasons, from
       claiming her assistance. Had it been possible, they would
       still have desired to engage no distant party in this great
       domestic struggle; but when the present unexpected crisis
       arrived ... these considerations were laid aside, and the
       chief leaders of the Parliament resolved upon an embassy to
       the North, to bring the Scottish nation into the field. The
       conduct of this embassy was a matter of the highest difficulty
       and danger. The Scots were known to be bigoted to their own
       persuasions of narrow and exclusive church government, while
       the greatest men of the English Parliament had proclaimed the
       sacred maxim that every man who worshipped God according to
       the dictates of his conscience was entitled to the protection
       of the State. But these men, Vane, Cromwell, Marten and St.
       John, though the difficulties of the common cause had brought
       them into the acknowledged position of leaders and directors
       of affairs, were in a minority in the House of Commons, and
       the party who were their superiors in numbers were as bigoted
       to the most exclusive principles of Presbyterianism as the
       Scots themselves. Denzil Holies stood at the head of this
       inferior class of patriots. ... The most eminent of the
       Parliamentary nobility, particularly Northumberland, Essex and
       Manchester belonged also to this body; while the London
       clergy, and the metropolis itself, were almost entirely
       Presbyterian. These things considered, there was indeed great
       reason to apprehend that this party, backed by the Scots, and
       supported with a Scottish army, would be strong enough to
       overpower the advocates of free conscience, and 'set up a
       tyranny not less to be deplored than that of Laud and his
       hierarchy, which had proved one of the main occasions of
       bringing on the war.' Yet, opposing to all this danger only
       their own high purposes and dauntless courage, the smaller
       party of more consummate statesmen were the first to propose
       the embassy to Scotland. ... On the 20th of July, 1643, the
       commissioners set out from London. They were four; and the man
       principally confided in among them was Vane [Sir Henry, the
       younger]. He, indeed, was the individual best qualified to
       succeed Hampden as a counsellor in the arduous struggle in
       which the nation was at this time engaged. ... Immediately on
       his arrival in Edinburgh the negotiation commenced, and what
       Vane seems to have anticipated at once occurred. The Scots
       offered their assistance heartily on the sole condition of an
       adhesion to the Scottish religious system on the part of
       England.
    {871}
       After many long and very warm debates, in which Vane held to
       one firm policy from the first, a solemn covenant was
       proposed, which Vane insisted should be named a solemn league
       and covenant, while certain words were inserted in it on his
       subsequent motion, to which he also adhered with immovable
       constancy, and which had the effect of leaving open to the
       great party in England, to whose interests he was devoted,
       that last liberty of conscience which man should never
       surrender. ... The famous article respecting religion ran in
       these words;

       'That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the
       grace of God, endeavour, in our several places and callings,
       the preservation of the Reformed religion in the Church of
       Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government,
       against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the
       kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship,
       discipline, and government, according to the Word of God, and
       the example of the best Reformed churches; and we shall
       endeavour to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms
       to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
       confessing of faith, form of church government directory for
       worship and catechizing; that we and our posterity after us,
       may as brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord may
       delight to dwell in the midst of us. That we shall in like
       manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation
       of popery, prelacy (that is, church government by archbishops,
       bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and
       chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers
       depending on that hierarchy).' Vane, by this introduction of
       'according to the Word of God,' left the interpretation of
       that word to the free conscience of every man. On the 17th of
       August, the solemn league and covenant was voted by the
       Legislature and the Assembly of the Church at Edinburgh. The
       king in desperate alarm, sent his commands to the Scotch
       people not to take such a covenant. In reply, they 'humbly
       advised his majesty to take the covenant himself.' The
       surpassing service rendered by Vane on this great occasion to
       the Parliamentary cause, exposed him to a more violent hatred
       from the Royalists than he had yet experienced, and Clarendon
       has used every artifice to depreciate his motives and his
       sincerity. ... The solemn league and covenant remained to be
       adopted in England. The Scottish form of giving it authority
       was followed as far as possible. It was referred by the two
       Houses to the Assembly of Divines, which had commenced its
       sittings on the 1st of the preceding July, being called
       together to be consulted with by the Parliament for the
       purpose of settling the government and form of worship of the
       Church of England. This assembly already referred to,
       consisted of 121 of the clergy; and a number of lay assessors
       were joined with them, consisting of ten peers, and twenty
       members of the House of Commons. All these persons were named
       by the ordinance of the two Houses of Parliament which gave
       birth to the assembly. The public taking of the Covenant was
       solemnized on the 25th of September, each member of either
       House attesting his adherence by oath first, and then by
       subscribing his name. The name of Vane, subscribed immediately
       on his return, appears upon the list next to that of
       Cromwell."

          J. Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Vane.

          ALSO IN:
          J. K. Hosmer,
          Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
          chapter 8.

          A. F. Mitchell,
          The Westminster Assembly,
          lectures 5-6.

          D. Neal,
          History of the Puritans,
          volume 3, chapter 2.

          S. R. Gardiner,
          Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
          page 187.

       The following is the text of the Solemn League and Covenant:

       "A solemn league and covenant for Reformation and defence of
       religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace
       and safety of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and
       Ireland. We noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens,
       burgesses, ministers of the Gospel, and commons of all sorts
       in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, by the
       providence of God living under one King, and being of one
       reformed religion; having before our eyes the glory of God,
       and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour
       Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the King's Majesty
       and his posterity, and the true public liberty, safety and
       peace of the kingdoms, wherein everyone's private condition is
       included; and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody
       plots, conspiracies, attempts and practices of the enemies of
       God against the true religion and professors thereof in all
       places, especially in these three kingdoms, ever since the
       reformation of religion; and how much their rage, power and
       presumption are of late, and at this time increased and
       exercised, whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and
       kingdom of Ireland, the distressed estate of the Church and
       kingdom of England, and the dangerous estate of the Church and
       kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies: we
       have (now at last) after other means of supplication,
       remonstrance, protestations and sufferings, for the
       preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and
       destruction, according to the commendable practice of these
       kingdoms in former times, and the example of God's people in
       other nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and
       determined to enter into a mutual and solemn league and
       covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for
       himself, with our hands lifted up to the most high God, do
       swear,

       I. That we shall sincerely, really and constantly, through the
       grace of God, endeavour in our several places and callings,
       the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of
       Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government,
       against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the
       kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship,
       discipline and government, according to the Word of God, and
       the example of the best reformed Churches; and we shall
       endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms
       to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
       confession of faith, form of Church government, directory for
       worship and catechising, that we, and our posterity after us,
       may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may
       delight to dwell in the midst of us.

       II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons,
       endeavour the extirpation of Popery, prelacy (that is, Church
       government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and
       Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all
       other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy),
       superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness and whatsoever shall
       be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of
       godliness lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be
       in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may
       be one, and His name one in the three kingdoms.

    {872}

       III. We shall with the same sincerity, reality and constancy,
       in our several vocations, endeavour with our estates and lives
       mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the
       Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and to
       preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority,
       in the preservation and defence of the true religion and
       liberties of the kingdoms, that the world may bear witness
       with our consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no
       thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesty's just power
       and greatness.

       IV. We shall also with all faithfulness endeavour the
       discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries,
       malignants or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation
       of religion, dividing the King from his people, or one of the
       kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties
       amongst the people, contrary to the league and covenant, that
       they may be brought to public trial and receive condign
       punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or
       deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms
       respectively, or others having power from them for that
       effect, shall judge convenient.

       V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these
       kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is by the
       good providence of God granted to us, and hath been lately
       concluded and settled by both Parliaments: we shall each one
       of us, according to our places and interest, endeavour that
       they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all
       posterity, and that justice may be done upon the wilful
       opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent
       articles.

       VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in
       this common cause of religion, liberty and peace of the
       kingdom, assist and defend all those that enter into this
       league and covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof;
       and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by
       whatsoever combination, persuasion or terror, to be divided
       and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether
       to make defection to the contrary part, or give ourselves to a
       detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause, which so
       much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the kingdoms,
       and the honour of the King; but shall all the days of our
       lives zealously and constantly continue therein, against all
       opposition, and promote the same according to our power,
       against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and what we are
       not able ourselves to suppress or overcome we shall reveal and
       make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: all
       which we shall do as in the sight of God. And because these
       kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God,
       and His Son Jesus Christ, as is too manifest by our present
       distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof: we profess and
       declare, before God and the world, our unfeigned desire to be
       humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms;
       especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable
       benefit of the Gospel; that we have not laboured for the
       purity and power thereof; and that we have not endeavoured to
       receive Christ in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of Him in our
       lives, which are the causes of other sins and transgressions
       so much abounding amongst us, and our true and unfeigned
       purpose, desire and endeavour, for ourselves and all others
       under our power and charge, both in public and in private, in
       all duties we owe to God and man, to amend our lives, and each
       one to go before another in the example of a real reformation,
       that the Lord may turn away His wrath and heavy indignation,
       and establish these Churches and kingdoms in truth and peace.
       And this covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God, the
       Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the
       same, as we shall answer at that Great Day when the secrets of
       all hearts shall be disclosed: most humbly beseeching the Lord
       to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless
       our desires and Proceedings with such success as may be a
       deliverance and safety to His people, and encouragement to the
       Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the yoke of
       Anti-Christian tyranny, to join in the same or like
       association and covenant, to the glory of God, the enlargement
       of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquility
       of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths."

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (August-September).
       Siege of Gloucester and first Battle of Newbury.

       "When the war had lasted a year, the advantage was decidedly
       with the Royalists. They were victorious, both in the western
       and in the northern counties. They had wrested Bristol, the
       second city in the kingdom, from the Parliament. They had won
       several battles, and had not sustained a single serious or
       ignominious defeat. Among the Roundheads, adversity had begun
       to produce dissension and discontent. The Parliament was kept
       in alarm, sometimes by plots and sometimes by riots. It was
       thought necessary to fortify London against the royal army,
       and to hang some disaffected citizens at their own doors.
       Several of the most distinguished peers who had hitherto
       remained at Westminster fled to the court at Oxford; nor can
       it be doubted that, if the operations of the Cavaliers had, at
       this season, been directed by a sagacious and powerful mind,
       Charles would soon have marched in triumph to Whitehall. But
       the King suffered the auspicious moment to pass away; and it
       never returned. In August, 1643, he sate down before the city
       of Gloucester. That city was defended by the inhabitants and
       by the garrison, with a determination such as had not, since
       the commencement of the war, been shown by the adherents of
       the Parliament. The emulation of London was excited. The
       trainbands of the City volunteered to march wherever their
       services might be required. A great force was speedily
       collected, and began to move westward. The siege of Gloucester
       was raised. The Royalists in every part of the kingdom were
       disheartened; the spirit of the parliamentary party revived;
       and the apostate Lords, who had lately fled from Westminster
       to Oxford, hastened back from Oxford to Westminster."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 1.

       After accomplishing the relief of Gloucester, the
       Parliamentary army, marching back to London, was intercepted
       at Newbury by the army of the king, and forced to fight a
       battle, September 20, 1643, in which both parties, as at
       Edgehill, claimed the victory. The Royalists, however, failed
       to bar the road to London, as they had undertaken to do, and
       Essex resumed his march on the following morning.

    {873}

       "In this unhappy battle was slain the lord viscount Falkland;
       a person of such prodigious parts of learning and knowledge,
       of that inimitable sweetness and delight in conversation, of
       so flowing and obliging a humanity and goodness to mankind,
       and of that primitive sincerity and integrity of life, that if
       there were no other brand upon this odious and accursed war
       than that single loss, it must be most infamous and execrable
       to all posterity."

          Earl of Clarendon,
          History of the Rebellion,
          book 7, section 217.

       This lamented death on the royal side nearly evened, so to
       speak, the great, unmeasured calamity which had befallen the
       better cause three months before, when the high-souled patriot
       Hampden was slain in a paltry skirmish with Rupert's horse, at
       Chalgrove Field, not far from the borders of Oxfordshire. Soon
       after the fight at Newbury, Charles, having occupied Reading,
       withdrew his army to Oxford and went into winter quarters.

          N. L. Walford,
          Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir E. Cust,
          Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
          part 2.

          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of the Great Civil War,
          chapter 10 (volume 1).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (January).
       Battle of Nantwich and siege of Lathom House.

       The Irish army brought over by King Charles and landed in
       Flintshire, in November, 1643, under the command of Lord
       Byron, invaded Cheshire and laid siege to Nantwich, which was
       the headquarters of the Parliamentary cause in that region.
       Young Sir Thomas Fairfax was ordered to collect forces and
       relieve the town. With great difficulty he succeeded, near the
       end of January, 1644, in leading 2,500 foot-soldiers and
       twenty-eight troops of horse, against the besieging army,
       which numbered 3,000 foot and 1,800 horse. On the 28th of
       January he attacked and routed the Irish royalists completely.
       "All the Royalist Colonels, including the subsequently
       notorious Monk, 1,500 soldiers, six pieces of ordnance, and
       quantities of arms, were captured." Having accomplished this
       most important service, Sir Thomas, "to his great annoyance,"
       received orders to lay siege to Lathom House, one of the
       country seats of the Earl of Derby, which had been fortified
       and secretly garrisoned, with 300 soldiers. It was held by the
       high-spirited and dauntless Countess of Derby, in the absence
       of her husband, who was in the Isle of Man. Sir Thomas Fairfax
       soon escaped from this ignoble enterprise and left it to be
       carried on, first, by his cousin, Sir William Fairfax, and
       afterwards by Colonel Rigby. The Countess defended her house
       for three months, until the approach of Prince Rupert forced
       the raising of the siege in the following spring. Lathom House
       was not finally surrendered to the Roundheads until December
       6, 1645, when it was demolished.

          C. R. Markham,
          Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
          chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          Mrs. Thompson,
          Recollections of Literary Characters and Celebrated Places,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

          E. Warburton,
          Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
          page 2, chapter 4.

    ENGLAND: 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
       meantime, 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 56,000 men under arms; the English forces
       being commanded, as separate armies, by Essex, Waller,
       Manchester, and Fairfax. Essex and Waller advanced to blockade
       Oxford. The queen went to Exeter in April, and never saw
       Charles again. The blockading forces around Oxford had become
       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 between 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
       Worcestershire, 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 towards York with 20,000 men. The allied English and
       Scots retired from Hessey Moor, near York, to Tadcaster.
       Rupert entered York with 2,000 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 days 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 Cromwell decided the
       day. The victory of the parliamentary forces was so complete
       that the Earl of Newcastle left York, and embarked at
       Scarborough for the continent. Rupert marched away also, with
       the wreck of his army, to Chester. Fifteen hundred prisoners,
       all the artillery, more than 100 banners, remained with the
       victors; 4,150 bodies lay dead on the plain."

          C. Knight,
          Crown History of England,
          chapter 25.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carlyle,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 2, letter 8.

          B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
          King and Commonwealth,
          chapter 7.

          W. Godwin, History of the Commonwealth, chapter 12,
          (volume 1).

          E. Warburton, Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the
          Cavaliers, volume 2, chapter 4.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (August-September).
       Essex's surrender.
       The second Battle of Newbury.

    {874}

       "The great success at Marston, which had given the north to
       the Parliament, was all undone in the south and west through
       feebleness and jealousies in the leaders and the wretched
       policy that directed the war. Detached armies, consisting 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; Manchester 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 advancing into the west, was out-manœuvred by
       Charles, and ended a campaign of blunders by the surrender of
       all his infantry [at Fowey, in Cornwall, September 2, 1644].
       By September 1644 throughout the whole south-west the
       Parliament had not an army in the field. But the Committee of
       the Houses still toiled on with honourable spirit, and at last
       brought together near Newbury 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, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
          King and Commonwealth,
          chapters 7.

          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of the Great Civil War,
          chapters 19 and 21.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
       The Self-denying Ordinance.

       "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 vigorous 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 remaining as might be,
       to the position of a constitutional King. ... The army, too,
       as he long ago urged at Edgehill, was not an army to conquer
       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 incompatible 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 followed this rupture of the tie which had hitherto
       bound the army to the Parliament, the drift of public opinion
       was too strong to be withstood. The 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 Marston Moor."

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of England,
          chapter 8, section 7.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Godwin,
          History of the Commonwealth,
          chapter 15 (volume l).

          J. K. Hosmer,
          Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
          chapter 11.

          J. A. Picton,
          Oliver Cromwell,
          chapter 10.

          J. Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Vane.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (January-February).
       The attempted Treaty of Uxbridge.

       A futile negotiation 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 negotiators at Uxbridge were, the church, the
       militia, and the state of Ireland. Bound by their unhappy
       covenant, and watched by their Scots colleagues, the English
       commissioners on the parliament's side demanded the complete
       establishment of a presbyterian polity, and the substitution
       of what was called the directory for the Anglican liturgy.
       Upon this head there was little prospect of a union."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 10, part 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Earl of Clarendon,
          History of the Rebellion,
          book 8, sections 209-252 (volume 3).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (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, 21,000 men.

       All officers were to be nominated by Sir Thomas Fairfax, 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
       appointment. 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-Chief 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 remark, the appointment of
       lieutenant-general was left vacant, while none doubted by whom
       that vacancy would be filled."

          N. L. Walford,
          The Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir E. Cust,
          Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
          part. 2: Fairfax.

    {875}

    ENGLAND: 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 that task was completed he received orders
       to enter on the siege of Oxford. This did not suit his own
       views or those of the Independents. They had joined their new
       army upon the implied condition that decisive battles should
       be fought. It was therefore with great joy that Fairfax
       received orders to proceed in pursuit of the royal forces,
       which, having left Worcester, were marching apparently against
       the Eastern Association, and had just 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 Harborough. 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 chiefly due to his skill. In detail it is
       almost a repetition of the battle of Marston Moor."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England, period 2,
          page 675.

       "The old Hamlet of Naseby stands yet, 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 spire
       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, moorland,
       though now growing corn; was not enclosed till the last
       generation, and is still somewhat 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 despised till
       then: and saw himself shivered utterly to ruin thereby.
       'Prince Rupert, on the 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 him,--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 plunder, finds the King's
       Infantry a ruin; prepares 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-followers '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 hard this day. The King's
       Carriage was also taken, with a Cabinet and many Royal
       Autographs in it, which when printed made a sad impression
       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,
          part 2, letter 29.

          ALSO IN:
          Earl of Clarendon,
          History of the Rebellion,
          book 9, sections 30-42 (volume 4).

          E. Warburton,
          Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
          volume 3, chapter 1.

    ENGLAND: 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, promising to
       take away all penal laws against them as soon as God should
       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 aggravated 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
       Glamorgan'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 promising 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
       indifference, 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 that they were genuine; and, if his dissertation
       could have left any doubt, later evidence might be adduced in
       confirmation."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 10 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of the Great Civil War,
          chapters 39 and 44 (volume 2).

          T. Carte,
          Life of James, Duke of Ormond,
          book 4 (volume 3).

          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 10, chapter 3.

    {876}

    ENGLAND: 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 country-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 banners, with the motto--'If you offer to plunder
       our cattle, Be assured we will give you battle.' The clubmen,
       however, could not hope to control the movements of the
       disciplined troops who now appeared against them. After a few
       fruitless attempts at resistance they dispersed."

          B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
          King and Commonwealth,
          chapter 8.

       "The inexpugnable Sir Lewis Dives (a thrasonical person known
       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,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 2, letter 14.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
       The storming of Bridgewater and Bristol.

       "The continuance 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 indifference to the sufferings
       of the people. All rational 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 garrison 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 Bridgewater by storm, July 21, capturing 2,000 prisoners,
       with 36 pieces of artillery and 5,000 stand of arms. On the
       21st of August he arrived before Bristol, which Prince Rupert
       had strongly fortified, and which he held with an effective
       garrison of 2,300 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 defensible 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 Great Lord Fairfax,
          chapter 21-22.

          ALSO IN.
          Earl of Clarendon,
          History of the Rebellion,
          book 9.

          W. Hunt,
          Bristol,
          chapter 7.

          E. Warburton,
          Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
          volume 3, chapter 1.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (SEPTEMBER).
       Defeat of Montrose at Philiphaugh.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH).
       Adoption of Presbyterianism by Parliament.

       "For the last three years the Assembly of Divines had been
       sitting almost daily in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster
       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 the
       Presbyterian Church and the toleration of sectarians. The
       Presbyterians, as we know, desired to establish their own form
       of Church government by assemblies and synods, without any
       toleration for non-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 matter 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 January, 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 prescribed. The same year a new directory
       for ordination of ministers was passed into an ordinance. The
       Presbyterian assemblies, called presbyteries, were empowered
       to ordain, and none were allowed to enter the ministry without
       first taking the covenant (8th November, 1645). This was
       followed 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 ordinance 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 March, 1646). Presbyterians, both in England
       and Scotland, 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 power of the State--the disappointment was intense
       to a degree 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 without any formal
       dismissal on the dispersion of the Rump Parliament in March,
       1653."

          B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
          King and Commonwealth,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of the Great Civil War.
          chapter 40 (volume 2).

          A. F. Mitchell,
          The Westminster Assembly,
          lectures 7, 9, 13.

          Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly.

          See, also, INDEPENDENTS.

    {877}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
       The King in the hands of the Scots.
       His duplicity and his intrigues.
       The Scots surrender him.

       "On the morning of May 6th authentic news came that the King
       had ridden into the Scottish army, and had entrusted to his
       northern subjects the guardianship of his royal person.
       Thereupon the English Parliament at once asserted their right
       to dispose 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, carrying their
       sovereign with them. ... Meantime 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 Presbyterianism 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
       appointed to lay certain propositions for peace before the
       King at Newcastle. These of course involved everything for
       which the Parliament had contended, and in a form developed
       and exaggerated 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 Parliament, or by its authority, were to be confirmed;
       and all public acts done by the King or his Oxford
       anti-Parliament, without due authorisation 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 discovered. ... The death of the Earl of Essex on September
       14th increased the growing danger of a fatal schism in the
       victorious party. The Presbyterians 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 complete
       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 heavily 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
       diminishing or disbanding the army in England. ... The
       Parliament, however, could not deal with the army, for two
       reasons; First, the negotiations 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 English debt to the Scottish army. But the
       successful accomplishment of this only increased the remaining
       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 declining 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 them an intractable man
       to form a wedge of division amongst themselves, at the same
       time that he brought against them the whole power of England,
       would have been sheer insanity. Accordingly, 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 Northamptonshire, on
       the 6th of February, 1647."

          J. A. Picton,
          Oliver Cromwell,
          chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          The First two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
          chapter 7, section 4.

          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of the Great Civil War,
          chapter 3845 (volume 2).

          W. Godwin,
          History of the Commonwealth, book 1,
          chapters 24-27, and book 2,
          chapter 1-6 (volume 2).

          Earl of Clarendon,
          History of chapter Rebellion,
          book 9, section 161-178,
          and book 10 (volume 3).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).
       The Army takes things in hand.

       The King was surrendered to Parliament, and all now looking
       toward peace, the Presbyterians were uppermost, discredit
       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, disbanding, 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 Presbyterians indeed claimed, but who
       at the same time kept on good terms with the Army and
       Independents, rose in his place in St. Stephens and produced a
       letter, brought to him the day before by three private
       soldiers, in which eight regiments of horse expressly refused
       to serve in Ireland, declaring that it was a perfidious design
       to separate the soldiers from the officers whom they
       loved,--framed by men who, having tasted of power, were
       degenerating into tyrants. Holles and the Presbyterians were
       thunder-struck, and laying aside all other business summoned
       the three soldiers to appear at once. ...
    {878}
       A violent tumult arose in the 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 pointing 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 Parliament, 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 'Agitators.' 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 2, at Holmby House, where
       Charles was kept, in charge of Parliamentary commissioners,
       proposed to assume the 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 cornet 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 extreme 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 themselves to Fairfax, and on August
       2 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 20,000 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 Cromwell 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,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          C. R. Markham,
          Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
          chapter 24.

          T. Carlyle,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 3, letter 26.

          W. Godwin,
          History of the Commonwealth,
          book 2, chapter 7-11.

    ENGLAND: 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 indignation of
       the soldiers at his delays and intrigues made the task hourly
       more difficult; but Cromwell ... clung to the hope of
       accommodation with a passionate tenacity. His mind,
       conservative 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 negotiating with him. But Cromwell stood almost
       alone; the Parliament refused to accept Ireton's proposals 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 abolition of the House of Peers, for a new House of
       Commons, and the Adjutators called on the Council of Officers
       to discuss the question of abolishing 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
       astonishment that he had been duped throughout, and that the
       King had fled [November 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 negotiations with the Parliament, he signed a
       secret treaty with the Scots for the invasion of the realm.
       The rise of Independency, and the practical suspension 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 History of England,
          chapter 8, section 8.

          ALSO IN:
          F. P. Guizot,
          History of the English Revolution of 1640,
          books 7-8.

          L. von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th Century,
          book 10, chapter 4.

          W. Godwin,
          History of the Commonwealth.

          G. Hillier,
          Narrative of attempted Escapes of Charles I. from
          Carisbrooke Castle, &c.

    {879}

    ENGLAND: 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 insurrection; 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, Colchester, 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
       Cromwell 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 Cromwell, 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 Hamilton unawares, as it proceeded southwards in a
       long, straggling, unprotected line. The invaders consisted of
       17,000 Scots and 7,000 good men from northern counties. The
       long ill-ordered line was cut In half and rolled back northward
       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 execution upon them
       above thirty miles together, besides 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 Carlisle, and to restore the
       Presbyterian or Whig party in Scotland."

          F. Harrison,
          Oliver Cromwell,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Burton,
          History of Scotland,
          chapter 74 (volume 7).

          Earl of Clarendon,
          History of the Rebellion,
          book 11 (volume 4).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
       The Treaty at Newport.

       "The unfortunate issue of the Scots expedition under the duke
       of Hamilton, and of the various insurrections throughout
       England, quelled by the vigilance and good conduct 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 London,
       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 90, 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,
       regained its ascendancy. This change in the counsels of
       parliament brought on the treaty of Newport. 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
       Northumberland, or lord Say, than to see themselves pushed
       from their seats by such upstarts as Ireton and Harrison; and
       their present mortification afforded a proof how men reckoned
       wise in their generation become the dupes of their own
       selfish, crafty, and pusillanimous policy. They now grew
       anxious to see a treaty concluded with the king. Sensible that
       it was necessary to anticipate, 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 proposed; nor did the king during this treaty obtain any
       reciprocal concession worth mentioning in return for his
       surrender of almost all that could be demanded."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 10, part 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 having
       solemnly promised that all hostilities in Ireland should
       cease, he secretly wrote to Ormond (October 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 (October 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 my 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,
          History of the English Revolution of 1640,
          book 8.

          ALSO IN:
          Earl of Clarendon,
          History of the Rebellion,
          book 11, sections 153-190 (volume 4).

          I. Disraeli,
          Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles I.,
          volume 2, chapters 39-40.

    {880}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
       The Grand Army Remonstrance and Pride's Purge.
       The Long Parliament cut down to the 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 unanimously in the council of officers, and
       entreating for it the consideration of parliament. The
       remonstrance 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 parliament to enact its own dissolution, with provision
       for the electing and convening of future annual or biennial
       parliaments. Ten days passed without attention being given to
       this army manifesto, the house having twice adjourned its
       consideration 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
       negotiation. Vane was one of the principal speakers against
       the treaty; and Fiennes, who had hitherto ranked among the
       independents, 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 129 to 83, that the king's answers
       to the propositions 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 accomplishment 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
       regiment 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 he was commissioned 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 Cromwell took
       his seat; and Henry Marten 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,
          History of the Commonwealth,
          book 2, chapters 23-24 (volume 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 Henry Vane,
          chapter 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,
          History of the Puritans,
          volume 4, chapter 1, foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          C. R Markham,
          Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
          chapter 28.

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          book 4, chapters 1 and 3 (volume 3).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (JANUARY).
       The trial and execution 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 Parliament 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 representatives
       of the people are the supreme power in the nation; and that
       whatsoever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons in
       Parliament hath the force of a law, and the people are
       concluded thereby, though the consent of King or Peers be not
       had thereto. Asserting this power, so utterly opposed either
       to the ancient constitution of the monarchy, or to the
       possible working of a republic, there was no hesitation in
       constituting 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 January, 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, and was
       lodged at St. James's palace.
    {881}
       The next day, the High Court of Justice was opened in
       Westminster-hall. ... After the names of the members of the
       court had been called, 69 being present, Bradshaw, the
       president, ordered the serjeant 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 contemptuously
       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 his 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
       employed the 24th and 25th of January in collecting evidence
       to prove the charge of his levying war against the Parliament.
       Coke, the solicitor-general, then demanded whether the Court
       would proceed to pronouncing sentence; and the members
       adjourned to the Painted Chamber. On the 27th the public
       sitting was resumed. ... The Court, Bradshaw then stated, had
       agreed upon the sentence. Ludlow records that the King'
       desired to make one proposition before they proceeded to
       sentence; which he earnestly pressing, as that which he
       thought would lead to the reconciling 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 son to the
       throne upon such terms as should have been agreed upon.' The
       commissioners retired to deliberate, 'and being satisfied,
       upon debate, 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
       the French and Spanish ambassadors were inert. The ambassadors
       from the States nevertheless persevered; and early in the day
       of the 30th obtained some glimmering of hope from Fairfax.
       'But we found,' they say in their despatch, 'in front of the
       house in which we had just spoken with the general, about 200
       horsemen; 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 anyone 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, surrounded by
       soldiers, through the leafless avenues of St. James's Park. It
       was a bitterly cold morning. ... His purposed address to the
       people was delivered only to the hearing of those upon the
       scaffold, but its purport was that the people mistook 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
       multitude."

          Charles Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 4, chapter 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, defended 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 Parliament with the old Feudal Monarchy was
       impossible. As the head of the king rolled on the scaffold 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 government,
       the consent of the nation, equality of rights, and equity in
       the law--all date from this great New Departure. The Stuarts
       indeed returned 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 monarch was by no
       means its heir, but a royal Stadtholder or Hereditary
       President."

          F. Harrison,
          Oliver Cromwell,
          chapter 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 circumstance, served
       to raise the character of the English nation in the opinion of
       Europe in 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
       fifty 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 imagine 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, conspired against
       the liberty of his country, to assert his own authority
       without limitation, was the object of all his desires and all
       his actions, so far as the public was concerned.
    {882}
       To accomplish this object he laid aside the use of a
       parliament. When he was compelled once more to have recourse
       to this assembly, and found it retrograde to his purposes, he
       determined to bring up the army, and by that means to put an
       end to its sittings. 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
       convinced. His was a war to the death, and therefore 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
       condemnation 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 sovereign 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 before 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,
          History of the Commonwealth of England
          to the Restoration of Charles II.,
          book 2, chapter 26 (volume 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 alienated from him were irritated into
       active hostility. 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 fling themselves, as they had flung themselves
       in the Second Civil War, against the new order of things which
       was struggling to establish itself in England."

          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of the Great Civil War,
          1642-1649, chapter 71 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          John Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Henry Marten.

          S. R. Gardiner,
          Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
          pages 268-290.

       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 design totally to subvert the
       antient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and
       in their place to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical
       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 country hath been
       miserably wasted, the public treasure exhausted, trade
       decayed, thousands of people murdered, 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 punishment: whereas also
       the parliament, well hoping that the restraint and imprisonment
       of his person after it had pleased God to deliver him into
       their hands, would have quieted the distempers of the kingdom,
       did forbear to proceed judicially against him; but found, by
       sad experience, that such their remissness served only to
       encourage him and his accomplices in the continuance of their
       evil practices and in raising new commotions, rebellions, and
       invasions: for prevention therefore of the like or greater
       inconveniences, and to the end no other chief officer or
       magistrate whatsoever may hereafter presume, 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, lieutenant 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 Justice, 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 receiving his personal Answer
       thereunto, and for examination of witnesses upon oath, (which
       the court hath hereby authority to administer) or otherwise,
       and taking any other Evidence concerning 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 be executed,
       speedily and impartially.--
    {883}
       And the said court is hereby  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 General, 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 History of England,
          volume 3, pages 1254-1255.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
       The Commonwealth established.

       "England was now a Republic. The change had been virtually
       made on Thursday, 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,

       (2) that the Commons, in Parliament assembled, having been
       chosen by the People, and representing the People, possessed
       the supreme power in their name, and

       (3) that whatever the Commons enacted should have the force of
       a law, without needing the consent of either King or House of
       Peers.

       On Tuesday, the 30th of January, 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 'prohibiting 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 theoretical 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 Parliament is useless
       and dangerous, and ought to be abolished, and that an Act be
       brought in to that purpose.' Next day, February 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 single person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and
       dangerous 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
       customary three readings. The delay, however, was matter of
       mere Parliamentary form. Theoretically a Republic since Jan.
       4, 1648-9, and visibly a Republic from the day of Charles's
       death, England was a Republic absolutely and in every sense
       from February 7, 1648-9." For the administration 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 persons. 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
       Hutchinson and Ludlow being in the number; nine to constitute
       a quorum, and no permanent President to be chosen.

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          volume 4, book 1, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume. 10, chapter 5.

          A. Bisset,
          Omitted Chapters of History of England,
          chapter 1.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
       The Eikon Basilike.

       "A book, published with great secrecy, and in very mysterious
       circumstances, February 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 Majestie
       in his Solitudes and Sufferings.--Romans viii. More than
       conquerour, &c.--Bona agere et mala pati Regium est.
       MDCXLVIII':
       such was the title-page of this volume (of 269 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 incision, point, or the least shred of
       real information as to facts. But O what a reception it had!
       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 established,
       within a few weeks after the death of Charles I., that
       marvellous worship of his memory, 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,
          volume 4, book 1, chapter 1.

    {884}

       "I struggled through the Eikon Basilike yesterday; one of the
       paltriest pieces of vapid, shovel-hatted, clear-starched,
       immaculate falsity and cant I have ever read. It is to me an
       amazement how any mortal could ever have taken that for a
       genuine book of King Charles's. Nothing but a surpliced
       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
       Restoration, and who is believed to have been the author of
       the Eikon Basilike] a bishopric."

          T. Carlyle,
          History of his Life in London,
          by Froude, volume 1, chapter 7, November 26, 1840.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (APRIL-MAY).
       Mutiny of the Levellers.

          See LEVELLERS.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
       Cromwell's campaign in Ireland.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (JULY).
       Charles II. proclaimed King in Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).
       War with the Scots and Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1651 (SEPTEMBER).
        The Scots and Charles II. overthrown at Worcester.

           See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1653.
       The Army and the Rump.

       "'Now that the King is dead and his son defeated,' Cromwell
       said gravely to the Parliament, 'I think it necessary 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 person, was only passed, after bitter
       opposition, by a majority of two; and even this success had
       been purchased by a compromise which permitted 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 Parliament in place of
       the mere 'rump' of the old; but this was the one measure which
       the 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 Parliament, 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 Holland had been carefully nursed. ...
       The army hardly needed the warning conveyed by the
       introduction 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 members to continue as a part of the
       coming Parliament 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 representatives, 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 leading 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,
          Short History of England,
          chapter 8, section 9.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell.

          J. A. Picton,
          Oliver Cromwell,
          chapter 22.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1672.
       The Navigation Acts and the American colonies.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672;
          also, NAVIGATION LAWS.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654.
       War with the Dutch Republic.

       "After the death of William, Prince of Orange, which was
       attended with the depression of his party and the triumph of
       the Dutch republicans [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
       obnoxious, and whose situation seemed so precarious, offered
       only to renew 'the former alliances with England; and the
       haughty St. John, disgusted with this disappointment, as well
       as incensed at many affronts which had been offered him, with
       impunity, by the retainers of the Palatine and Orange
       families, and indeed by the populace in general, returned into
       England and endeavoured 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 pretence for continuing the same Parliament, and delaying
       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
       other 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
       establishment. 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 Parliament
       to change the purposed alliance into a furious war against the
       United Provinces. To cover these hostile intentions, the
       Parliament, under pretence of providing for the interests of
       commerce, 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 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,
          History of England,
          chapter 60 (volume 5).

    {885}

       "The negotiations ... were still pending when Blake, 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 (1652). 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 command 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 victory over Blake off the Naze
       (November 28) enabled him to cruise in the Channel with a
       broom at his mast-head, implying that he had swept the English
       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 2d and 3d of June, a decisive
       engagement was fought off the North Foreland, in which Monk
       and Deane, supported by Blake, completely defeated the Dutch
       Admiral, who, as a last resource, tried in vain to blow up his
       own ship, and then retreated to the Dutch coast, leaving
       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 Denmark, the Hanseatic towns, and
       the Swiss provinces were included. ... The Dutch acknowledged
       the supremacy of the English flag in the British seas; they
       consented to the Navigation Act."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 2, page 701.

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Dixon,
          Robert Blake, Admiral and General at Sea,
          chapters 6-7.

          D. Hannay,
          Admiral Blake,
          chapters 6-7.

          J. Campbell,
          Naval History of Great Britain,
          chapter 15 (volume 2).

          G. Penn,
          Memorials of Sir William Penn,
          chapter 4.

          J. Corbett,
          Monk,
          chapter 7.

          J. Geddes,
          History of the Administration of John De Witt,
          volume 1, books 4-5.

          See, also, NAVIGATION LAWS, ENGLISH: A. D. 1651.

    ENGLAND: 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 moderately and respectfully, he presently
       changed his style, told them of their injustice, delays of
       justice, self interest, and other faults; charging them not to
       have a heart to do anything for the public good, to have
       espoused the corrupt interest of Presbytery and the lawyers,
       who were the supporters of tyranny and oppression, accusing
       them of an intention to perpetuate themselves in power. And
       rising into passion, 'as if he were distracted,' he told them
       that the Lord had done with them, and had chosen other
       instruments for the carrying on His work that were worthy. Sir
       Peter Wentworth rose to complain of such language in
       Parliament, coming 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 prating. Call them in!' Twenty or
       thirty musketeers 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.'
       Cromwell, who evidently regarded 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!'
       and gave it to a musketeer. 'Fetch him down,' he cried to
       Harrison, pointing to the Speaker. Lenthall sat still, and
       refused to come down unless by force. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'I
       will lend you my hand,' and putting his hand within his, the
       Speaker came down. Algernon Sidney sat still in his place.
       'Put him out,' said Cromwell. And Harrison and Worsley put
       their hands on his shoulders, and he rose and went out. The
       members went out, fifty-three in all, Cromwell still calling
       aloud. To Vane he said that he might have prevented this; 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 the 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 the House was
       no more the Parliament than Cromwell was the king. A House of
       Commons, which had executed the king, abolished the Lords,
       approved the 'coup d'état' of Pride, and by successive
       proscriptions had reduced itself to a few score of extreme
       partisans, had no legal title to the name of Parliament. 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.
    {886}
       In closing the House, the Lord-General had used his office of
       Commander-in-Chief to anticipate one 'coup d'état' by another.
       Had he been ten minutes late, Vane would himself have
       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 political."

          F. Harrison,
          Oliver Cromwell,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          J. K. Hosmer,
          Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
          part 3, chapter 17.

          F. P. Guizot,
          History of Oliver Cromwell,
          book 4 (volume l).

          L. von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th century,
          book 11, chapter 5 (volume 3).

          W. Godwin,
          History of the Commonwealth,
          volume 3, chapters 27-29.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
       The Barebones, or Little Parliament.

       Six weeks after the expulsion of the Rump, Cromwell, in his
       own name, and upon his own authority, as "Captain-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 himself, with the advice
       of his council of officers, requiring 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 Commonwealth, 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 attend. 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 Gentlemen
       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 reputable Assembly; got together by anxious
       'consultation 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 yet entirely gone
       dark for mankind. A fair proportion 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 Norroys have had the
       luck to make Peers of, the living heart of England has since
       raised to the Peerage and means to keep there,--Colonel Robert
       Blake the Sea-King, for one. 'Known persons,' I do think; 'of
       approved integrity, men fearing God'; and perhaps not entirely
       destitute of sense anyone of them! Truly it seems rather a
       distinguished Parliament,--even though Mr. Praisegod Barbone,
       'the Leather merchant in Fleet-street,' be, as all mortals
       must admit, a member of it. The fault, I hope, is forgivable.
       Praisegod, 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 understanding and
       weight,--and even of considerable 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 history
       is gone all dark."

          T. Carlyle,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 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 reformers that everything substantial among
       English institutions was threatened with overthrow at their
       hands. After five months of busy session, Cromwell was happily
       able to bring about a dissolution of his parliament, by the
       action of a majority, surrendering back their powers into his
       hands,--which was done on the 10th of December, 1653.

          F. P. Guizot,
          History of Oliver Cromwell,
          book 5 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Picton,
          Oliver Cromwell,
          chapter 23.

    ENGLAND: 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 summoned 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 Commonwealth, and that
       Cromwell must be that 'Single Person.' The title of King was
       actually proposed; but, as there were objections to that,
       Protector was chosen as a title familiar in English History
       and of venerable associations. Accordingly, Cromwell having
       consented, and all preparations having been made, he was, on
       Friday, December 16, in a great assembly of civic, judicial
       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 Commonwealth from
       the anarchy, or wild and experimental idealism, in matters
       civil and religious, 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 Constitutional Instrument of forty-two Articles, called
       'The Government of the Commonwealth' [more commonly known as
       The Instrument of Government] to which Cromwell had sworn
       fidelity at his installation."

    {887}

          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          volume 4, book 4, chapters 1 and 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Forster,
          Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell.

          L. von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th Century,
          book 12, chapter 1 (volume 3).

          S. R. Gardiner,
          Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
          introduction, section 4 and pages 314-324.

          Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
          volume 3, pages 1417-1426.

       The following is the text Of the Instrument of Government:

       The government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and
       Ireland, and the dominions 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 person shall be
       the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth 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 Protector, from
       whom, for the future, shall be derived all magistracy and
       honours in these three 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 Parliament; and that the Lord Protector, with the advice
       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, suspended, abrogated,
       or repealed, nor any new law made, nor any tax, charge, or
       imposition laid upon the people, but by common consent in
       Parliament, save only as is expressed in the thirtieth
       article.

       VII. That there shall be a Parliament summoned 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 consent.

       IX. That as well the next as all other successive 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 Parliament, 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 counties of England, Wales, the
       Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, and the town of
       Berwick-upon-Tweed, and all places within the same
       respectively, 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;
          Wycomb, 1;
          Cambridgeshire, 4;
          Cambridge Town, 1;
          Cambridge University, 1;
          Isle of Ely, 2;
          Cheshire, 4;
          Chester, 1;
          Cornwall, 8;
          Launceston, 1;
          Truro, 1;
          Penryn, 1;
          East Looe and West Looe, 1;
          Cumberland, 2;
          Carlisle, 1;
          Derbyshire, 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;
          Malden, 1;
          Colchester, 2;
          Gloucestershire, 5;
          Gloucester, 2;
          Tewkesbury, 1;
          Cirencester, 1;
          Herefordshire, 4;
          Hereford, 1;
          Leominster, 1;
          Hertfordshire, 5;
          St. Alban's, 1:
          Hertford, 1;
          Huntingdonshire, 3;
          Huntingdon, 1;
          Kent, 11;
          Canterbury, 2;
          Rochester, 1
          Maidstone, 1;
          Dover, 1;
          Sandwich, 1;
          Queenborough, 1;
          Lancashire, 4;
          Preston, 1;
          Lancaster, 1;
          Liverpool, 1;
          Manchester, 1;
          Leicestershire, 4
          Leicester, 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
          Northamptonshire, 6;
          Peterborough, 1;
          Northampton, 1;
          Nottinghamshire, 4;
          Nottingham, 2;
          Northumberland, 3;
          Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1;
          Berwick, 1;
          Oxfordshire, 5;
          Oxford City, 1;
          Oxford University, 1;
          Woodstock, 1;
          Rutlandshire, 2;
          Shropshire, 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;
          Bridgwater, 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;
          Surrey, 6;
          Southwark, 2;
          Guildford, 1;
          Reigate, 1;
          Sussex, 9;
          Chichester, 1;
          Lewes, 1;
          East Grinstead, 1;
          Arundel, 1;
          Rye, 1;
          Westmoreland, 2;
          Warwickshire, 4;
          Coventry, 2;
          Warwick, 1;
          Wiltshire, 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.

    {888}

       WALES.
          Anglesey, 2:
          Brecknoekshire, 2;
          Cardiganshire, 2;
          Carmarthenshire, 2;
          Carnarvonshire, 2;
          Denbighshire, 2;
          Flintshire, 2;
          Glamorganshire, 2;
          Cardiff, 1;
          Merionethshire, 1;
          Montgomeryshire, 2;
          Pembrokeshire, 2;
          Haverfordwest, 1;
          Radnorshire, 2.

       The distribution of the persons to be chosen for Scotland and
       Ireland, and the several counties, 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 dissolution 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 proclaimed 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 day 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 convenient 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 officer of such city, town,
       borough, or place, within three days after the receipt of such
       writ and writs; which the said Mayors, Sheriffs, and officers
       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.

       XII. 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 respectively, shall take view of the said elections,
       and shall make return into the chancery within twenty days
       after the said elections, of the persons 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 government 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 2,000 marks of lawful English money; the one moiety to the
       Lord Protector, and the other moiety to such person 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 disabled 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 qualifications, shall be null and void;
       and if any person, who is hereby made incapable, shall give
       his vote for election of members to serve in Parliament, 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 integrity, 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 £200, and not within the aforesaid exceptions,
       shall be capable to elect members to serve in Parliament for
       counties.

       XIX. That the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the
       Great Seal, shall be sworn before they enter into their
       offices, truly and faithfully 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 accordingly, 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 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 Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars
       of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the Mayor 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 persons 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 penalties thereof.

    {889}

       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 Council; 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 approved 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 assembled in manner
       aforesaid, or any sixty of them, shall be, and be deemed the
       Parliament of England, 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 advice 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,
       summon Parliaments in manner before expressed, which shall not
       be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved 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 Parliament, shall be
       presented to the Lord Protector for his consent; and in case
       he shall not give his consent thereto within 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 Bills shall pass into
       and become 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; lieutenant
       general Fleetwood; the colonels Edward 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, the Parliament shall nominate
       six persons of ability, integrity, and fearing God, for
       everyone 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 remaining part of the Council shall execute as fully in
       all things, as if their 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 being, 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 by the Lord
       Protector; 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 twenty-one, and the quorum to be
       proportioned accordingly by the Lord Protector and the major
       part of the Council.

       XXVII. That a constant yearly revenue shall be raised,
       settled, and established for maintaining 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
       convenient number of ships for guarding of the seas; besides
       £200,000 per annum for defraying the other necessary charges
       of administration of justice, 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 the 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 shall remain in bank for the public service, and not
       be employed to any other use but by consent of Parliament, or,
       in the intervals of Parliament, by the Lord Protector and
       major part of the Council.

    {890}

       XXX. That the raising of money for defraying the charge of the
       present extraordinary forces, both at sea and land, in respect
       of the present wars, shall be by consent of Parliament, and
       not otherwise: save only that the Lord Protector, with the
       consent of the major part of the Council, 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.

       XXXI. That the lands, tenements, rents, royalties,
       jurisdictions and hereditaments which remain yet unsold or
       undisposed of, by Act or Ordinance of Parliament, belonging to
       the Commonwealth (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 Carlow; the lands forfeited by the people of
       Scotland in the late wars, and also the lands of Papists 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,
       fines, issues, amercements, penalties and profits, certain and
       casual, due to the Keepers of the liberties of England by
       authority of Parliament, shall be due to the Lord Protector,
       and be payable into his public receipt, and shall be recovered
       and prosecuted in his name.

       XXXII. That the office of Lord Protector over these nations
       shall be elective and not hereditary; 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 Council; and, having given notice to an 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 an 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
       dominions thereto belonging. Provided that none of the
       children of the late King, nor any of his 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 an things as fully
       as the Lord Protector, or the Lord Protector and Council are
       enabled to do.

       XXXIII. That Oliver Cromwell, Captain-General of the forces of
       England, Scotland and Ireland, shall be, and is hereby
       declared to be, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England,
       Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, for
       his life.

       XXXIV. That the Chancellor, Keeper or Commissioners of the
       Great Seal, the Treasurer, Admiral, 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 approbation of the major part
       of the Council, to be afterwards approved by the Parliament.

       XXXV. That the Christian religion, as contained in the
       Scriptures, be held forth and recommended as the public
       profession of these nations; and that, as soon as may be, a
       provision, 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,
       hereby, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine; and until
       such provision be made, the present maintenance shall not be
       taken away or impeached.

       XXXVI. That to the public profession held forth none shall be
       compened 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 ordinances, and clauses
       in any law, statute or ordinance 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
       lands, tenements, rents and hereditaments 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 Parliament, shall be performed and
       made good to the persons concerned therein; and that such
       appeals as were depending in the last Parliament for relief
       concerning bills of sale of delinquent's estates, may be heard
       and determined the next Parliament, anything in this writing
       or otherwise to the contrary notwithstanding.

    {891}

       XLI. That every successive Lord Protector over these nations
       shall take and subscribe a 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 administered; and that he will
       not violate or infringe 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 subscribe an oath, that they will
       be true and faithful 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.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1654.
       Re-conquest of Acadia (Nova Scotia).

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1654 (April).
       Incorporation of Scotland with the Commonwealth.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.
       The Protector, his Parliaments 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 leadership of
       old Parliamentarians, Haslerig, Scott, Bradshaw, and many
       other republicans, the House proceeded to debate the
       Instrument of Government, the constitutional basis of the
       existing system. 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 the Executive 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 secure 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 supplies for the services and
       the government. At last they passed an Act for revising the
       constitution 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,
          chapter 11.

       "In 1656, the Protector called a second Parliament. 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 received 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 the Council. The Protector, 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 [February 4, 1658]
       dissolved the Parliament in anger."

          S. R. Gardiner,
          Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
          pages lxiii-lxiv., and 334-350.

       "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 kingdom into
       districts, he placed at the head of each a major-general as a
       sort of military magistrate, responsible for the subjection of
       his prefecture. These were eleven in number, men bitterly
       hostile to the royalist party, and insolent towards all civil
       authority. They were employed to secure the payment of a tax
       of 10 per cent., imposed by Cromwell's arbitrary will on those
       who had ever sided with the king during the late wars, where
       their estates exceeded £100 per annum. The major-generals, in
       their correspondence printed among Thurloe's papers, display a
       rapacity and oppression beyond their master's. ... All
       illusion was now gone as to the pretended benefits of the
       civil war. It had ended in 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 offence had long
       been expiated by a composition and effaced by an act of
       indemnity? or were the excessive punishments of the
       star-chamber so odious as the capital executions inflicted
       without trial by peers, whenever it suited the usurper to
       erect his high court of justice? ... I cannot ... agree in the
       praises which have been showered upon Cromwell for the just
       administration of the laws under his dominion. That, between
       party and party, the ordinary civil rights of men were fairly
       dealt with, is no extraordinary praise; and it may be admitted
       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 commonwealth."

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 10, part 2.

       "Cromwell was, and felt himself to be, a dictator called in by
       the winning cause in a revolution 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
       military 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,
          chapter 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:
          Cromwell.

    {892}

       "His [Cromwell's] wish seems to have been to govern
       constitutionally, and to substitute the empire of the laws for
       that of the sword. But he soon found that, hated as he was,
       both by Royalists 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 despotism, moderated only by the wisdom, the sobriety and
       the magnanimity of the despot."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 1.

    England: A. D. 1655-1658.
       War with Spain, alliance with France.
       Acquisition of Dunkirk.

       "Though the German war ['the Thirty Years' War,' concluded in
       1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia] was over, the struggle
       between France and Spain was continued with great animosity,
       each country striving to crush her rival and become the first
       power in Europe. Both Louis XIV. and Philip IV. of Spain were
       bidding for the protector's support. Spain offered the
       possession 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 down 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 proclaimed with Spain, a treaty of peace
       was signed between France and England, Louis XIV. agreeing to
       banish Charles Stuart and his brothers from French territory
       (October 24, 1655). This treaty was afterwards changed into a
       league, offensive and defensive (March 23, 1657), Cromwell
       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
       occupation of these towns Cromwell intended to control 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 Teneriffe, 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 'unsi bon morceau' ['a good ...'] (June
       25)."

          B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
          King and Commonwealth,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carlyle,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          book 9, speech 5 and book 10, letters 152-157.

          J. Campbell,
          Naval History of Great Britain,
          chapter 15 (volume 2).

          J. Waylen,
          The House of Cromwell and the Story of Dunkirk,
          pages 173-272.

          W. H. Dixon,
          Robert Blake,
          chapters 9-10.

          D. Hannay,
          Admiral Blake,
          chapter 9-11.

          See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.
       The fall of the Protectorate 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 Protector, 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
       personal 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 (January 27, 1659), which recognized and
       confirmed his authority, though containing a powerful
       opposition, 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 commanders.
       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 22], 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 resume
       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 nation, 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 revived, 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 [October 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 transactions,
       and were evidently out of sympathy with their comrades in
       England. Monk, who had never meddled with politics before, was
       now induced to interfere.
    {893}
       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 welcomed and encouraged by popular
       demonstrations 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 recognized 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 convening of a new and free
       Parliament, in the place of the Rump--which had again resumed
       its sittings--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 described 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 instantly invited the King to return to his
       country. He was proclaimed with pomp never before known. A
       gallant fleet convoyed him from Holland 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 delight. The journey to
       London was a continued triumph."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 1.

       The only guarantee with which the careless nation took back
       their ejected kings of the faithless race of Stuarts was
       embodied in a Declaration 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 limitations
       only as the Parliament should think fit to make. All 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
       diminishing 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,
          History of Richard Cromwell and the Restoration,
          book 4 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          G. Burnet,
          History of My Own Time,
          book 2, 1660-61.

          Earl of Clarendon,
          History of the Rebellion,
          book 16 (volume 6).

          D. Masson,
          Life of Milton,
          volume 5, book 3.

          J. Corbett,
          Monk,
          chapter 9-14.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1685.
       The Merry Monarch.

       "There never were such profligate times in England 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 declare 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 persons (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 officer 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 appalling cruelty. ... Sir Harry Vane, who had furnished
       the evidence against Stratford, and was one of the most
       staunch of the Republicans, was also tried, found guilty, and
       ordered for execution. ... These merry scenes were succeeded
       by another, perhaps even merrier. On the anniversary 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 flaunting 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 powerful
       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 actually 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 created Duchess of Portsmouth,
       became the Duke of Richmond.
    {894}
       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 History of England,
          chapter 35.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
       Acquisition of Bombay.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
       The Savoy Conference.

       "The Restoration had been the joint work of Episcopalian and
       Presbyterian; 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 that 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 inseparable 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
       Presbyterian majority however it was necessary to temporise.
       The former incumbents of Church livings were restored, and the
       Commons took the Communion according to the rites of the
       Church; but in other respects the Presbyterians were carefully
       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
       the 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
       nevertheless, to his own knowledge, the Presbyterians were not
       enemies to Episcopacy or a set liturgy, and were opposed to
       the 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 Presbyterians, one
       of whom, Reynolds, accepted a bishopric. 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 securing 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 (December 24) dissolved. The way was now open for the
       riot of the Anglican triumph. Even before the new House met
       the mask 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 English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
          chapter 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 respecting the exceptions against it,
       and by agreement to make such necessary alterations as should
       afford satisfaction to tender consciences, and restore to the
       Church unity and peace; the instrument appointed 'the Master's
       lodgings in the Savoy' as the place of meeting. ... The
       Commissioners were summoned to meet upon the 15th of April.
       ... The Bill of Uniformity, hereafter to be described,
       actually passed the House of Commons 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,
          History of Religion in English,
          volume 3, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Calamy,
          Nonconformists' Memorial,
          introduction, section 3.

          W. Orme,
          Life and Times of Richard Baxter,
          chapter 7.

    ENGLAND: 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 infernal regions the gold
       which his subjects measured 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 October 27, 1662. It was time; the
       Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, informed 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. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          translated by M. L. Booth, chapter 4 (volume 1).

    {895}

    England: A. D. 1662-1665.
       The Act of Uniformity and persecution of the Nonconformists.

       The failure of the Savoy Conference "was the conclusion which
       had been expected and desired. Charles 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 Ordination of Ministers,
       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
       everything contained and prescribed 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,
          History of England,
          volume 11, chapter. 4.

       "This rigorous act when it passed, gave the ministers, who
       could not conform, 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 exclamations, that between three and
       four score bishops were driven at once into the island of
       Sardinia by the African vandals; that 200 ministers were
       banished by Ferdinand, 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, but had 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
       themselves: not only excluded preferments, but turned out into
       the wide world without any visible 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 privately on the
       king, had their hopes confirmed, and would have persuaded
       their brethren to have thanked him for his declaration; but
       they refused, lest they should make way for the toleration of
       the Papists, whom they understood the king 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 religion, 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 offence, 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 plantations, 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 labouring
       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 incomparably 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
       corporations."

          E. Calamy,
          The Nonconformist's Memorial,
          introduction, sections 4-6.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Stoughton,
          History of Religion in England,
          volume 3, chapters 6-9.

          D. Neal,
          History of the Puritans,
          volume 4, chapter 6-7.

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

          See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
       The King's charter to Rhode Island.

          See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1664.
       The conquest of New Netherland (New York).

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1664-1665.
       The first refractory symptoms in Massachusetts.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1665.
       The grant of New Jersey to Carteret and Berkeley.

          See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1665-1666.
       War with Holland renewed.
       The Dutch fleet in the Thames.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
       The Triple Alliance with Holland and Sweden against Louis XIV.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
       Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
       The secret Catholicism and the perfidy of the King.
       His begging of bribes from Louis XIV.
       His betrayal of Holland.
       His breaking of the Triple Alliance.

       In 1668, the royal treasury being greatly embarrassed 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 extinguishing
       the debt. Charles remembered the promise of pecuniary
       assistance from France in the beginning of his reign; and,
       though his previous efforts to cultivate the friendship of
       Louis had been defeated by an unpropitious course of events,
       he resolved to renew the experiment.
    {896}
       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
       princes became more open and confidential; French money, or
       the promise of French money, was received by the English
       ministers; the negotiation 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 credulity,
       and the result of the inquiry was a conviction that it became
       his duty to reconcile himself 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 established church, while he attended at
       the Catholic 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 immediately 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 religion 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 advised 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 suspect that his real object was to deceive both his
       brother and the king of France. ... Now, however, 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-operation 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 thus 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, Henrietta, 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 impenetrable secrecy. What became of
       the copy transmitted to France is unknown; its counterpart was
       confided to the custody of sir Thomas Clifford, and is still
       in the keeping of his descendant, the lord Clifford of
       Chudleigh. The principal 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.

          2. That to enable the king of England to suppress any
          insurrection which might be occasioned 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 ratification of
          the treaty, and should also assist him with an armed force
          of 6,000 men, if ... necessary. ...

          4. That if, eventually, any new rights on the Spanish
          monarchy should accrue to the king of France, the king of
          England should aid him 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,
          History of England,
          volume 11, chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 11.

          O. Airy,
          The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
          chapter 16.

          G. Burnet,
          History of My Own Time,
          book 2 (volume 1).

    ENGLAND: 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, Clifford, Ashley
       [afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury], 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,
          History of England,
          chapter. 65 (volume 6).

          See, also, CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.
       The Declaration of Indulgence 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 Nonconformists. The
       announcement of the King's Catholicism was therefore deferred.
       ... His ministers outwitted, it only remained for Charles to
       outwit his Parliament. A large subsidy was demanded for the
       fleet, under the pretext of upholding the Triple Alliance, and
       the subsidy was no sooner granted than the two Houses were
       adjourned.
    {897}
       Fresh supplies were obtained by closing the Exchequer, and
       suspending--under Clifford's advice--the payment of either
       principal or interest on loans advanced to the public
       treasury. The measure spread bankruptcy among half the
       goldsmiths of London; but it was followed 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 recusants should be from that day
       suspended,' and gave liberty of public worship 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 suspicion that a plot was on foot for
       the establishment 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 Nonconformists, 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 ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by consent
       of Parliament,' and refused supplies till the Declaration was
       recalled. The King yielded; but the Declaration was no sooner
       recalled than a Test Act was passed through both Houses
       without opposition, which required from everyone 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 the rites of the
       Church of England. Clifford at once counseled resistance, and
       Buckingham talked flightily about bringing the army to London,
       but Arlington saw that all hope of carrying the 'great plan'
       through was at an end, and pressed Charles to yield. ...
       Charles sullenly gave way. No measure has ever brought about
       more startling results. The Duke of York owned himself a
       Catholic, and resigned his office as Lord High Admiral. ...
       Clifford, too, ... owned to being a Catholic, and ... laid
       down his staff of office. Their resignation was followed by
       that of hundreds of others in the army and the civil service
       of the Crown. ... The resignations were held 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 History of England,
          chapter 9, section 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 these classes for the present
       submitted to the inconvenience, from the horror which they
       entertained of Popery, hoping, at the same time, that some
       relief would be afforded for this personal sacrifice in the
       cause of a common Protestantism. 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 attributed to the
       course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the
       sufferers."

          J. Stoughton,
          History of Religion in England,
          volume 3, chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Neal,
          History of the Puritans,
          volume 4, chapter 8, and volume 5, chapter 1.

          J. Collier,
          Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
          part 2, book 9 (volume 8).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1674.
       Alliance with Louis XIV. of France in war with Holland.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1673.
       Loss of New York, retaken by the Dutch.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1674.
       Peace with the Dutch.
       Treaty of Westminster.
       Recovery of New York.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1675-1688.
       Concessions to France in Newfoundland.

          See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

    ENGLAND: 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 England. A preacher of low character,
       named Titus Oates, 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 [October 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 when
       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 Parliament. After this no Catholic sat in either House
       for a hundred and fifty years. But worse followed. Oates
       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 Danby, did all he
       could to fan the flame."

          A. B. Buckley,
          History of England for Beginners,
          chapter 19.

       "The capital and the whole nation went mad with hatred and
       fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose something of
       their edge, were sharpened anew. Everywhere 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 train bands were under arms all 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,
          History of England,
          chapter. 2 (volume 1).

    {898}

       "It being expected that printed Bibles would soon become rare,
       or locked up in an unknown tongue, many honest people, struck
       with the alarm, employed themselves in copying the Bible into
       short-hand that they might not be destitute 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
       introduced."

          G. Roberts,
          Life of Monmouth,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

       "And now commenced, before the courts of justice and the upper
       house, a sombre prosecution of the catholic lords Arundel,
       Petre, Stafford, Powis, Bellasis, the Jesuits Coleman,
       Ireland, Grieve, Pickering, and, in succession, all who were
       implicated by the indefatigable denunciations of Titus Oates
       and Bedloe. Unhappily, 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 French
       ambassador, thoroughly acquainted as they were with the real
       nature of these imputed crimes, remained silent; they were
       thoroughly cowed."

          A. Carrel,
          History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
          part 1, chapter 4.

       "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 proceedings on the popish plot must always be
       considered 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. Fox,
          History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
          introduction, ch.

       "In this dreadful scene of wickedness, it is difficult 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 Oates, to work
       up the nation to the fury which produced the subsequent
       horrors. ... In extenuation of the delusion of the populace,
       something 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
       which 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 discovered that Charles was in the pay of France.
       These, with several other circumstances, had inflamed the
       imaginations of the public to the very highest pitch. A
       dreadful something (and not the less dreadful because its
       precise nature was altogether unknown), was generally
       apprehended. ... For their supposed part in the plot, ten
       laymen and seven priests, one of whom was seventy, another
       eighty, years of age, were executed. Seventeen others were
       condemned, but not executed. Some died in prison, and some
       were pardoned. On the whole body of catholics the laws were
       executed with horrible severity."

          C. Butler,
          Historical Memoirs of the English Catholics,
          chapter 32, section 3 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
          chapter 89 (volume 3).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (May).
       The Habeas Corpus Act.

       "Arbitrary imprisonment is a grievance which, in some degree,
       has place in almost every government, 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, betrayed 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 anyone 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 prisoner must be
       indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to
       trial in the subsequent term. And no man, after being enlarged
       by order of court, can be recommitted for the same offence."

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          chapter 67 (volume 6).

       "The older remedies serving as a safeguard 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 undertaking he held him by the hand ('le prit par le
       main').

       2. The writ 'De odio et atiâ,' 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 homine replegiando,' or replevying a man, that
       is, delivering 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, 'litteræ clausæ,' a
       sealed letter addressed to a particular person; such writs
       were prepared in the royal courts or in the Court of Chancery.
       The most usual instrument of protection, however, against
       arbitrary imprisonment is the writ of 'Habeas corpus,' so
       called from its beginning with the words, 'Habeas corpus ad
       subjiciendum,' which, on account of its universal application
       and the security it affords, has, insensibly, taken precedence
       of all others.
    {899}
       This is an old writ of the common law, and must be prayed for
       in any of the Superior courts of common law. ... But this writ
       . . . proved but a feeble, or rather wholly ineffectual
       protection against the arbitrary power of the sovereign. The
       right of an English subject to a writ of habeas corpus, and to
       a release from imprisonment unless sufficient cause be shown
       for his detention, was fully canvassed in the first years of
       the reign of Charles I. ... The parliament endeavoured to
       prevent such arbitrary imprisonment 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 malevolent 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 release.
       Notwithstanding these provisions, the immunity of English
       subjects from arbitrary detention was not ultimately
       established in full practical efficiency until the passing of
       the statute of Charles II., commonly called the 'Habeas Corpus
       Act.'"

          E. Fischel,
          The English Constitution,
          book 1, chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir W. Blackstone,
          Commentaries on the Laws of England,
          book 3, chapter 8.

          H. J. Stephen,
          Commentaries,
          book 5, chapter 12, section 5 (volume 4).

       The following is the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679:

       I. Whereas great Delays have been used by Sheriffs, Gaolers
       and other Officers, to whose Custody any of the King's
       Subjects have been committed, for criminal or supposed
       criminal Matters, in making 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
       directed unto any Sheriff, or Sheriffs, Gaoler, Minister, 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 under
       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, according
       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, unless 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 convict, or in
       Execution by legal Process) or anyone on his or their Behalf,
       to appeal, or complain to the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
       or anyone 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 Commitment 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 detained, are hereby
       authorized and required, upon Request made in Writing by such
       Person or Persons, or any on his, her, or their Behalf,
       attested 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 Officer 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 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 returnable,
       and in case of his Absence, before any of them, with the
       Return of such Writ, and the true Causes of the Commitment and
       Detainer.
    {900}
       (7.) And thereupon within two Days after the Party shall be
       brought before them the said Lord Chancellor, 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 Recognizance, 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 in the
       Court of King's Bench the Term following, or at the next
       Assizes, Sessions, or general Gaol-Delivery, of and for such
       County, City or Place, where the Commitment was, or where the
       Offence was committed, 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 Imprisonment to pray a Habeas Corpus for his
       Enlargement, 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,
       according 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 Person 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. (2.) And for the
       second Offence, 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, Injunction, Wager of Law, or stay of Prosecution,
       by Non vult ulterius prosequi, or otherwise, shall be admitted
       or allowed, or any more than one Imparlance. (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 the Officers 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; (2.) Be it enacted by the
       Authority aforesaid, That no Person or Persons, which shall be
       delivered or set at large upon any Habeas Corpus, shall at any
       time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same
       Offence, by any Person or Persons whatsoever, other than by
       the legal Order and Process of such Court wherein he or they
       shall be bound by Recognizance to appear, 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 delivered or set at large as aforesaid, or
       be knowingly 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 Warrants of Commitment notwithstanding, to be
       recovered as aforesaid.

       VII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if any
       Person or Persons shall be committed for High Treason or
       Felony, plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of
       Commitment, 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,
       Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery 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
       Terminer, 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 anyone in 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. (2.) And if any Person 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 acquitted, he shall
       be discharged from his Imprisonment.

       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.

    {901}

       IX. Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority
       aforesaid, That if any Person or Persons, Subjects of this
       Realm, shall be committed to any Prison, or in Custody of any
       Officer or Officers whatsoever, for any Criminal or supposed
       Criminal Matter, that the said Person shall not be removed
       from the said Prison and Custody, 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 delivered
       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
       Discharge 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 Warrants, as the
       Officer or Officers, that obey or execute the same, shall
       suffer & incur the Pains & Forfeitures in this Act
       before-mentioned, both for the 1st & 2nd Offence,
       respectively, 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
       Chancery, 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 Vacation
       time, upon view of the Copy or Copies of the Warrant or
       Warrants of Commitment or Detainer, 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 according 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, Dominion 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 Kingdom
       of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed,
       shall or may be sent Prisoner 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 Dominions 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 hereafter 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 Imprisonment, in any
       of his Majesty's Courts of Record, against the Person or
       Persons by whom he or she shall be so committed, detained,
       imprisoned, sent Prisoner or transported, contrary to the true
       meaning of this Act, and against all or any Person or Persons,
       that shall frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any
       Warrant or Writing for such Commitment, Detainer, Imprisonment
       or Transportation, or shall be advising, aiding or assisting
       in the same, or any of them. (5.) And the Plaintiff in every
       such Action, shall have judgment to recover his treble Costs,
       besides Damages; which Damages so to be given, shall not be
       less than Five Hundred Pounds. (6.) In which Action, no Delay,
       Stay, or Stop of Proceeding, by Rule, Order or Command, nor no
       Injunction, Protection, or Priviledge whatsoever, nor any more
       than one Imparlance shall be allowed, excepting such Rule of
       the Court wherein the Action shall depend, made in open Court,
       as shall be thought in justice necessary, 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 Persons contrary to this Act, or be
       any ways advising, aiding or assisting therein, being lawfully
       convicted thereof, shall be disabled from thenceforth 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
       belonging. (8.) And shall incur and sustain the Pains,
       Penalties, and Forfeitures, limited, ordained, 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, or 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 transported into any Parts
       beyond the Seas; This Act, or any thing therein contained to
       the contrary notwithstanding.

       XV. Provided also, and be it enacted, That nothing herein
       contained, shall be deemed, construed, or taken to extend to
       the Imprisonment of any Person before the first Day of June,
       One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy and Nine, or to any thing
       advised, procured, or otherwise done, relating to such
       Imprisonment; Any thing herein contained to the contrary
       notwithstanding.

    {902}

       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 Plantations 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 manner as the same might have 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 impleaded 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; (2.) Be it enacted, That after the
       Assizes proclaimed for that County where the Prisoner is
       detained, no Person 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 what to Justice
       shall appertain.

       XIX. Provided nevertheless, That after the Assizes are ended,
       any Person or 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 general 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
       Matter 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 sufficiently
       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 Examinations 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 necessary 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 Felony, shall be plainly and
       specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, that such
       Person 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.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).
       The Meal-tub Plot.

       "Dangerfield, 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
       commissions, 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 extraordinary thing would quickly break
       out: and he having some correspondence with one colonel
       Mansel, he made up a bundle of seditious but ill contrived
       letters, and laid them in a dark corner of his room: and then
       some searchers were sent from the custom house to look for
       some forbidden 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 discovery: 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,
          History of My Own Time,
          book 3, 1679.

    ENGLAND: 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
       evident 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, indeed, for the spirit of the
       country, and the rock on which English liberty was nearly
       shipwrecked. 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 [January
       24, 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 impeachments
       commenced by their predecessors, and carrying 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 21, 1679, by 207 to 128].

    {903}

       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, October, 1680]. ... The bill of
       exclusion ... provided that the imperial crown of England
       should descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons
       successively during the life of the duke of York as would have
       inherited or enjoyed the same in case he were naturally dead.
       ... But a large part of the opposition had unfortunately other
       objects in view." Under the contaminating influence of the
       earl of Shaftesbury, "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
       Shaftesbury brought forward that unconstitutional and most
       impolitic scheme of the duke of Monmouth'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 pretence 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,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Carrel,
          History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
          part 2, chapter 1.

          G. Roberts,
          Life of Monmouth,
          chapter 4-8 (volume 1).

          G. Burnet,
          History of My Own Time,
          book 3, 1679-81.

          Sir W. Temple,
          Memoirs,
          part 3 (Works, volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1680.
       Whigs and Tories acquire their respective names.

       "Factions indeed were at this time [A. D. 1680] extremely
       animated against each other. The very names by which each
       party denominated its antagonist discover the virulence and
       rancour which prevailed. For besides petitioner and abhorrer,
       appellations 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 the
       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,
          History of England,
          chapter 68 (volume 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
             They came here in their brogues,
             And have acted like Rogues,
          In endeavouring to learn us to swear."

          J. Grego,
          History of Parliamentary Elections,
          page 36.

          ALSO IN:
          G. W. Cooke,
          History of Party,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 2.

       For the origin of the name of the 'Whig party,

          See WHIGS (WIGGAMORS); also, RAPPAREES.

    ENGLAND: 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 rewarded with insult and violence; and now that he
       saw his end accomplished, he suddenly dissolved 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 universal
       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
       appear at his call, and urged his friends to rise in arms. But
       their delays drove him to flight. ... The flight of
       Shaftesbury proclaimed the triumph 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 desperate 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
       suicide 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 opposition 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 unexpectedly, early in February, 1685, and
       his brother, the Duke of York, succeeded to the throne, as
       James II., with no resistance, but with much feeling opposed
       to him.

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of England,
          chapter 9, sections 5-6.

    {904}

          ALSO IN:
          G. Roberts,
          Life of Monmouth;
          chapters 8-10 (volume 1).

          D. Hume,
          History of England,
          chapters 68-69 (volume 6).

          G. W. Cooke,
          History of Party,
          volume 1, chapters 6-11.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1685.
       Accession of James II.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (February).
       The new King proclaims 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 host 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,
          History of England,
          chapter 4 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (May-July).
       Monmouth's Rebellion.

       "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 triumph 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 Monmouth and the Earl of Argyle, son
       of that Marquis 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
       Amsterdam, whither Argyle, a strong Presbyterian, but a man of
       lofty and moderate views, also repaired. National jealousy
       prevented any union between the exiles, and two expeditions
       were determined on,--the one under Argyle, who hoped to find
       an army ready to his hand among his clansmen in the West of
       Scotland, the other under Monmouth in the West of England.
       Argyle'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 himself
       taken in Renfrewshire, and, after an exhibition 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 common
       people, he received no support from the upper classes. Even
       the strongest Whigs disbelieved 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 enthusiasm, and, vainly thinking to attract the
       nobility, had assumed the title of King. Nor was his reception
       at Bridgewater less flattering. But difficulties 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 Beaufort, and the regular army under Feversham
       and Churchill were approaching." After feebly attempting
       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 undertake a night
       surprise, and did so in the early morning of the 6th. "The
       night was not unfitting 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 Bussex Rhine," which his cavalry could not cross, and
       behind which the enemy rallied, was the ruin of the
       enterprise. "Monmouth 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
       neighbourhood of Ringwood." Monmouth petitioned abjectly for
       his life, but in vain. He was executed on the 15th of July.
       "The failure of this insurrection was followed by the most
       terrible cruelties. Feversham returned to London, to be
       flattered 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,
          History of England,
          period 2, pages 764-768.

        The number of Monmouth'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,
        cornfields, and other hiding places, the following day."

          C. J. Fox,
          History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Roberts,
          Life of Monmouth,
          chapters 13-28 (volumes 1-2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (September).
       The Bloody Assizes.

       "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 language. ... At Winchester the
       Chief Justice first opened his commission. Hampshire had not
       been the theatre of war; but many of the vanquished 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 proceeding
       was to arraign Lady Alice for the technical reason of the
       concealment.
    {905}
       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 the fiend 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 Jeffreys or his
       fit master, the king. "In Hampshire 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 innovation 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 themselves 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 proceeded to Exeter. The civil war had barely grazed
       the frontier of Devonshire. Here, therefore, comparatively few
       persons were capitally punished. Somersetshire, the chief seat
       of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most
       fearful vengeance. 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 Monmouth with
       soldiers, ironed corpses clattering in the wind, or heads 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 survivors. Several prisoners to whom Jeffreys was unable
       to bring home the charge 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 conditions 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 cordially welcomed. He was a judge after
       his master's own heart. James had watched the circuit 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
       themselves by throwing the blame on each other."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir James Mackintosh,
          History of the Revolution
          in England, chapter 1.

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
          chapter 100 (volume 3).

          G. Roberts,
          Life of Monmouth,
          chapter 29-31 (volume 2).

          See, also, TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1686.
       Faithless and tyrannical measures against
       the New England colonies.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687;
          and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1689.
       The Despotism of James II. in Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
       The Court of High Commission 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, considered 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 foundation for my
       measures to re-establish true religion, and give me a right to
       exercise a more extensive power than other Catholic princes
       possess in the ecclesiastical affairs of their dominions.' He
       found legal advisers ready with paltry expedients for evading
       the two statutes of 1641 and 1660 [abolishing, and
       re-affirming the abolition 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 pernicious 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 Mackintosh,
          History of the Revolution in England,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Neal,
          History of the Puritans,
          volume 5, chapter 3.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
       The consolidation of New England under a royal
       Governor-General.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

    ENGLAND: 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 required, as they dared not yet proceed 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.
    {906}
       This court had not the power to abolish the Test Act, but it
       might consider whether the king had the right of exempting
       particular subjects from the formalities. ... The king ...
       closeted himself with the judges one by one, dismissed some,
       and got those who replaced them, 'ignorant men,' says an
       historian, 'and scandalously incompetent,' to acknowledge his
       dispensing 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 prerogative in the
          kings of England to dispense with penal laws in particular
          cases, and upon particular 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 ancient remains of the
          sovereign power and prerogative 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 people for the decisions of
       the higher courts, to exempt all his catholic subjects from
       the obligations of the test. And upon this, it became no
       longer a question merely of preserving in their commissions
       and offices those whose dismissal had been demanded by
       parliament. ... To obtain or to retain certain employments, it
       was necessary to be of the same religion with the king.
       Papists replaced in the army and in the administration 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 favour."

          A. Carrel,
          History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Stoughton,
          History of Religion in England,
          volume 4, chapter 4.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
       Declarations of Indulgence.
       Trial of the Seven Bishops.

       "Under pretence of toleration for Dissenters, James
       endeavoured, under another form, to remove obstacles from
       Romanists. He announced an Indulgence. He began in Scotland by
       issuing on the 12th of February, 1687, in Edinburgh, a
       Proclamation granting relief to scrupulous consciences. 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 prorogue 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 impracticable) 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 Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to
       perform worship publicly, and abrogated all Acts of Parliament
       imposing any religious test for civil or military offices.
       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 27th 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
       officiating 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
       Declaration through their dioceses. Hitherto the Bishops and
       Clergy had held the doctrine of passive obedience 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
       violation 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 Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop of
       Canterbury and other Prelates assembled. They resolved that
       the Declaration ought not to be read. On Friday, the 18th of
       May, a second meeting of the Prelates and eminent divines was
       held at Lambeth 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
       Declaration 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 Sancroft, 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 forbidden 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 pronounced it libellous [and
       seditious and rebellious], and the Bishops retired. On Sunday,
       the 20th of May, the first day appointed, the Declaration was
       read in London only in four Churches out of one hundred. The
       Dissenters and Church Laymen 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 remaining together all night (one being
       stubborn) pronounced a verdict of not guilty on the morning of
       the 30th June, 1688."

          W. H. Torriano,
          William the Third,
          chapter 2.

    {907}

       "The court met at nine o'clock. The nobility and gentry
       covered the benches, and an immense concourse of people filled
       the Hall, and blocked up the adjoining streets. Sir Robert
       Langley, the foreman of the jury, being, according to
       established form, asked 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 electrical rapidity
       from voice to voice along the infinite 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 in the
       hearing 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. Mackintosh,
          History of the Revolution in England in 1688,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Strickland,
          Lives of the Seven Bishops.

          R. Southey,
          Book of the Church,
          chapter 18.

          G. G. Perry,
          History of the Church of England,
          chapter 30 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (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
       importance 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 History of England,
          chapter 9, section 7.

       "William 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,
          History of the Revolution in England,
          chapter 10.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (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
       demonstration 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
       proposals to William [prince of Orange] to make an armed
       descent upon England, as vindicator of English liberties and
       the Protestant religion. William had cautiously required a
       signed invitation from at least a few representative statesmen
       before committing himself to such an enterprise, and on the
       day of the acquittal of the Seven Bishops a paper, signed in
       cipher by Lords Shrewsbury, Devonshire, Danby, and Lumley, by
       Compton, Bishop of Northampton, by Edward Russell, and by
       Henry Sidney, brother of Algernon, 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 declaration. 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;

          (2) the corruption, coercion, and packing of the judicial
          bench;

          (3) the violation of the test laws by the appointment of
          papists to offices (particularly judicial and military
          offices, and the administration of Ireland), and generally
          the arbitrary and illegal measures resorted to by James for
          the propagation of the Catholic religion;

          (4) the establishment and action of the Court of High
          Commission;

          (5) the infringement of some municipal charters, and the
          procuring of the surrender of others;

          (6) interference with elections by turning out of all
          employment 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 temporal, 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 religion, and
       the conclusion of an agreement between the Church of England
       and the Dissenters, as also the inquiry into the birth of the
       'pretended 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
       readiness, the Prince took solemn leave of the States-General.
       ... On the 19th William and his armament 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 put 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,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Burnet,
          History of My Own Time, 1688
          (volume 3).

          L. von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th Century,
          book 18, chapters 1-4 (volume 4).

          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
          chapters 106-107: Somers (volume 4).

          T. P. Courtenay,
          Life of Danby (Lardner's Cab. Cyclop.),
          pages 315-324.

    {908}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
       The Revolution.
       Ignominious flight of James.

       "The declaration published by the prince [on landing]
       consisted of sixteen articles. It enumerated those proceedings
       of the government since the accession of the king, which were
       regarded as in the greatest degree opposed to the liberty of
       the subject and to the safety of the Protestant religion. ...
       To provide some effectual remedy against these and similar
       evils, was the only design of the enterprise in which the
       prince, in compliance with earnest solicitations from many
       lords, both spiritual and temporal, from numbers among the
       gentry and all ranks of people, had now embarked. ...
       Addresses were also published to the army and navy. ... The
       immediate effect of these appeals 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 Monmouth's expedition was still
       fresh and terrible through the west. On the 12th, lord
       Cornbury, son of the earl of Clarendon, went over, with some
       officers, 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 reminded, 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
       Sherburne; the princess made her escape from Whitehall 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 Newcastle, 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 proclamation on the 13th of
       November, stating that writs had been signed to convene a
       parliament on the 15th 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 ferment 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 voyage to Calais.
       James pledged himself to follow within 24 hours. In the course
       of that day the royal commissioners sent a report of their
       proceedings to Whitehall. The demands of the prince were, that
       a parliament should be assembled; 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 armament should be defrayed, in part, from the English
       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 danger, 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 Feversham, 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 the monarch at
       Feversham on Wednesday was followed by an order of the privy
       council, commanding 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 from
       Westminster, and Hampton Court was named. James expressed 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 embarked secretly at Rochester, and with a favourable
       breeze safely reached the French coast."

          R. Vaughan,
          History of England under the House of Stuart,
          volume 2, pages 914-918.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapters 9-10 (volume 2).

          H. D. Traill,
          William the Third,
          chapter 4.

          Continuation of Sir J. Mackintosh's
          History of the Revolution in 1688,
          chapters 16-17.

          Sir J. Dalrymple,
          Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
          part 1, books 6-7 (volume 2).

    {909}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
       The settlement of the Crown on William and Mary.
       The Declaration of Rights.

       "The convention 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 28th of January the commons, after a
       debate in which the friends of the late king made but a faint
       opposition, came to their great vote: That king James II.,
       having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of this
       kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and
       people, and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons
       having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn
       himself 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 popish 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, though 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 thereby become "vacant." They
       yielded at length, however, and adopted the resolution as the
       commons had passed it. They "followed this up by a resolution,
       that the prince and princess of Orange shall be declared king
       and queen of England, and all the dominions thereunto
       belonging. But the commons, with a noble patriotism, delayed
       to concur in this hasty settlement of the crown, till they
       should have completed the declaration of those fundamental
       rights and liberties for the sake of which alone they had gone
       forward with this great revolution. That declaration, being at
       once an exposition of the mis-government which had compelled
       them to dethrone the late king, and of the conditions upon
       which they elected his successors, was incorporated 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 dignity of the said
       kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs 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 presented 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 arbitrary acts committed by the
       late king, and of their consequent vote of abdication; a
       declaration, nearly following the words of the former part,
       that such enumerated acts are illegal; and a resolution, that
       the throne shall be filled 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 ENGLAND: 1689 (OCTOBER).

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapters 14-15 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 10 (volume 2).

          L. von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th Century,
          book 19, chapters 2-3 (volume 4).

          R. Gneist,
          History of English Constitution,
          chapter 42 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: 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 religion;
       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 Dissenters, 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 land, 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 man who held a preferment in the Church, or either of
       the Universities, had to swear to be true to King William and
       Queen Mary, or had to give up his preferment. Most of the
       clergy were very unwilling 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,
          The Settlement of the Constitution,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Stoughton,
          History of Religion in England,
          volume 5, chapters 4-11.

          T. Lathbury,
          History of the Non-jurors.

    {910}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (MAY).
       War declared against France.
       The Grand Alliance.

          See FRANCE: A.. D. 1689-1690.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER).
       The Bill of Rights.

       The following is the text of the Bill of Rights, passed by
       Parliament at its sitting in October, 1689:

       Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 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 [o. 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 Declaration in
       writing, made by the said Lords and Commons, in the words
       following, viz.:

       "Whereas the late King James II., by the assistance of divers
       evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did
       endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion,
       and the laws and liberties of this kingdom:

          1. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with
          and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without
          consent of Parliament.

          2. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for
          humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring 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 quartering soldiers contrary to law.

          6. By 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 whereas 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.

          10. 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.

          11. And excessive fines have been imposed; 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 II. 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 glorious
       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 Temporal,
       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 respective letters and elections, being now assembled
       in a full and free representation of this nation, 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, declare:

          1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the
          execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of
          Parliament, is illegal.

          2. That the pretended power of dispensing 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 Ecclesiastical 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. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms
          for their defence suitable to their conditions, 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 proceedings
          in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in
          any court or place out of Parliament.

          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 grievances, and for the
          amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws,
          Parliament ought to be held frequently.

    {911}

       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 hereafter into consequence or example. To
       which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged
       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
       liberties:

       II. The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, 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 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 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 Commons, do pray the said Prince and Princess to
       accept 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
       damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or
       deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may
       be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other
       whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person,
       prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any
       jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, 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 England, France, and Ireland,
       and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the
       resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained
       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
       danger 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 Parliament assembled, for the
       ratifying, confirming, and establishing the said declaration,
       and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein
       contained, 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
       indubitable 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 expressed in the said declaration; and all officers
       and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties 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 goodness 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
       Majesties having accepted the Crown and royal dignity 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
       Ireland, 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, rightfully, and
       entirely invested and incorporated, united, and annexed.

       VIII. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this
       realm, by reason 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
       Majesties 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 Temporal, 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.

    {912}

       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 marrying a Papist, the said Lords Spiritual and
       Temporal, and Commons, do further pray that it may be enacted,
       That all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be
       reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church
       of 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 exercise, 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 inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said
       person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or
       professing, or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead.

       X. And that every King and Queen of this realm, who at any
       time hereafter 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, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned
       in the statute made in the thirteenth year of the reign of
       King Charles II., intituled "An Act for the more effectual
       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 attained the said age of twelve
       years.

       XI. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall
       be declared, enacted, and established by authority 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 Parliament assembled, and by the
       authority of the same, declared, enacted, or established
       accordingly.

       XII. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority
       aforesaid, That from and after this present session of
       Parliament, no dispensation 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, except 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 pardon granted
       before the three-and-twentieth day of October, in the year of
       our Lord One thousand six hundred eighty-nine, shall be any
       ways impeached 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.

    ENGLAND: 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; 1692;
          1693 (JULY); 1694; 1695-1696.

          Also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;
          and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694--1697.

    ENGLAND: 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
       Torrington) 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 26th 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 retreated 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 29th 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 unsupported, 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 injured 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 prevent 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 the Third,
          chapter 24.

       "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 20,000 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 regular 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,
          History of England,
          chapter 15 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Campbell,
          Naval History of Great Britain,
          chapter 18 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1690-1691.
       Defeat of James and the Jacobites in Ireland.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
       The new charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.

          See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

    {912}

    ENGLAND: 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 assistance, and obtained what had been refused him
       after the days of the Boyne and Beachy-Head,--an army to
       invade England. News received 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 Marlborough (Churchill),
       had opened a secret correspondence with the royal exile at
       Saint-Germain. James had secret adherents in the English fleet
       which 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. An 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 composed of all the Irish troops, a number of
       Anglo-Scotch refugees, and a corps of French troops. Marshal
       de Bellefonds commanded under King James. Tourville was to set
       ut 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 without
       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, the Jacobite plot had been discovered in
       England, the government was on its guard, and the Dutch and
       English 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,
       bearing 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 preserved 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 channel called the Race of Alderney,
       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 disaster 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 vessels destroyed were
       soon replaced."

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV:
          (translated by M. L. Booth),
          volume 2, chapter 2.'

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 18 (volume 4).

          L. von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th Century,
          book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5).

          Sir J. Dalrymple,
          Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
          part 2, book 7 (volume 3).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1695.
       Expiration of censorship law.
       Appearance of first newspapers.

          See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
       Measures of commercial and industrial restriction
       in the American colonies.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1697.
       The Peace of Ryswick.
       Recognition of William III. by France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1698.
       The founding of Calcutta.

             See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1698-1700.
       The question of the Spanish Succession.
       The Treaties of Partition.
       The Spanish king's will.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.
       The Act of Settlement.
       The source of the sovereignty of the
       House of Hanover or Brunswick.

       "William and Mary had no children; and in 1700 the young 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 by 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 that
       did this is called the Act of Settlement; it gives Queen
       Victoria her title to the throne. Parliament in passing it
       tried 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; (2). for the king to go to
       war in defence of countries that did not belong to England,
       unless Parliament gave him leave; or (3) to pardon anyone so
       that the Commons might not be able to impeach him."

          J. Rowley,
          The Settlement of the Constitution,
          book 1, chapter 5.

    {914}

       "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 nation's preference. She was indeed very
       far removed 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 strenuous 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, being 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 transmitted no more right
       to the allegiance of England than Boniface of Este or Henry
       the Lion. That rests wholly on the act of settlement, and
       resolves itself into the sovereignty of the legislature.

          H. Hallam,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 15 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Halliday,
          Annals of the House of Hanover,
          book 10 (volume 2).

          See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
       The rousing of the nation to war with France.

       When Louis XIV. procured and accepted for his grandson the
       bequest of the Spanish crown, throwing over the Partition
       Treaty, "William had the intolerable chagrin 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 Pensionary 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 Partition.' ... William dreaded the idea
       of a Bourbon 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 assignment
       of the Mediterranean possessions of the Spaniard to the
       Dauphin; but they were undisturbed 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 united 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 his 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 policy 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 4th 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 succession 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,
       1702, William received an injury, through the stumbling of his
       horse, which his 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 following. 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,
          chapters 14-15.

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th Century,
          book 21, chapters 7-10 (volume 5).

          See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
       Accession of Queen Anne.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
       Union of rival East India Companies.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
       The War of the Spanish Succession.
       Failure at Cadiz.
       The treasure ships in Vigo Bay.
       Marlborough's first campaigns.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1702;
          and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1711.
       The War of the Spanish Succession in America
       (called "Queen Anne's War").

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
          CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

    {915}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1714.
       The Age of Anne in literature.

       "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 independence. Patronage was being
       changed into influence. 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, moreover, made another discovery. He found
       that he could dispense a cheaper and more effective 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
       occasionally to recruit his ranks by enlisting men of literary
       taste. And, on the other hand, authors, by slow degrees,
       struggled into a more independent position as their public
       increased. In the earlier part of the century, however, we
       find a class of fairly cultivated people, sufficiently
       numerous to form a literary audience, and yet not so numerous
       as to split into entirely distinct fractions. The old
       religious and political warfare has softened; the statesman
       loses his place, but not his head; and though there is plenty
       of bitterness, there is little violence. We have thus a
       brilliant society of statesmen, authors, clergymen, 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 excitable, perhaps, than their fathers, but less
       desperately in earnest, and waging a constant pamphleteering
       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 political force.
       The whole character of contemporary literature, in short, is
       moulded by the social conditions 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 product. 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 Shakespeare.
       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 controversy 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 completeness. ... There is, however, another
       wide province of literature in which writers of the eighteenth
       century did work original in character and of permanent value.
       If the seventeenth century is the great age of dramatists and
       theologians, the eighteenth century was the age in which the
       critic, the essayist, the satirist, the novelist, 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 century, 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 developed the modern novel out of very
       crude rudiments; and two of the greatest men of the century,
       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 interesting if the recorded
       events had never happened."

          L. Stephen,
          History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century,
          chapter 12, sections 23-56 (volume 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 eighteenth 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 sustained richness which endear it to
       specialists. If it be compared, for instance, with the real
       Augustan 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 sustained 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
       Elizabethan 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
       distinguishing mark of eighteenth-century literature may be
       indicated as its mastery of prose as a vehicle for general
       thought."

          E. Gosse,
          The Study of Eighteenth-Century Literature
          (New Princeton Rev., July, 1888, page 21).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.
       The Methuen Treaty with Portugal.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703;
          and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

    {916}

    England: 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 elsewhere than before the Commons of England'; that
       Ashby was guilty of a breach of privilege; and that all
       persons who should in future commence such an action, and all
       attorneys and counsel conducting the same, are also guilty of
       a high breach of privilege. The Lords, led by Somers, 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 Aylesbury 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
       prorogation; and the quarrel expired when the Parliament
       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 History of England,
           volume 5, chapter 17.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Campbell,
          Lives of the Lord Chancellors: Somers,
          chapter. 110 (volume 4).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1704-1707.
       Marlborough's campaigns in the War of the Spanish Succession.
       Campaigns in Spain.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
          SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704, to 1707;
          NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705, and 1706-1707.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1707.
       The Union with Scotland.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
       Hostility to the Union in Scotland.
       Spread of Jacobitism.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.

    ENGLAND: 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.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.
       The Barrier Treaty with Holland.

       "The influence of the Whig party in the affairs of government
       in England, always irksome to the Queen, had now began visibly
       to decline; and the partiality she was suspected of
       entertaining for her brother, with her known dislike of the
       house of Hanover, inspired them with alarm, lest the Tories
       might seek still further to propitiate her favour, by
       altering, in his favour, the line of succession, as at present
       established. They had, accordingly, made it one of the
       preliminaries of the proposed treaty of peace, that the
       Protestant succession, in England, 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 effect
       with the States. The Marquis Townshend, accordingly, repaired
       for this purpose to the Hague, when the States consented to
       enter into an engagement to maintain the present succession 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 guarantee, England was
       to secure to the States a barrier, 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. It was afterwards asserted, in excuse for the
       dereliction from that treaty on the part of England, that
       Townshend had gone beyond his instructions; but it is quite
       certain that it was ratified without hesitation by the queen,
       whatever may have been her secret feelings regarding it."

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3 ).

    ENGLAND: 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 weariness 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 contest which brought him
       profit and power. The expulsion of Harley and St. John
       [Bolingbroke] from the Ministry 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 Examiner, and in a crowd of pamphlets and
       periodicals 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 sudden storm of popular passion showed the way
       in which public opinion responded to these efforts. A
       High-Church divine, Dr. Sacheverell, maintained the doctrine
       of non-resistance [the doctrine, that is, of passive obedience
       and non-resistance 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 impeachment. 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. Masham, had succeeded the Duchess
       of Marlborough 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 negotiations which had for some time been
       conducted between the French and English Ministers without his
       knowledge marched rapidly to a close. ... At the opening of
       1712 the Whig majority of the House of Lords was swamped by
       the creation of twelve Tory peers. Marlborough was dismissed
       from his command, charged with peculation, and condemned as
       guilty by a vote of the House of Commons. He at once withdrew
       from England, and with his withdrawal all opposition to the
       peace was at an end."

          J. R. Green,
          Short History of the English People,
          section 9, chapter 9.

    {917}

       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 in 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
       December, 1711. By this change of fortune, therefore, he
       became a more objectionable claimant of the Spanish crown than
       Louis XIV. 's grandson had been.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.

          Earl Stanhope,
          History of England, Reign of Anne,
          chapters 12-15.

       "Round the fall of Marlborough has gathered the interest
       attaching to the earliest political crisis at all resembling
       those of quite recent times. It is at this moment that Party
       Government in the modern sense actually commenced. William the
       Third with 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. Marlborough's notions were
       those of the late King. Both abroad and at home he 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 Godolphin 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 statesman 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 families,' 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
       government, as we now call it, was in course of construction.
       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
       Godolphin, 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 unfought. To Godolphin, more than to any other one
       man, is due the preponderance of the Treasury control in
       public affairs. It was his administration, during the absence
       of Marlborough on the Continent, which created for the office
       of Lord Treasurer its paramount importance, and paved the way
       for Sir Robert Walpole's government 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 remembered that in 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 striking figure among the
       originators of the new parliamentary system. With Marlborough
       disappeared the type of Tudor statesmen modified by contact
       with the Stuarts. He was the last of the Imperial Chancellors.
       Bolingbroke and his successor Walpole were the earlier types
       of constitutional 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 ministers 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,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of Marlborough,
          chapters 89-107.

          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of Walpole,
          volume 1, chapters 5-6.

          G. Saintsbury,
          Marlborough.

          G. W. Cooke,
          Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
          volume 1, chapters 6-13.

          J. C. Collins,
          Bolingbroke.

          A. Hassall,
          Life of Bolingbroke,
          chapter 3.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
       The Occasional Conformity 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 efficacious in excluding Catholics, but was altogether
       insufficient to exclude moderate Dissenters. ... Such men,
       while habitually attending their own places of worship, had no
       scruple about occasionally entering an Anglican church, or
       receiving the sacrament from an Anglican clergyman. The
       Independents, it is true, and some of the Baptists, censured
       this practice, and Defoe wrote vehemently against it, but it
       was very general, and was supported by a long list of imposing
       authorities. ... In 1702, 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 accepted by the Whigs.
    {918}
       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
       councilmen in corporations, who, while holding office, were
       proved to have attended any Nonconformist place of worship,
       should forfeit the place, and should continue incapable of
       public employment till they should depose that for a whole
       year they had not attended a conventicle. The House of Commons
       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 great majority of conspicuous Dissenters remained in
       office, abstaining from public worship in conventicles, but
       having Dissenting ministers as private chaplains in their
       houses. ... The object of the Occasional Conformity Bill was
       to exclude the Dissenters from all Government positions of
       power, dignity or profit. It was followed in 1714 by the
       Schism Act, which was intended to crush their seminaries and
       deprive 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 received 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,
          History of England, 18th Century,
          chapter 1.

       The Schism Act was repealed in 1719, during the administration
       of Lord Stanhope.

          Cobbett's Parliamentary History,
          volume 7, pages 567-587.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Stoughton,
          History of Religion in England,
          volume 5, chapters 14-16.

    ENGLAND: 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;
          CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713;
          also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
          and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1713.
       Second Barrier Treaty with the Dutch.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1713-1714.
       The desertion of the Catalans.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

    ENGLAND: 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 unprepared 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 had contributed largely by their
       defection to the downfall of the Whig ministry of Godolphin,
       were now again in opposition to the Tories, and had recently
       been dismissed from their posts. Availing themselves of their
       rank of Privy Councillors, they appeared unsummoned in the
       council 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. ...
       Shrewsbury, 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
       Councillors, 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 protect the seaports and to
       secure tranquility in Scotland and Ireland. At the same time
       despatches 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 fulfil 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 procession 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 members 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 government before his arrival, and it was found
       to consist of eighteen names taken from the leaders of the
       Whig party. ... Parliament, in accordance with the provisions
       of the Bill, was at once summoned, and it was soon evident
       that there was nothing to fear. The moment for a restoration
       was passed."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England, 18th Century,
          chapter 1 (volume 1).

    {919}

       "George I., whom circumstances 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 Brunswick-Lüneburg. 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
       Osnaburg, who, by the death of his elder brothers, had become
       Duke of Hanover, and then Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. In
       1692 he was raised by the Emperor to the dignity of Elector.
       ... The mother 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 expulsion 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, sometimes the House of Brunswick.
       It will be found that the latter name is more generally used
       in histories written during the last century, the former in
       books written in the present day. If the names were equally
       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-Lüneburg.
       ... The House of Brunswick was of noble origin, 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 conferred on the Guelphs the
       duchy of Brunswick."

          E. E. Morris,
          The Early Hanoverians,
          book 1, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          P. M. Thornton,
          The Brunswick Accession,
          chapters 1-10.

          Sir A. Halliday,
          Annals of the House of Hanover,
          book 10 (volume 2).

          J. McCarthy,
          History of the Four Georges,
          chapters 1-4.

          W. M. Thackeray,
          The Four Georges,
          lecture 1.

          A. W. Ward,
          The Electress Sophia and the Hanoverian Succession (English
          History Review, volume 1).

          See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1701,
          THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1714-1721.
       First years of George I.
       The rise of Walpole to power and the founding of Parliamentary
       Government.

       "The accession 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 Townshend
       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
       paymastership 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 Commons, 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 proceedings, 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 domestic affairs almost without
       control into the hands of his English ministers. If the two
       first Hanoverian kings had been Englishmen instead of Germans,
       if they had been men of talent and ambition, or even men of
       strong and commanding 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 system 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 affairs of Hanover, and the Whigs were to govern
       England. It was an excellent bargain for England. Smooth as
       this operation may seem in historic 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 government 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 Townshend and Walpole rejoined the
       administration, 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 memorable
       disasters of the South Sea Bubble.

          See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.

    {920}

       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 remembered 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 Treasury and Chancellor
       of the Exchequer (April 1721), while Townshend was again
       Secretary of State. Walpole held his offices practically
       without a break for twenty-one years. The younger Pitt had an
       almost equal span of unbroken supremacy, but with that
       exception there is no parallel to Walpole's long tenure of
       power. To estimate aright the vast significance of this
       extraordinary 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 restoration 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
       Hanover. 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
       constitutes not an artificial division like the reign of a
       king, but a true and definite period, with a beginning, an
       end, a significance, and a unity of its own."

          J. Morley,
          Walpole,
          chapters 3-4.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole,
          chapters 9-21 (volume 1).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1715.
       The Jacobite rising.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

    ENGLAND: 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
       serious 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 Parliaments are
       held. It has been often objected to this action of Parliament,
       that it was acting arbitrarily 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 indestructible.' 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 useless 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
       corrupt 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,
          History of England,
          period 3, page 938.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          volume 1, chapter 6.

    ENGLAND: 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.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1720.
       The South Sea Bubble.

          See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1721-1742.
       Development of the Cabinet System of ministerial government.

          See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1725.
       The Alliance of Hanover.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1726-1731.
       Fresh differences with Spain.
       Gibraltar besieged.
       The Treaty of Seville.
       The Second Treaty of Vienna.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1727.
       Accession of King George II.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1727-1741.
       Walpole's administration under George II.

       "The management of public affairs during the six years of
       George the First's reign in which Walpole was Prime Minister,
       was easy. ... His political fortunes seemed to be ruined by
       George the First's death [1727]. That King's successor had
       ransacked a very copious 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,
       Townsend'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
       betrayed 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. Walpole'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 possession 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 sincerely 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. ...
    {921}
       It is generally understood that Walpole managed the House of
       Commons by bribery; that the secret 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 suspect 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 certain
       members of the opposition. ... Walpole has been designated,
       and with justice, as emphatically a peace minister. He held
       'that the most pernicious circumstances in which this country
       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 avoiding foreign
       embroilments. He strove in vain against the war which broke
       out in 1739. ... I do not intend to disparage Walpole's
       administrative ability when I say that the country prospered
       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 difficulties 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 opposition to Walpole's peace policy
       became a growing 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 difficulty, the determination of his enemies
       to impeach him.

          J. E. T. Rogers,
          Historical Gleanings,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

       "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 administration 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 eminently 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 sympathies, 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 sovereign
       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,
       remembering that no statesman can emancipate himself from the
       conditions of his time. ... The systematic corruption of
       Members of Parliament 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 corruption did not begin with Walpole, it is equally
       certain that it did not end with him. His expenditure 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 ascendancy in politics, and
       when public opinion was strongly in favour of the diminution
       of corrupt influence in Parliament, he steadily and
       successfully resisted every attempt at reform. ... It was his
       settled policy to maintain his Parliamentary majority, not by
       attracting to his ministry great orators, great writers, great
       financiers, or great statesmen, ... but simply by engrossing
       borough influence and extending the patronage of the Crown."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter. 3 (volume 1).

       "But for Sir Robert Walpole, we should have had the Pretender
       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 regimen over us: we should have had
       revolt, commotion, 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 human
       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 defended 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 quarter."

          W. M. Thackeray,
          The Four Georges,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole,
          chapters 31-59 (volume 1).

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapters 15-23 (volumes 2-3).

          Lord Hervey,
          Memoirs of the Reign of George II.

    {922}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1731-1740.
       The question of the Austrian Succession.
       Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1732.
       The grant of Georgia to General Oglethorpe.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1733.
       The first Bourbon Family Compact.
       Its hostility to Great Britain.

          See FRANCE, A. D. 1733.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1733-1787
       The great inventions which built up the
       Cotton Manufacture.

          See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.
       The War of Jenkins' Ear.

       "In spite of Walpole's love of peace, and determined efforts
       to preserve it, in the year 1739 a war broke out with Spain,
       which is an illustration 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 coast guard. The Spaniards could find
       no proof that Jenkins was smuggling, though they searched
       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 years 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 answered, '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 somewhat ridiculous aspect has remained in the 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
       Englishmen, though not necessarily to the English Government;
       and traders and sailors were breaking 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 English 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 disgraceful privilege
       of providing Spanish America with negroes kidnapped from their
       homes in Africa. The Flemings, the Genoese, the Portuguese,
       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 English 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 number of tons, but with it numerous
       tenders and smaller craft. Moreover smuggling, being very
       profitable, became common; it was of this smuggling that
       Captain Jenkins was accused. ... Walpole, always anxious for
       peace, by argument, 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 settlements 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,
          book 2, chapter 3.

       "Admiral Vernon, setting sail with the English fleet from
       Jamaica, captured Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Darien,
       December 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 circumnavigated the globe, having
       sailed from England in 1740 and returned to Spithead in 1744."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 6, chapter 3.

    {923}

          ALSO IN:
          R. Walter,
          Voyage around the World of George Anson.

          Sir J. Barrow,
          Life of Lord George Anson,
          chapter 1-2.

          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
          chapter 43 (volume 3).

          See, also,
          FRANCE, A. D. 1733,
          and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1740-1741.
       Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1742.
       Naval operations in the Mediterranean.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
       Ministries of Carteret and the Pelhams,
       Pitt's admission to the Cabinet.

       "Walpole resigned in the beginning of February, 1742; but his
       retirement did not bring Pitt into office. The King had
       conceived a violent prejudice against him, not only on account
       of the prominent and effective part he had taken in the
       general assault upon the late administration, but more
       especially in consequence of the strong opinions he had
       expressed on the subject of Hanover, and respecting the public
       mischiefs arising from George the Second's partiality to the
       interests of the Electorate. Lord Wilmington was the nominal
       head of the new administration, which was looked on as little
       more than a weak continuation of Walpole's. The same character
       was generally given to Pelham's ministry, (Pelham succeeded
       Wilmington as Premier, on the death of the latter in 1743,)
       and Pitt soon appeared 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 l. 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 determined 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 embarrassing 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
       Hanoverian policy. Pitt's friends, Lyttelton and Grenville,
       were taken into the ministry [called the Broad-bottomed
       Administration], and the undoubted 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 insurmountable; and
       after much reluctance and difficulty, his friends were
       persuaded to accept office without 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
       established government. George the Second's prejudices
       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 February, 1746,
       he was appointed one of the joint Vice-treasurers for Ireland;
       and on the 6th of May following 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 personal disinterestedness. He held
       what had hitherto been an exceedingly lucrative situation: for
       the Paymaster seldom had less than 100,000 l. in his hands,
       and was allowed to appropriate the interest 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
       Paymaster of the Forces a per-centage on their subsidies. Pitt
       nobly declined to avail himself of these advantages, and would
       accept of nothing beyond his legal salary."

          Sir E. Creasy,
          Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
          chapter 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, public life in England was
       singularly calm and languid. 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 country, 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 unrepresented 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 purpose; 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 withdrawal at intervals
       from public affairs, were due to the inroads of this fatal
       enemy, from whom he was destined to receive his death-blow.
       Walpole had not been slow to recognise the quality of this
       'terrible cornet of horse,' as he called him."

          R. B. Brett,
          Footprints of Statesmen,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapters 24-28 (volume 3).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1743.
       The British Pragmatic Army.
       Battle of Dettingen.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
       The second Bourbon Family Compact.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

    ENGLAND: 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.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1744-1745.
       War of the Austrian Succession:
       Hostilities in America.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: and 1745.

    {924}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1745 (MAY).
       War of the Austrian Succession in the Netherlands.
       Fontenoy.

          See NETHERLANDS (THE AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
       The Young Pretender's invasion.
       Last rising of the Jacobites.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.
       War of the Austrian Succession
       British incapacity.
       Final successes at Sea.

       "The extraordinary incapacity of English commanders, both by
       land and sea, is one of the most striking facts in the war we
       are considering. ... Mismanagement and languor were general.
       The battle of Dettingen was truly described as a happy escape
       rather than a great victory; the army in Flanders can hardly
       be said to have exhibited any military quality except courage,
       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 merchandise 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
       commanded the mouth of Gulf St. Lawrence, and protected the
       Newfoundland fisheries, was captured in the June of 1745. In
       1747 a French squadron was destroyed by a very superior
       English fleet off Cape Finisterre. Another was defeated 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,
          History of England, 18th Century,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1746-1747.
       War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.
       Siege of Genoa.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1748 (OCTOBER).
       End and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

          See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748;
          and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1748-1754.
       First movements to dispute possession of the Ohio Valley with
       the French.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1749-1755.
       Unsettled boundary disputes with 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.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1751.
       Reformation of the Calendar.

          See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1753.
       The Jewish Naturalization  Bill.

          See JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
       Collision with the French in the Ohio Valley.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

    ENGLAND: 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. Unfortunately,
       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 England, which had formerly vented
       itself in continental struggles, had, by the progress of
       maritime 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-Chapelle,
       France and England were mutually to restore their conquests in
       such state as they were before the war. This clause became a
       copious source of quarrel. The principal dispute regarded the
       limits of Acadia, or Nova Scotia, which province had, by the
       12th article of the Treaty of Utrecht, been ceded to England
       'conformably to its ancient boundaries'; but what these were
       had never been accurately determined, and each Power fixed
       them according to its convenience. Thus, while the French
       pretended that Nova Scotia embraced only 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
       Brunswick. 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 appointed to settle these
       questions, who held their conferences at Paris between the
       years 1750 and 1755. Disputes also arose respecting the
       occupation 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. According to the plans of Rouillé, the French Minister
       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 occasion, 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 countries. A French writer, who flourished about
       this time, the Abbé Raynal, ascribes "this clandestine warfare
       to the policy of the Court of Versailles, which was seeking
       gradually to recover 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, Admiral Boscawen was despatched thither, and captured
       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 unavoidable;
       but, as in the case of the Austrian Succession, this was also
       to be mixed up with a European war.
    {925}
       The complicated relations of the European system again caused
       these two wars to run into one, though their origin had
       nothing in common. France and England, whose quarrel lay 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 the plains of Germany. The war
       in Europe, commonly called the Seven Years' War, was chiefly
       caused by the pride of one Empress [Maria Theresa], the vanity
       of another [Elizabeth of Russia], and the subserviency of a
       royal courtezan [Madame Pompadour], who became the tool of
       these passions."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 6, chapter 5 (volume 3).

       "The Seven Years' War was in its origin not an European war at
       all; it was a war between England and France on Colonial
       questions with which the rest of Europe had nothing to do; 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 certain that a war between England
       and France must spread to the Continent. I am far from
       charging on the English Government 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 Russians 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 day, 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
       remembered 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 proceedings 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 disastrous to the world. If the Prussians were
       highway 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,
          The Causes of the Seven Years' War
          (Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
          new series, volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapters 31-32 (volume 4).

          F. Parkman,
          Montcalm and Wolfe,
          chapters 1-7.

          See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;
          CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
          and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (APRIL).
       Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation of the
       colonies by act of Parliament.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).
       Boscawen's naval victory over the French.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JULY).
       Braddock's defeat in America.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
       Victory at Lake George.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1756.
       Loss of Minorca and reverses in America.

          See MINORCA: A. D. 1756;
          and CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1759.
       Campaigns on the Continent.
       Defence of Hanover.

          See GERMANY: A D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER),
          to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760.
       The great administration of the elder Pitt.

       "In 1754 Henry Pelham 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 Fox
       for Secretary at War, Pitt for Paymaster-general of the
       Forces, and Murray, afterwards to be famous as Lord Mansfield,
       for Attorney-general. There was some difficulty about the
       leadership of the House of Commons. Pitt was still too much
       disliked by the 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
       distinction. 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
       recovered the damage which his reputation and his influence
       suffered by this amazing act. ... The Duke of Newcastle's
       Ministry soon fell. Newcastle was not a man who had the
       slightest capacity for controlling or directing a policy of
       war; and the great struggle known as the Seven Years' War had
       now broken out. One lamentable event in the war has to be
       recorded, although it was but of minor importance. This was
       the capture of Minorca by the French under the romantic,
       gallant, and profligate Duc 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 MINORCA: 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 Frederick whose genius and daring were like
       his own."

          Justin McCarthy,
          History of the Four Georges,
          volume 2, chapter 41.

       "Newcastle took the Treasury. Pitt was Secretary of State,
       with the lead in the House of Commons, and with the supreme
       direction of the war and of foreign affairs. Fox, the only man
       who could have given much annoyance to the new Government, was
       silenced with the office of Paymaster, which, during the
       continuance 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 judgment. 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 succession
       of victories undoubtedly brilliant, and, as it was thought,
       not barren, raised to the highest point the fame of the
       minister to whom the conduct of the war had been intrusted.
    {926}
       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 Kensington
       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 multitude. Addresses of congratulation came in from all
       the great towns of England. Parliament 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 Niagara. The Toulon squadron was completely defeated 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 were 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 unknown. No British seaman was disposed to err on
       the same side with Byng. The pilot told Hawke that the attack
       could not be made without 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
       destroyed. The rest hid themselves in the rivers of Brittany.
       The year 1760 came; and still triumph followed triumph.
       Montreal was taken; the whole Province of Canada was
       subjugated; the French fleets underwent a succession of
       disasters 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 defeated in every part of
       India. Chandernagore had surrendered to Clive, Pondicherry to
       Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa and the Carnatic, the
       authority of the East India Company was more absolute than
       that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been. On the continent of
       Europe the odds were against England. We had but one important
       ally, 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 difficulties.
       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 Sovereign of Prussia received such pecuniary assistance
       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 unworthy of the English people to
       suffer their King to be deprived of his electoral dominions in
       an English quarrel. He assured his countrymen 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 ascendeney 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 owing less to the skill of his
       [Pitt's] dispositions than to the national resources and the
       national spirit. But that the national spirit rose to the
       emergency, that the national resources 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, volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapters 33-36 (volume 4).

          Sir E. Creasy,
          Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
          chapter 4.

    England: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).
       The Seven Years War.
       Abortive expeditions against the coast of France.

       Early 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. Malo, 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 land, they were ordered to re-embark, and the
       fleet came home. Another somewhat similar expedition was sent
       out later in the year. In July General Bligh and Commodore
       Howe took and destroyed Cherbourg, but on attempting a similar
       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-embarkation, it was attacked by some French
       troops which had been hastily collected, and severely
       handled."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England,
          period 3, page 1027.

    {927}

    ENGLAND: 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 CANADA: A. D. 1758;
          and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1758-1761.
       Breaking of French power in India.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1759.
       Great victories in America.
       Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Quebec.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
       British naval supremacy established.
       Victories off Lagos and in Quiberon Bay.

       "Early in the year [1759] the French had begun to make
       preparations 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
       squadron at Dunkirk. A considerable force was assembled at
       Vannes in the south of Brittany, under the command of the Duc
       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 years before, but the
       opportunity was gone. England was no longer in 'that enervate
       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
       compelled early in July to retire to Gibraltar to take in
       water and provisions and to refit some of' the ships. Hereupon
       M. de la Clue put to sea, and hugging the African coast,
       passed the straits without 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 [August 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
       discomfiture of the Brest fleet, under M. de Conflans, was
       even more complete. On November 9 Admiral 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 21 sail of the line and 4 frigates. On the same
       day, Hawke, with 22 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 changed 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. Without 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 Thésée 74, and Superb 70, were sunk, and two,
       the Formidable 80, and the Héros 74, had struck. The Soleil
       Royal afterwards went aground, but her crew escaped, as did
       that of the Héros, 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 daylight Hawke thought
       he could have taken or destroyed all, as he was almost up with
       the French van when night overtook him. Two English ships, the
       Essex 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 Dunkirk, and for some months was
       a terror to the northern coast-towns, but early in the
       following year an end was put to his career. For 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 Great and the Seven Years War,
          chapter 12, section 3.

          ALSO IN:
          C. D. Yonge,
          History of the British Navy,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

          J. Entick,
          History of the late War,
          volume 4, pages 241-290.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1760.
       Completed conquest of Canada.
       Successes of the Prussians and their allies.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1760;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

    {928}

    ENGLAND: 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 Whig
       families which had been brought into 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 the whole of his
       education. Popular tradition regards him as the most ignorant
       king that ever sat upon the English throne; and so far as
       general culture is concerned, 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 industry 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 concubinage, 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 confidence 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. Anyone 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 independent character he nursed the bitterest
       rancour. ... Such was the man who, on coming to the throne in
       1760, had it for his first and chiefest thought to break down
       the growing system of cabinet government in England."

          J. Fiske,
          The American Revolution,
          chapter 1 (volume 1).

       "The dissolution of Parliament, shortly after his accession,
       afforded an opportunity of strengthening the parliamentary
       connection of the king's friends. Parliament was kept sitting
       while the king and Lord Bute were making out lists of the
       court candidates, and using every exertion to secure their
       return. The king not only wrested government boroughs from the
       ministers, in order to nominate his own friends, but even
       encouraged opposition 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 connected with the great families who
       had acquired a preponderance of political influence; he was no
       parliamentary debater: his manners were unpopular: he was a
       courtier rather than a politician: 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 councillor, and admitted
       into the cabinet. An arrangement was soon afterwards
       concerted, by which Lord Holdernesse retired from office with
       a pension, and Lord Bute succeeded him as Secretary 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
       difficult to overthrow them. 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 ministers, 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 opposed by all his colleagues
       except Lord Temple. He bore himself haughtily at the council,
       --declared that he had been called to the ministry 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 retiring 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 became 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 minister,
       the Duke of Newcastle: who had hitherto distributed all the
       patronage of the Crown, but now was never consulted. ... At
       length, in May 1762, his grace, after frequent disagreements
       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.
       Preliminaries of a treaty of peace with France having been
       agreed upon, against which a strong popular feeling was
       aroused, the king's vengeance was directed against all who
       ventured to disapprove them. The Duke of Devonshire having
       declined to attend the council summoned to decide upon the
       peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign his
       office of Lord Chamberlain. 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
       Parliament, 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 party.
    {929}
       All placemen, who had voted against the preliminaries of
       peace, were dismissed. ... The preliminaries of peace were
       approved by Parliament; 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 opposition. ... 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 office for eleven months. ... He
       retreated to the interior cabinet, whence he could direct more
       securely the measures of the court; having previously negotiated
       the appointment of Mr. George Grenville as his successor, and
       arranged with him the nomination of the cabinet. The ministry
       of Mr. Grenville was constituted in a manner favourable to the
       king's personal views, and was expected to be under the
       control of himself and his favorite."

          T. E. May,
          Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Jesse,
          Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
          chapter 1-10 (volume 1).

          The Grenville Papers,
          volumes 1-2.

          W. Massey,
          History of England: Reign of George III.,
          chapters 2-3 (volume 1).

          G. O. Trevelyan,
          Early History of Charles James Fox,
          chapter 4.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
       Crown, Parliament and Colonies.
       The conflicting theories of their relations.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
       The third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
       War with Spain.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
       The Seven Years War: Last Campaigns in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1 762.
       Capture of Havana.

          See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.
       "The North Briton," No. 45, and the prosecution of Wilkes.

       "The popular 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 ascendancy had provoked this grievous kind of
       opposition. 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
       illustrated by the talents of a Catiline. Long before he
       engaged in public life, Wilkes had become infamous for his
       debaucheries, and, with a few other men of fashion, had tested
       the toleration of public opinion by a series of outrages upon
       religion and decency. Profligacy of morals, however, has not
       in any age or country proved a bar to the character of a
       patriot. ... Wilkes' journal, which originated with the
       administration of Lord Bute [first issued June 5, 1762], was
       happily 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
       political press of the present day; but at a time when the
       characters of public men deservedly stood lowest in public
       estimation, they were protected, not unadvisedly 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
       acknowledged as an important constitutional right, to treat
       the Speech from the Throne, on the opening of Parliament, as
       the manifesto of the minister; 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
       presumed to use this freedom in his paper, though in a degree
       which would have seemed temperate and even tame had he spoken
       to the same purport in his place in Parliament, it was thought
       necessary to repress such insolence with the whole weight of
       the law. A warrant was issued from the office of the Secretary
       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 arrested 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 important questions as to the claim of a
       Secretary of State to the protection given by statute to
       justices of the peace acting in that capacity, and as to the
       legality of a warrant which did not specify 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-General Yorke prudently declined
       any further agitation 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
       servility which belonged to the worst times of prerogative,
       advised that a libel came within the purview of the exception,
       as having a tendency to a breach of the peace; and upon this
       perversion 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 before the Court of Common Pleas. ... The argument
       which would confound the commission of a crime with conduct
       which had no more than a tendency to provoke it, was at once
       rejected by an independent court of justice; and the result
       was the liberation of Wilkes from custody.
    {930}
       But the vengeance of the Court was not turned aside by this
       disappointment. An ex-officio prosecution for libel was
       immediately instituted against the member for Aylesbury; he
       was deprived of his commission as colonel of the
       Buckinghamshire militia; his patron, Earl Temple, who provided
       the funds for his defence, was at the same time dismissed from
       the lord-lieutenancy of the same county, and from the Privy
       Council. When Parliament assembled in the autumn, the first
       business brought forward by the Government was this
       contemptible affair--a proceeding not merely foolish and
       undignified, but a flagrant violation of common justice and
       decency. 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 unprejudiced. 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 extravagant
       and fulsome censure, and ordered that it should be burned by
       the hands of the common hangman. Lord North, on the part of
       the Government, 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 ordinary course of the laws in
       the speedy and effectual 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
       member of Parliament was protected from arrest on a charge of
       this description. The conduct of Pitt on this occasion was
       consistent with the loftiness of his character. ... The
       conduct of the Lords was in harmony with that of the Lower
       House. ... The session was principally occupied by the
       proceedings against this worthless demagogue, whom the
       unworthy hostility of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament
       had elevated into a person of the first importance. His name
       was coupled with that of Liberty; and when the executioner
       appeared to carry into effect 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 recess, 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,
          History of England: Reign of George III.,
          chapter 4 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. E. T. Rogers,
          Historical Gleanings,
          volume 2, chapter 3.

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapters 41-42 (volume 5).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1763.
       The end and results of the Seven Years War:
       The Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg.
       America to be English, not French.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
       Determination to tax the American colonies.
       The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1764.
       The climax of the mercantile colonial policy and its
       consequences.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1765.
       Passage of the Stamp Act for the colonies.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.

    ENGLAND: 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
       afterwards fell a victim, appeared; and as soon as he
       recovered he proposed, with wonderful firmness, that a Regency
       Bill should be brought in, limiting 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 consideration.
       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. With 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 practicable, and the king
       was left quite at the mercy of the Ministers be 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 Grenville'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 proving 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: Rockingham became First Lord
       of the Treasury; Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer;
       Newcastle, Privy Seal; Northington, Lord Chancellor. ...
    {931}
       Their leader Rockingham was a man of sound sense, but no power
       of language or government. ... He was totally free from any
       suspicion 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 certain necessary legislation, and it certainly so far
       accomplished the end of its being. It repealed the Stamp Act
       [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766], which had caused
       so much indignation 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 conduct of Pitt in refusing to join them
       was a decided 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 refused 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
       leadership, and retired to the House of Lords as Lord Chatham.
       Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord
       North, the leader of the 'King's Friends,' was Pay-master. The
       Ministry included Shelburne, Barré, Conway, Northington,
       Barrington, Camden, Granby--all men of the most opposite
       views. ... This 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 difficulties, however, as well. His arrogance had
       increased, and it was so much intensified by irritating gout,
       that it became almost impossible to serve with him. His
       disease later almost approached madness. ... 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 prominent 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 OF AMERICA: 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 Ministry
       became so obvious that, as Chatham still continued incapable,
       some fresh reinforcement was absolutely necessary. A coalition
       was effected with the Bloomsbury Gang; and, in consequence, Lords
       Gower, Weymouth, and Sandwich 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 governed 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 Chatham'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,
          pages 234-239.

          ALSO IN:
          The Grenville Papers,
          volumes 3-4.

          C. W. Dilke,
          Papers of a Critic,
          volume 2.

          E. Lodge,
          Portraits,
          volume 8, chapter 2.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1767-1769.
       The first war with Hyder Ali, of Mysore.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
       The quartering of troops in Boston and Its ill consequences.

          See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.
       John Wilkes and the King and Parliament again.
       The Middlesex elections.

       In March, 1768, Wilkes, though outlawed 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 election, he offered himself as a
       candidate to represent the City of London. "He polled 1,247
       votes, but was unsuccessful. On the day following this
       decision he issued an address to the freeholders of Middlesex.
       The election took place at Brentford, on the 28th of March. At
       the close of the poll the numbers were--Mr. Wilkes, 1,292; 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
       illuminate 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 lawless 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 accomplished. Before his
       expulsion, Wilkes was a prisoner in the King's Bench. Having
       surrendered, it was determined that his outlawry was informal;
       consequently it was reversed, and sentence was passed for the
       offences whereof he had been convicted. He was fined £1,000,
       and imprisoned 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 King'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 before the prison, but, balked in its
       purpose of escorting the popular favourite to the House,
       became furious, and commenced a riot.
    {932}
       Soldiers were at hand prepared for this outbreak. They fired,
       wounding and slaughtering several persons; among others, they
       butchered a young man whom they found in a neighbouring house,
       and who was mistaken for a rioter they had pursued. At the
       inquest the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against
       the magistrate who 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 pension of one shilling a day. A
       general order sent from the War Office by Lord Barrington
       conveyed his Majesty's express thanks to the troops employed,
       assuring them 'that every possible regard shall be shown to
       them; their zeal and good behaviour on this occasion deserve
       it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in
       the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and
       protection that the law can authorise and this office can
       give.' This approbation of what the troops had done was the
       necessary supplement to a despatch from Lord Weymouth sent
       before the riot, and intimating that force was to be used
       without scruple. Wilkes commented on both documents. His
       observations on the latter drew a complaint from Lord Weymouth
       of breach of privilege. This was made an additional pretext
       for his expulsion from the House of Commons. 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 this House, was and is incapable of being elected a
       member to serve in this present Parliament'; and his election
       was declared void. Again the freeholders of Middlesex 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
       Luttrell. 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 the Middlesex electors, and a
       subservient majority in the House of Commons that did not
       hesitate to become instrumental in gratifying the personal
       resentment of a revengeful and obstinate 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 had been violated in his person, but
       that the Constitution itself had sustained a deadly wound.
       Wilkes was overwhelmed with substantial marks of sympathy. In
       the course of a few weeks £20,000 were subscribed 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
       justice. 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
       London. In 1774 he was permitted to take his seat as Member
       for Middlesex. After several failures, he succeeded in getting
       the resolutions of his incapacity 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 the
       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,
          John Wilkes
          (Fortnightly Review, September, 1868, volume 10).

          ALSO IN:
          W. F. Rae,
          Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
          part 1.

          G. O. Trevelyan,
          Early History of Charles James Fox,
          chapters 5-6, and 8.

    ENGLAND: 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 beginning at the latest in April, 1767,
       continued frequent 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 appear, 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 publications, not much rising in interest above the
       common level of many such at other times, when on the 21st 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 contrary, a fierce
       and indiscriminate attack on most men in high places,
       including the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Granby. But, unlike its
       predecessors, it roused to controversy a well-known and
       respectable opponent. Sir William Draper, 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 defending the character and conduct of
       Lord Granby. 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 William 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 carefully prepared by the author.
    {933}
       He did not indeed altogether cease to write under other names;
       sometimes especially adopting the part of a bystander, and the
       signature of Philo-Junius; but it was as Junius that his main
       and most elaborate 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 by 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 Hamilton--flew from mouth to
       mouth. Such guesses were for the most part made at mere
       hap-hazard, and destitute of any plausible ground.
       Nevertheless the stir and talk which they created added not a
       little to the natural effects of the writer's wit and
       eloquence. 'The most important secret of our times!' 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
       forgotten!' Mystery, as I have said, was one ingredient 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 proceedings. But in the temper of the public at that
       period such measures could end only in virtual defeat to the
       Government, in augmented reputation to the libeller. During
       the years 1770 and 1771 the letters of Junius were continued
       with little abatement of spirit. He renewed invectives 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 Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke.
       The whole series of letters from January 1769, when it
       commences, until January 1772, when it terminates, amounts to
       69, including those with the signature of Philo-Junius, those
       of Sir William Draper, and those of Mr. Horne. ... 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, perhaps, are the private notes addressed to Mr.
       Woodfall himself. Of these there are upwards of sixty, signed
       in general with the letter C.; some only a few lines in
       length; but many of great value towards deciding the question
       of authorship. It seems that the packets containing 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 commonly
       they were conveyed by a porter or other messenger hired in the
       streets. When some communication from Mr. Woodfall in reply
       was deemed desirable, Junius directed it to be addressed to
       him under some feigned name, and to be left till called for at
       the bar of some coffee-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),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 47 (v. 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.;
       Captain Allen;
       Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barre, M. P.;
       William Henry Cavendish Bentinck;
       Mr. Bickerton;
       Hugh M'Aulay Boyd;
       Edmund Burke;
       William 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 Grattan;
       William Greatrakes;
       George Grenville;
       James Grenville;
       William Gerard Hamilton;
       James Hollis;
       Thomas Hollis;
       Sir George Jackson;
       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 Pownall;
       Lieutenant-Colonel 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 Horne Tooke;
       Horace Walpole;
       Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Loughborough;
       John Wilkes;
       James Wilmot, D. D.;
       Daniel Wray.

          ALSO IN:
          G. W. Cooke,
          History of Party,
          volume 3, chapter 6.

          C. W. Dilke,
          Papers of a Critic,
          volume 2.

          Lord Macaulay,
          Warren Hastings
          (Essays, volume 5).

          A. Bisset,
          Short History of the English Parliament,
          chapter 7.

    ENGLAND: 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 politics, had by his indolence
       suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named
       party, and unconstitutional 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.
    {934}
       France too, under Choiseul, in alliance with Spain, was
       beginning to think of revenge for the losses of the Seven
       Years' War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the
       Opposition began to close their ranks. Chatham, yielding again
       to the necessities of party, made a public profession of
       friendship with Temple and George Grenville; and though there
       was no cordial connection, there was external alliance between
       the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first
       session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of
       public 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
       persecution 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-General,
       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 admiring Chatham, and
       much disliking business, he suddenly and unexpectedly gave in
       his resignation 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 the two sections. ...
       The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of
       this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain
       his friends in office, 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 position of Prime
       Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
       and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so
       that while the different sections of the Opposition were still
       unable to decide on any united action they were astonished to
       find the old ministry reconstituted 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 the 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 really
       responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is
       closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of
       the reign--the struggle of the King, supported by the
       unrepresented masses, and the more liberal and independent 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 victorious. 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,
          History of England,
          period 3, pages 1057-1060.

          ALSO IN:
          Correspondence of George III. with Lord North,
          volume 1.

          W. Massey,
          History of England: Reign of George III.,
          chapters 10-13 (volume 1).

          J. Adolphus,
          History of England: Reign of George III.,
          chapter 17 (volume 1).

          E. Burke,
          Thoughts on the Present Discontents
          (Works, volume 1).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
       Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on tea.
       The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770,
          and 1772-1773;  and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.
       Last contention of Parliament against the Press.
       Freedom of reporting secured.

       "The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the
       House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the
       exclusion 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 publish the debates of Parliament,
       under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness
       and accuracy, from speeches furnished at length by the
       speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less
       authenticity. One of the most attractive 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
       Parliament. 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
       proceedings of Parliament should take place during the
       session.
    {935}
       There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals
       would have gone on, with the tacit connivance of the
       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 conceded. 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."

          William Massey,
          History of England,
          volume 2, chapter 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 assault and false imprisonment. They were
       both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr.
       Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John 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 messenger 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 proceedings 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
       interference 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 continued
       beset with many difficulties. 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 capriciously
       employed. 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,
          English Constitutional History,
          chapter 17.

          ALSO IN:

          R. F. D. Palgrave,
          The House of Commons,
          lecture 2.

          T. E. May,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1772.
       The ending of Negro slavery in the British Islands.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1773.
       Reconstitution of the Government of British India.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
       The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec  Act.
       The First Continental Congress in America.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
       Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made
       efficient by James Watt.

          See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.

    ENGLAND: 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 OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1776.
       Successful defence of Canada against American invasion.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1776.
       War measures against the colonies.
       The drift toward American independence.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1776-1778.
       The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their
       relations to the American War.

       "The undoubted popularity 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 Independence, and the
       known overtures of the Americans to France, were deemed the
       climax of insolence 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
       Opposition 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
       Washington'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 during 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 utmost 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 prime 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
       supported the employment of Indians. ... It was the King's
       friends who were most active in promoting 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 Lord North. ...
    {936}
       The publication of the correspondence 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 five
       years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody,
       costly, and disastrous war in direct opposition to his own
       judgment and to his 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 circumstances, to treat
       with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their
       independence; but he acknowledged, 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 consequence of the unanimous vote of the
       Cabinet, that new propositions should be made to the
       Americans." These overtures, conveyed to America 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. England had
       not an ally in the world. ... England, already exhausted by a
       war which its distance 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 patriotic Englishmen were
       turned. . . . If any statesman could, at the last moment,
       conciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alliance, 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 accept his resignation, and to send
       for Chatham. Bute, the old Tory favourite, breaking his long
       silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord
       Mansfield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said,
       with tears in his eyes, that unless the King sent for Chatham
       the ship would assuredly go down. ... The King was unmoved. He
       consented indeed--and he actually authorised Lord North to make
       the astounding proposition--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,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 14 (volume 4).

       "George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins
       which were not exclusively their own. The minister, 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 representative 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,
          page 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 believe 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, freely 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 France. Remember that, when the title
       was given up, some people thought it unwise 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,
          The English People in its Three Homes
          (Lectures to American Audiences),
          pages 183-184.

          ALSO IN:
          Correspondence of George III. with Lord North.

          Lord Brougham,
          Historical Sketches of Statesmen
          in the Reign of George III.

          T. Macknight,
          History of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke,
          chapters 22-26 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1778.
       War with France.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

    ENGLAND: 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 procured 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 Papists 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 without a division in either House, without any
       serious opposition from the bench of bishops, and with the
       concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to
       England only, but the Lord Advocate promised, in the ensuing
       session, to introduce a similar measure for Scotland.
    {937}
       It was hoped that 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 General 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 incendiary
       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. ... Furious
       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 Protestants who were believed to sympathise with the
       Relief Bill were attacked, and among the number 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 appearing in the London newspapers. Many
       murmurs 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 ordinary 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 recommend him but his
       connection with the ducal house of Gordon. ... A 'Protestant
       Association,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanatics,
       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 Friday, June 2, that three
       great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing
       blue cockades, and carrying a petition which was said to have
       been signed by near 120,000 persons, arrived by different
       roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to
       have been only to intimidate, 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!' 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 consideration 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 Gordon, 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 officials 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 Minister'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 Warwick Street Golden Square was
       next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could
       intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some
       slight scuffling ensued, and thirteen of the rioters were
       captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force,
       for Saturday and the greater part of Sunday passed with little
       disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in
       Moorfields, where a considerable Catholic population resided.
       Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels
       utterly ruined."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of English in the 18th Century,
          chapter 13 (volume 3).

       "On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. ...
       Notwithstanding, however, that the town might now be said to
       have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three
       days, 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
       perpetrated. 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 several ... private houses. ... But
       the most lamentable of all the acts of destruction yet
       perpetrated 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 Justice, in Bloomsbury Square. ...
    {938}
       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 Borough Clink, the Surrey
       Bridewell, were all burned today. ... The Mansion House, the
       Museum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is
       understood, marked for destruction. 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 themselves 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 apprehended and brought to trial, 59 were
       capitally convicted; and of these more than 20 were executed;
       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 Popular Tumults,
          section 1, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. H. Jesse,
          Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
          chapter 34 (volume 2).

          H. Walpole,
          Journal of the Reign of George III.,
          volume 2, pages 403-424.

          Annual Register, 1780,
          pages 254-287.

          C. Dickens,
          Barnaby Rudge.

          W. J. Amherst,
          History of Catholic Emancipation,
          volume 1, chapters 1-5.

    ENGLAND: 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 purposes 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 example of American resistance had
       told upon Ireland. ... 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 May, 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 maritime supremacy of England was, however,
       impaired 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, England, defeated in
       the United States, remained victorious and defiant as regarded
       the other parties to the war."

          J. Fiske,
          American Revolution,
          chapter 15 (volume 2).

       "Gibraltar ... had been closely invested 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 almost destroyed by
       a sally from the garrison. Early in the year, however, the
       fall of Minorca enabled the Spanish to reform the siege of
       Gibraltar.
    {939}
       De Grillon himself, the hero of Minorca, superseding Alvarez,
       assumed the chief command. ... 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 fortress, 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 tremendous 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
       consumed in these formidable preparations; and it was not
       until September that they were completed. A partial cannonade
       took place on the 9th and three following days; but the great
       attack, which was to decide the fate of the beleaguered
       fortress, was commenced on the 13th 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
       land 170 guns were prepared to open fire simultaneously with
       the ships; and 40,000 troops were held in readiness to rush in
       at the first practicable breach. ... The grand attack was
       commenced at ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the fire of 400
       pieces of artillery. The great floating batteries, securely
       anchored within 600 yards of the walls, poured in an incessant
       storm, from 142 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. Disregarding 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 irresistible. 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 garrison 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 combustion 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 efforts 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;
       and 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 remained 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 enemy presented, he was prepared to risk an
       engagement. But at this juncture, a storm having scattered the
       combined fleet, the British Admiral was enabled to land his
       stores and reinforcements without opposition. Having performed
       this duty, he set sail for England; nor did the Spanish
       Admiral, though still superior by eight sail of the line,
       venture 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 monarchies.
       After this event, the war itself was virtually at an end."

          W. Massey,
          History of England, Reign of George III.,
          chapter 27 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapters 62-66 (volume 7).

          J. Drinkwater,
          History of the Siege of Gibraltar.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1783.
       Second war with Hyder Ali, or Second Mysore War.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1780--1783.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1781-1783.
       War with Holland.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1782.
       Legislative independence conceded to Ireland.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783.
       Fall of Lord North.
       The second Rockingham Ministry.
       Fox, Shelburne, and the American peace negotiations.
       The Shelburne Ministry.
       Coalition of Fox and North.

       "There comes a point when even the 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 over!' cried Lord North, wringing his
       hands, when he heard of it. ... On February 7, a vote of
       censure, moved by Fox, 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 majority of nineteen.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (FEBRUARY-MAY).

       Still the King would not give his consent to Lord North's
       resignation. Rather than commit himself to the opposition, he
       seriously thought of abdicating his crown and retiring to
       Hanover. ... Indeed, if it had not been for his large 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.
    {940}
       By the 20th [of March], however, even George III. 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: 'Remember, my Lord, it is you
       who desert me, not I who desert you.' ... Even when the
       long-deferred 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 Ministry from
       among the followers of Chatham and of Lord North, which would
       be able to restore peace without granting independence, and
       Shelburne 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 becoming 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 independence, if the Ministers recommended it; and on
       the 27th of March the triumph of the Opposition was completed
       by the formation of a Ministry, mainly representative of the
       old Whig families, 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 Exchequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, 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, Conway,
       and Cavendish tried to hold the balance between them, and
       Thurlow artfully fomented the dissensions. ... Few
       Administrations have done so 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
       Fox. Upon his appointment to office 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 division of work among the
       two Secretaries of State, all matters which related to the
       colonies were under the control of Shelburne, while those
       relating 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 accord, or should be reserved
       in order to form part of the general treaty 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
       England would have no difficulty in bringing them over to her
       side in the negotiations with France. Such was Fox's scheme,
       but unfortunately, directly America became independent, she
       ceased to be in any way subject to Shelburne's management, 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
       effect 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 negotiation for peace
       was set on foot. Shelburne and Franklin took charge of the
       treaty with America [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782
       (SEPTEMBER)], 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 embitter 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 Parliament 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 dissatisfaction among its members, and overturned in
       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 Ministry
       formed under Fox and Lord North. "The Duke of Portland
       succeeded Shelburne at the Treasury. Lord North and Fox became
       the Secretaries 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
       political parties have been received by historians and
       posterity with more unqualified condemnation than the
       coalition of 1783. ... There is no evidence to show that at
       the time it struck politicians in general as being specially
       heinous."

          H. O. Wakeman,
          Life of Charles James Fox,
          chapters 3-5.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord J. Russell,
          Life of Fox,
          chapters 16-17 (volume l).

          W. F. Rae,
          Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
          pages 307-317.

          Lord E. Fitzmaurice,
          Life of William, Earl of Shelburne,
          volume 3, chapters 3-6.

    {941}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1783.
       The definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States of
       America signed at Paris.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787.
       Fall of the Coalition.
       Ascendancy of the younger Pitt.
       His extraordinary 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 Government 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 economical reform,
       demanded a great income for a debauched prince, and now aimed
       at securing a monopoly of the vast patronage of
       India,--patronage 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 the Bill arrived
       at the House of Lords, the undertakers were ready. The King
       had seen Temple, and empowered him to communicate 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 convictions
       were unequal to their appetite, rallied to the royal nod. ...
       The result was overwhelming. 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 Secretary charged with the
       message soon convinced them of its authenticity, and the seals
       were delivered 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 12 hours of the
       King's receiving the seals, Pitt had accepted the First
       Lordship of the Treasury and the Chancellorship of the
       Exchequer. That afternoon his writ was moved amid universal
       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 embarrassments. 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 prepare and to obtain the approval
       of the East India Company to a scheme which should take the
       place of Burke's. The Coalition Ministers 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
       narrative 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 Parliament, Pitt was defeated in two pitched
       divisions, the majorities against him being 39 and 54. His
       government seemed still-born. His colleagues 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 vacant the very day that Parliament met. It was
       universally expected that Pitt would take it as of right, and
       so acquire an independence, which would enable him to devote
       his life to politics, without care for the morrow. He had not
       £300 a year; his position was to the last degree precarious.
       ... Pitt disappointed his friends and amazed his enemies. He
       gave the place to Barré. ... 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 assailants began to melt away. Their divisions,
       though they always showed a superiority to the Government,
       betrayed notable diminution. ... On the 25th of March
       Parliament was dissolved, the announcement being retarded by
       the unexplained theft of the Great Seal. When the elections
       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 followers 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,
          chapter 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 legislation, the imperfection of
       our parliamentary representation, and the unhappy' condition
       of Ireland. Pitt dealt with all three. ... He brought in a
       series of resolutions consolidating our customs 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 successfully, to apply the principles of Free
       Trade, the principles which he was the first of English
       statesmen to learn from Adam Smith, to the actual commerce of
       the country. ... The financial reputation of Pitt has greatly
       suffered from the absurd praise which was once lavished on the
       worst part of it.
    {942}
       The dread of national ruin 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 sum 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 payoff 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 unfavourably 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 proposed the abolition of
       the worst of the rotten boroughs fifty years before Lord Grey
       accomplished it. ... If the strong counteracting influence 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 economical
       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
       Parliament, by uniting the three kingdoms in a single
       representative system, of which the Parliament should sit in
       England. ... Of these great reforms 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,
           Biographical Studies: William Pitt.

          ALSO IN:
          Earl Stanhope,
          Life of William Pitt,
          chapters 4-9 (volume 1).

          G. Tomline,
          Life of William Pitt,
          chapters 3-9 (volume 1-2).

          Lord Rosebery,
          Pitt,
          chapters 3-4.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1788 (FEBRUARY).
       Opening of the Trial of Warren Hastings.

          See INDIA: A. D.1785-1795.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1788-1789.
       The King's second derangement.

       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 Parliament by commission, from the 25th
       September to the 20th November. But, in the interval, the
       king's malady increased: he was wholly deprived 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
       further prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th
       November. ... According to long established 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 provision, was now superior to
       the law; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to deliberate
       upon the momentous questions to which the king's illness had
       given rise." By Mr. Fox it was maintained that "the Prince of
       Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of
       sovereignty during 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,
       maintained that as no legal provision had been made for
       carrying on the government, it belonged to the Houses of
       Parliament to make such provision." The discussion to which
       these differences, and many obstructing circumstances in the
       situation 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. May,
          Constitutional History of England,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1789-1792.
       War with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1793.
       The Coalition against Revolutionary France.
       Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER),
          and (JULY-DECEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
       Popular feeling towards 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 Revolutionary France] with Germany would
       widen into a vast European struggle, a struggle in which the
       peoples would rise against their oppressors, and the freedom
       which France had won diffuse itself over the world, no French
       revolutionist 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 revolutionists at Paris
       the attitude of England remained unintelligible and
       irritating. Instead of the aid they had counted on, they found
       but a cold neutrality. ... 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 themselves
       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 intensity 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!' 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 before, 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 opening 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 stubbornly to a
       policy of peace. ...
    {943}
       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 gathering cry for war. ... But
       desperately as Pitt struggled for peace, his struggle was in
       vain. ... Both sides ceased from diplomatic communications,
       and in February 1793 France issued her Declaration of War.
       From that moment Pitt's power was at an end. His pride, his
       immovable 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
       oversea. ... The partisans of Republicanism were in reality
       but a few handfuls 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 property
       and the constitution to be in peril, and forsook Fox when he
       still proclaimed his faith in France and the Revolution."

          J. R. Green,
          History of the English People,
          book 9, chapter 4 (volume 4).

       "Burke himself said that not one man in a hundred was a
       Revolutionist. Fox's revolutionary sentiments met with no
       response, but with general reprobation, and caused even his
       friends to shrink from his 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 only 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
       commenced 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 government. ...
       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 liberties 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,
          Three English Statesmen,
          pages 239-247.

       "The gaols were filled with political delinquents, 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 Horne Tooke. But
       no unlawful conduct or treasonable designs could be proved
       against them by creditable 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
       advantage of their violence to tear away the few shreds of the
       constitution which yet 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 command a felony."

          G. W. Cooke,
          History of Party,
          volume 3, chapter 17.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Adolphus,
          History of England: Reign of George III.,
          chapters 81-89 and 95 (volumes 5-6).

          J. Gifford,
          History of the Political Life of William Pitt,
          chapters 23-24, and 28-29 (volumes 3-4).

          W. Massey,
          History of England: Reign of George III.,
          chapters 32-36 (volumes 3-4).

          E. Smith,
          The Story of the English Jacobins.

          A. Bisset,
          Short History of the English Parliament,
          chapter 8.

    ENGLAND: 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 (MARCH-JULY).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1794.
       Angry relations with the United States.
       The Jay Treaty.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1794-1795.
       Withdrawal of troops from the Netherlands.
       French conquest of Holland.
       Establishment of the Batavian Republic.
       Crumbling of the European Coalition.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1795.
       Disastrous expedition to Quiberon Bay.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1795.
       Capture of the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).
       Evacuation and abandonment of Corsica.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
       Unsuccessful peace negotiations with the French Directory.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1796-1798.
       Attempted French invasions of Ireland.
       Irish Insurrection.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
       Monetary panic and suspension of specie payments.
       Defeat of the first Reform movement.
       Mutiny of the Fleet.
       Naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.

       "The aspect of affairs in Britain had never been so clouded
       during the 18th century as at the beginning of the year 1797.
       The failure of Lord Malmesbury's mission to Paris had closed
       every hope of an honourable termination 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 (February 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 1819, after the conclusion
       of peace, that the recurrence to metallic currency took place.
    {944}
       The Opposition deemed this a favourable opportunity to renew
       their cherished project of parliamentary reform; and on 26th
       May, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grey brought forward a plan chiefly
       remarkable for containing the outlines of that subsequently
       carried 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 principality the low rate
       of pay (which had not been raised since the time of Charles
       II.), the unequal distribution 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 Commons on their
       grievances: their demands being examined by government, and
       found to be reasonable, 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 Duncan. 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 death. Sheerness and Tilbury
       Fort were armed and garrisoned for the defence of the Thames;
       and the sailors, finding the national feelings strongly
       arrayed 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. ... Notwithstanding all these
       dissensions, the British navy was never more terrible to its
       enemies than during 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 manœuvre 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 British 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 gigantic 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 carried
       the San Josef by boarding, and received the Spanish admiral's
       sword on his own quarterdeck. 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 insulted by a bombardment from the gallant
       Nelson. A more important victory than that of Sir John Jarvis
       (created in consequence Earl St. Vincent) was never gained at
       sea, from the evident 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 blockading fleet, under
       Admiral Duncan, consisted of 16 ships and 3 frigates; and the
       battle was fought (October 16) off Camperdown, about nine
       miles from the shore of Holland. The manœuvres of the British
       Admiral were directed to cut off the enemy's retreat to his
       own shores; and this having been accomplished, the action
       commenced yard-arm to yard-arm, and continued with the utmost
       fury for more than three hours. The Dutch sailors fought with
       the most admirable skill and courage, and proved themselves
       worthy descendants of Van Tromp and De Ruyter; 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 February, 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 History of Europe,
          sections 190-196 (chapter 22,
          volume 5--of complete work).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Adolphus,
          History of England: Reign of George III.,
          chapters 100-103 (volume 6).

          R. Southey,
          Life of Nelson,
          chapter 4.

          E. J. De La Gravière,
          Sketches of the Last Naval War,
          volume 1, part 2.

          Captain A. T. Mahan,
          Influence of Sea Power on the
          French Revolution and Empire,
          chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1798 (AUGUST).
       Nelson's victory in the Battle of the Nile.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1798.
       Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (APRIL).
       Final war with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
       Expedition against Holland.
       Seizure of the Dutch fleet.
       Ignominious ending of the enterprise.
       Capitulation of the Duke of York.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
          and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1800.
       Legislative union of Ireland with Great Britain.
       Creation of the "United Kingdom."

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

    {945}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1801.
       The first Factory Act.

          See FACTORY LEGISLATION.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1802.
       Import of the Treaty of Luneville.
       Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with Great Britain alone.
       Retirement of Pitt.
       The Northern Maritime League and its summary annihilation at
       Copenhagen.
       Expulsion of the French from Egypt.
       The Peace of Amiens.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.
       Pitt's promise to the Irish Catholics broken by the King.
       His resignation.
       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 reform. In transplanting the parliament of
       College 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 his 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 minister who governed by petty stratagems, by ambiguous
       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 obtained 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 persisted 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 brilliant 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 emancipation than
       Pitt. Henry Addington, Pitt's speaker of the house of commons,
       was the person upon whom the king's choice fell; and he
       succeeded, 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
       boastings of the Tories. 'Unless the monarchy of France be
       restored,' Pitt had said, eight years before, 'the monarchy of
       England is lost forever.' Eight years of warfare had succeeded,
       yet the monarchy of France was not restored, and the crusade
       was stayed. England had surrendered her conquests, France
       retained hers; the landmarks of Europe had been in some degree
       restored; England, alone, remained burdened with the enduring
       consequences of the ruinous and useless strife. The peace was
       approved 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 generally acknowledged: with Pitt
       sometimes chiding, Windham and Canning, and Lords Spencer and
       Grenville continually attacking, and Fox and the Whigs only
       refraining from violent opposition 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 invasion,
       Addington's embarrassments became inextricable. He had
       performed the business which Pitt had assigned him; he had
       made an experimental peace, and had saved Pitt's honour with
       the Roman Catholics. The object of his appointment he had
       unconsciously completed, and no sooner did his predecessor
       manifest an intention 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
       retirement, Pitt had, however, lost one section of his
       supporters. The Grenville party and the Whigs had gradually
       approximated, and the former now refused to come into the new
       arrangements 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 immense expense and the object of such hope,
       shattered in one campaign. At home, Lord Melville, 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 several 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 political leader, but
       retained his old contempt for Sidmouth and his friends, and
       his hostility to the Grenvilles for their breach with Pitt.
       Castlereagh, William Dundas, Hawkesbury, or Barham, although
       sufficiently effective when Pitt was present to direct and to
       defend, would have made a hopeless figure without him in face
       of such an opposition as the house of commons now afforded.
    {946}
       The administration, which was ironically designated by its
       opponents as 'All the Talents,' succeeded. Lord Grenville was
       first lord of the treasury. 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 navy. Lord Sidmouth was privy seal. Lord Henry Petty, who,
       although now only in his 26th year, had already acquired
       considerable distinction 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,
          History of Party,
          volume 3, chapters 17-18.

          ALSO IN:
          Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon),
          Life of Pitt,
          chapters 29-44 (volumes 3-4).

          A. G. Stapleton,
          George Canning and His Times,
          chapters 6-8.

          Earl Russell,
          Life and Times of Charles James Fox,
          chapters 58-69 (volume 3).

          G. Pellew,
          Life and Correspondence of Henry Addington,
          1st Viscount Sidmouth,
          chapters 10-26 (volumes 1-2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1802 (OCTOBER).
       Protest against Bonaparte's interference in Switzerland.
       His extraordinary reply.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1802-1803.
       Bonaparte's complaints and demands.
       The Peltier trial.
       The First Consul's rage.
       Declaration of war.
       Napoleon's seizure of Hanover.
       Cruel detention of all English people in France, Italy,
       Switzerland and the Netherlands.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.

    ENGLAND: 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 AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).
       Third Coalition against France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1805.
       Napoleon's threatened invasion.
       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).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
       Final seizure of Cape Colony from the Dutch.

          See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
       Cession of Hanover to Prussia by Napoleon.
       War with Prussia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
       Attempted reinstatement of the dethroned King of Naples.
       The Battle of Maida.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
       Death of Pitt.
       Peace negotiations with Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1807.
       Expedition against Buenos Ayres.

          See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1810.
       Commercial warfare with Napoleon.
       Orders in Council.
       Berlin and Milan Decrees.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

    ENGLAND: 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.
       Assassination 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 destined 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 abolition 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
       punishments 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 financial system was
       a failure. They carried on the war so as to alienate their
       allies and to cover themselves with humiliation. Finally, they
       insisted 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 question 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 successfully 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 debater and a patriotic statesman.
       This Government, 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
       Minister. His advanced views, however, continually brought him
       into collision with Castlereagh, the War Minister, a man of
       much inferior talents and the narrowest Tory views. Quarrels
       inevitably 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
       resignation 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.
    {947}
       The leadership now devolved on Perceval, who found himself in
       an apparently hopeless condition. His only supporters were
       Lords Liverpool, Eldon, Palmerston, and Wellesley. Neither
       Canning, Castlereagh, nor Sidmouth (Addington) would join him.
       The miserable expedition to Walcheren had just ended in
       ignominy. The campaign in the Peninsula was regarded 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 continually
       thwarted by the incapable men he had to deal with. However, as
       long as he remained at the Foreign Office, he supported the
       Peninsular 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 somewhat 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 office.
       Wellesley, however, took the opportunity to resign, and was
       succeeded by Castlereagh, February, 1812. In May Perceval was
       assassinated by Mr. Bellingham, a lunatic, and his Ministry at
       once fell to pieces."

          B. C. Skottowe,
          Our Hanoverian Kings,
          book 10, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          F. H. Hill,
          George Canning,
          chapters 13-17.

          S. Walpole,
          Life of Spencer Perceval,
          volume 2.

          R. I. and S. Wilberforce,
          Life of William Wilberforce,
          chapter 20 (volume 3).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1807.
       Act for the Abolition of the Slave-Trade.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-SEPTEMBER).
       Operations in support of the Russians against the Turks and
       French.
       Bold naval attack on Constantinople and humiliating failure.
       Disastrous expedition to Egypt.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
       Alliance formed at Tilsit between Napoleon and Alexander I. of
       Russia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
       Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Danish fleet.
       War with Russia and Denmark.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
       Submission of Portugal to Napoleon under English advice.
       Flight of the house of Braganza to Brazil.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (MAY).
       Ineffectual attempt to aid Sweden.
       Expedition of Sir John Moore.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (JULY).
       Peace and alliance with the Spanish people against the new
       Napoleonic monarchy.
       Opening of the Peninsular War.

          See SPAIN: A. D.1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1808.
       Expulsion of English forces from Capri.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D.1808-1809.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1808-1809.
       Wellington's first campaign 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).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
       Wellington sent to the Peninsula.
       The passage of the Douro and the Battle of Talavera.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).
       The Walcheren Expedition.

       "Three times before, during 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 impracticable, 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 enterprise. Though the scene of action
       was to be the swamps at the mouths of the Scheldt, he
       consulted no physician. Having himself neither naval,
       military, nor medical knowledge, he assumed 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 infer
       that an expedition for the Scheldt was in contemplation; 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 enterprise 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 proportion 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 commander was Sir Richard J. Strachan, whose
       title to the responsibility no one could perceive, while many
       who had more experience were unemployed. The military command
       was given (as the selection of the present Cabinet bad 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 mistake was made of not defining the respective
       authorities of the two commanders; and 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 unknown 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 discovery 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 proceed.
       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 fortnight was consumed in
       preparations.
    {948}
       In two days more, the 15th of August, Flushing was taken.
       After this, Lord Chatham paused to consider what he should do
       next; and it was the 21st before be began to propose to go on
       to Antwerp. Then came the next discovery, that, by this time
       two intermediate places had been so strengthened that 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 traversed 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 became 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 proceed, neither 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 Chatham
       appeared on the 14th. Eleven thousand men were by that time in
       the fever, and he brought home as many as he could. Sir Eyre
       Coote, whom he left in command, was dismayed to see all the
       rest sinking down in disease at the rate of hundreds in a day.
       Though the men had been working in the 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 chief 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 Physician-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 deaths were at this time
       from 200 to 300 a week. When 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,
          History of England, 1800-1815,
          book 2, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 7, chapter 20.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
       Difficulties of Wellington's campaign in the Peninsula.
       His retreat into Portugal.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1810.
       Capture of the Mauritius.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1810-1812.
       The War in the Peninsula.
       Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
       French recoil from them.
       English advance into Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1800-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
          and 1810-1812.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1811.
       Capture of Java from the Dutch.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1811-1812.
       Desertion of Napoleon's Continental System by Russia and Sweden.
       Reopening of their ports to British commerce.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JANUARY).
       Building of the first passenger Steam-boat.

          See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
       The Peninsular War.
       Wellington's victory at Salamanca and advance to Madrid.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.
       The Liverpool Ministry.
       Business depression and bad harvests.
       Distress and rioting.
       The Luddites.

       "Again there was much 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 threatening, and the
       ministry 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 Wellington as yet uncertain, 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
       Government clung to the execution of their retaliatory
       measures against France, regardless of the practical 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
       administration of home affairs. There was an incapacity 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 consequence of the circumstances in which England
       was placed, and for which the Government was only answerable
       in so far as it created those circumstances. 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 as evidences of
       national prosperity. ...
    {949}
       A plentiful 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 Parliament that they were starving; but there was
       another class which fared still worse. Machinery had by no
       means superseded hand-work. In thousands of hamlets and
       cottages handlooms still existed. The work was neither so good
       nor so rapid as work done by machinery; even at the best of
       times used chiefly as an auxiliary to agriculture, this hand
       labour could now scarcely find employment at all. Not
       unnaturally, without work and without food, these hand workers
       were very ready to believe that it was the machinery 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 holding every
       approach, silence on all sides, the village inhabitants
       cowering behind closed doors, an hour or two's work of
       smashing and burning, and the disappearance of the crowd as
       rapidly as it had arrived--such were the incidents of the
       night riots."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England, period 3,
          pages 1325-1332.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 7, chapter 30.

          Pictorial History of England,
          volume 8, chapter 4
          (Reign of George III., volume 4).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1815.
       War with the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809;
          1808; and 1810-1812, to 1815 (JANUARY).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1813 (JUNE).
       Joined with the new European Coalition against Napoleon.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1814.
       Wellington's victorious and final campaigns
       in the Peninsular War.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1816.
       War with the Ghorkas of Nepal.

          See INDIA: A. D..1805-1816.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1814.
       The allies in France and in possession of Paris.
       Fall of Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),
          and (MARCH-APRIL).

    ENGLAND: 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 (APRIL-JUNE).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
       The Treaty of Ghent, terminating war with the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1814-1815.
       The Congress of Vienna and its revision of the map of Europe.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (MARCH).
       The Corn Law.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

    [Transcriber's Note:]

    INDONESIA: A. D. 1815 (APRIL).
       Eruption of Mount Tambora precipitating the "Year without a
       Summer" and widespread famine.

       "Low temperatures and heavy rains resulted in failed harvests
       in Britain and Ireland. ... With the cause of the problems
       unknown, hungry people demonstrated in front of grain markets
       and bakeries. Later riots, arson, and looting took place in
       many European cities. On some occasions, rioters carried flags
       reading "Bread or Blood". Though riots were common during
       times of hunger, the food riots of 1816 and 1817 were the
       highest levels of violence since the French Revolution. It was
       the worst famine of 19th-century mainland Europe.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer#Europe

    [End Transcriber's Note]

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
       The Waterloo campaign.
       Defeat and final Overthrow of Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-AUGUST).
       Surrender of Napoleon.
       His confinement on the Island of St. Helena.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
       Wellington's army in Paris.
       The Second Treaty.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (SEPTEMBER).
       The Holy Alliance.

          See HOLY ALLIANCE.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
       Agitation for Parliamentary 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 aristocratic lovers of
       popularity, to be advocated by writers of 'two-penny trash,'
       and to be discussed and organized by 'Hampden Clubs' of
       hungering philanthropists and unemployed 'weaver-boys.' Samuel
       Bamford, who thought it no disgrace 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 manufacturing
       districts of South Lancashire, in those of Leicester, Derby,
       and Nottingham; also in many of the Scottish manufacturing
       towns. Their influence was speedily visible.' Cobbett
       advocated 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
       sufficient 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
       assemblages; and by such various means, anxious listeners at
       first, and then zealous proselytes, were drawn from the
       cottages of quiet nooks and dingles to the weekly readings and
       discussions of the Hampden Clubs.' ... In a Report of the
       Secret Committee of the House of Commons, presented on the
       19th of February, 1817, the Hampden Clubs are described as
       'associated professedly 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.
       ... Bamford, 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 London. ...
    {950}
       The Middleton delegate was introduced, 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
       produce 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 dangerous 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, terminated in a
       senseless outbreak of riot, led by a young fanatic named
       Watson. The mob plundered 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 imprisoned
       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-officio information had been extended 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
       person was held to bail. In 1817 numerous ex-officio
       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--William Cobbett ran away. On the
       28th of March he fled to America, suspending the publication
       of his 'Register' for four months. On the 12th of May earl
       Grey mentioned in the House of Lords that a Mr. Hone was
       proceeded against for publishing 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
       having been officially taken of it. The parody to which earl
       Grey alluded, 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 effectually 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 years,
       with a collection of odd and curious books. From these he had
       gathered an abundance of knowledge that was destined to
       perplex the technical acquirements of the Attorney-General, to
       whom the sword and buckler of his precedents would be wholly
       useless, and to change the determination of the boldest judge
       in the land [Lord Ellenborough] to convict at any rate, into
       the 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 proceedings 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 dangerous in the press to be
       corrected by the remedial 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 incident even to the best
       gift of heaven,--that of knowledge."

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 8, chapter 5.

       In 1817 "there was widespread distress. There were riots in
       the counties of England arising out of the distress. There
       were riots in various parts of London. Secret Committees were
       appointed by both Houses of the Legislature 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 consternation
       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 Manchester 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 Blanketeers. 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 Peterloo,' 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 meeting was called to
       petition for Parliamentary reform. It should be remembered
       that in those days Manchester, Birmingham, and other great
       cities were without any manner of representation in
       Parliament.
    {951}
       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 considered objectionable,
       and to suppress any manner of publication which they chose to
       call seditious. But among them 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
       working-classes of England were preparing a revolution. ...
       During all this time, the few genuine Radicals in the House of
       Commons were bringing on motion after motion for Parliamentary
       reform, just as Grattan and his friends were bringing 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 Cochrane. ... 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 darkness 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
       himself to be in the companionship of angels. George, the
       Prince Regent, succeeded, of course, to the throne; and George
       IV. 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,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Routledge,
          Chapters in the History of Popular Progress,
          chapters 12-19.

          H. Martineau,
          History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
          book 1, chapters 5-17 (volume 1).

          E. Smith,
          William Cobbett,
          chapters 21-23 (volume 2).

          See, also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1818.
       Convention with the United States relating to Fisheries, etc.

          See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1820.
       Accession of King George IV.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1822.
       Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
       Projects of the Holy Alliance.
       English protests.
       Canning's policy towards Spain and the Spanish American
       colonies.

          See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
       The Cato Street Conspiracy.
       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 Regency, heralded the
       Reign. They did not cease to afflict the country. At once we
       are plunged into the wretched details of a conspiracy. Secret
       intelligence 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 infidelity against her. She
       now came to England (June 6, 1820), 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 Liverpool 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 foreign
       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 majority
       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 return thanks for her victory. And
       more rashly still in the following year she tried to force her
       way into Westminster Abbey during the Coronation 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 Canning
       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.

    {952}

       Early in 1822 Lord Sidmouth ... resigned the Home Office. He
       was succeeded by Robert Peel, a statesman destined to achieve
       eminence. Canning about the 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 suicide in August. Canning then became Foreign
       Secretary. "The spirit of Canning's foreign policy was
       diametrically opposed to that of Londonderry [Castlereagh].
       ... Refusing to interfere 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
       1824-25, the country, drunk with unusual prosperity, took that
       speculation fever which has afflicted her more than once
       during 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
       winter 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 business--the Government met the crisis, allayed
       the panic, and to some extent restored commercial 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,
          History of England,
          pages 526-529.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Brougham,
          Life and Times, by Himself,
          chapters 12-18 (volume 2).

          A. G. Stapleton,
          George Canning and His Times,
          chapters 18-34.

          A. G. Stapleton,
          Some Official Correspondence of George Canning,
          2 volumes

          F. H. Hill,
          George Canning,
          chapters 19-22.

          Sir T. Martin,
          Life of Lord Lyndhurst,
          chapter 7.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1826.
       The first Burmese War.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1825-1830.
       The beginning of railroads.

          See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
       Removal of Disabilities from the Dissenters.
       Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.

       "Early in 1827 a private member, of little influence,
       unexpectedly raised a dormant question. For the best part of a
       century the Dissenters had passively submitted to the
       anomalous position in which they had been placed by the
       Legislature [see above: A. D. 1662-1665; 1672-1673;
       1711-1714]. Nominally unable to hold any office under the
       Crown, they were annually '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 Dissent on the other, was maintained unbroken and
       almost unchallenged till 1827. 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 members. 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 year 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 declaration that he would bring forward
       a motion on the Test and Corporation Acts, 'if the Protestant
       Dissenters should think it to their interest that he should do
       so.' A year afterwards--on the 26th of February, 1828--Lord
       John Russell rose to redeem the promise which he thus gave."
       His motion "was carried by 237 votes to 193. The Ministry had
       sustained a crushing and unexpected reverse. For the moment it
       was doubtful whether it could continue in office. It was saved
       from the necessity of resigning by the moderation and
       dexterity of Peel. Peel considered that nothing could be more
       unfortunate for the Church than to involve the House of
       Commons 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 corporation, and, at the
       pleasure of the Crown, by the holder of every office. Russell,
       though he disliked 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,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 10 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Stoughton,
          Religion in England from 1800 to 1850,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          H. S. Skeats,
          History of the Free Churches of England,
          chapter 9.

    ENGLAND: 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. Huskisson became Colonial Secretary, 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 between
       Mr. Herries ... and Mr. Huskisson ... could not be reconciled
       by Lord Goderich, and he therefore tendered his resignation to
       the king on the 9th of January, 1828.
    {953}
       His majesty immediately 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 be the head. ... It was understood that lord
       Lyndhurst 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 Home Department, saw the impossibility
       of re-uniting in this administration those who had formed the
       Cabinet of lord Liverpool. He desired 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 Palmerston, 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
       unchanged."

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 8, chapter 13.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir T. Martin,
          Life of Lord Lyndhurst,
          chapter 9.

          W. M. Torrens,
          Life of Viscount Melbourne,
          volume 1, chapter 15.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1829.
       Intervention on behalf of Greece.
       Battle of Navarino.

          See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1828.
       Corn Law amendment.
       The Sliding Scale.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1829.
       Catholic Emancipation.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

    ENGLAND: 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 Britain
       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
       population 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 representation will be even more striking if
       we consider the manner in which the electors were broken up
       into constituencies. The constituencies consisted either of
       counties, or of cities or boroughs. Generally speaking, the
       counties of England and Wales (and of Ireland, after the
       Union) were represented 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
       Parliamentary boroughs is a question of much historic
       interest, 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 important places were selected; though other
       considerations, such as the 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
       important changes were made. In 1654, he disfranchised many small
       boroughs, increased the number of county members, and
       enfranchised Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax. All these reforms
       were cancelled after the Restoration; and from that time very
       few changes were made. ... In the hundred and fifty years
       which followed the Restoration, however, there were changes in
       the condition of the country, altogether beyond the control of
       either kings or parliaments. Old towns disappeared or decayed,
       and new ones sprang up. Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds were
       remarkable examples of the latter,--Old Sarum was an example
       of the former. ... At one time a place of some importance, 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
       Ludgershall in Wiltshire--which represented only their owners.
       In fact, the representation of owners, and of owners only, was
       a very prominent 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. Many others might be cited. According to a
       statement made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, 6,000 persons
       returned a clear majority of the House of Commons. 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
       members; 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 by 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
       representation, 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 three or four. Such being the state of the
       representation, corruption was inevitable. Bribery was
       practised to an inconceivable extent. Many of the smaller
       boroughs had a fixed price, and it was by no means uncommon to
       see a borough advertised for sale in the newspapers. ...
    {954}
       As an example of cost in contesting a county election, it is
       on record that the joint expenses of Lord Milton and Mr.
       Lascelles, in contesting the county of York in 1807, were
       £200,000. ... 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 1745, Sir Francis Dashwood (afterwards Lord de
       Spencer) moved an amendment 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, introduced a bill into the
       House of Lords which would have given manhood suffrage and
       annual parliaments; and three times in succession, in 1782,
       1783, and 1785, Mr. Pitt proposed resolutions in favour of
       Reform. ... After Mr. Pitt had abandoned the cause, Mr.
       (afterwards Earl) Grey took up the subject. First, in 1792, 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 exception of a few months after the Peace
       of Amiens in 1802--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
       Westminster and a leading Reformer, brought the question of
       Reform before the House of Commons. 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 IV. [June 26],--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 involved a dissolution of Parliament. The Parliament
       which was in existence in 1830 had been elected in 1826. Since
       the beginning o£ 1828 the Duke of Wellington had been 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 affirmed
       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 specific plan of Reform--a very Radical plan
       indeed--but was again ignominiously defeated; then, on the 23d
       of February, Lord John Russell ... asked for leave to bring in
       a bill for conferring the franchise upon Leeds, Manchester,
       and Birmingham, as the three largest unrepresented towns in
       the kingdom, but was defeated by 188 votes to 140; and
       finally, on the 28th of May--scarcely two months before the
       dissolution--Mr. O'Connell brought in a bill to establish
       universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and triennial parliaments,
       but found only 13 members to support him in a House of 332.
       ... 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 unparalleled degree of
       excite merit. ... When all was over, and the results were
       reckoned up, it was found that, of the 28 members who
       represented the thirteen greatest cities in England (to say
       nothing of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland), only 3 were
       Minsterialists. ... Of the 236 men who were returned by
       elections, more or less popular, in England, only 79 were
       Ministerialists. ... The first Parliament of William IV. met
       on the 26th of October, but the session was not really opened
       till the 2d 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 Parliamentary 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 degree satisfy my mind that the state of the
       representation 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 concerned, as long as I hold any station in the
       government of the country, I shall always feel it my duty to
       resist such measures when proposed by others.' Exactly
       fourteen days after the delivery of this speech, the Duke's
       career' as Prime Minister 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 disturbance, had advised the King and Queen to
       abandon an engagement to dine, on the 9th, with the Lord Mayor
       at the Guildhall.
    {955}
       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 Opposition, 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 Reforms of Parliament,
          chapters 1-2.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Paul,
          History of Reform,
          chapters 1-6.

          W. Bagehot,
          Essays on Parliamentary Reform,
          essay 2.

          H. Cox,
          Antient Parliamentary Elections.

          S. Walpole,
          The Electorate and the Legislature,
          chapter 4.

          E. A. Freeman,
          Decayed Boroughs
          (Historical Essays, 4th series).

    England: A. D. 1830-1832.
       The great Reform of Representation in Parliament, under the
       Ministry of Earl Grey.

       "Earl Grey was the new Minister; and Mr. Brougham his Lord
       Chancellor. The first announcement of the premier was that the
       government would 'take into immediate consideration 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 preservation 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 government 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 March, 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
       Gascoyne, 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
       decisive. The very next day, Parliament was prorogued by the
       king in person, 'with a view to its immediate dissolution.' It
       was one of the most critical days in the history of our
       country. ... The people were now to decide the question;--and
       they decided it. A triumphant body of reformers was returned,
       pledged to carry the reform bill; and on the 6th July, the
       second reading of the renewed measure was agreed to, by a
       majority of 136. The most tedious and irritating discussions
       ensued in committee,--night after night; and the bill was not
       disposed of until the 21st 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 bill 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,
       turbulence, 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 rejecting 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 majority 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 agitation of the people was becoming dangerous.
       ... The time had come, when either the Lords must 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 Ebrington, an address was
       immediately voted by them, renewing their expressions of
       unaltered confidence in the late ministers, and imploring his
       Majesty 'to call to his councils such persons only as will
       carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential 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 secure. 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 corrected the
       faults of a system, which had been complained of for more than
       half a century.
    {956}
       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
       inhabitants, lost each a member. Weymouth and Melcombe Regis
       lost two. This disfranchisement extended to 143 members. The
       next evil had been, that large populations were unrepresented;
       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 distribution of
       seats,--the number of county members being increased from 94
       to 159. The larger counties were divided; and the number of
       members adjusted with reference to the importance of the
       constituencies. Another evil was the restricted and unequal
       franchise. This too was corrected. All narrow rights of
       election were set aside in Boroughs; and a £10 household
       franchise 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 defects of the Scotch representation, being even
       more flagrant and indefensible than those of England, were not
       likely to be omitted from Lord Grey's general scheme of
       reform. ... The entire representation was remodelled.
       Forty-five members 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 burghs. The county franchise
       was extended to all owners of property of £10 a year, and to
       certain classes of leaseholders; and the burgh franchise to
       all £10 householders. The representation 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,
          Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860,
          chapter 6 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          W. N. Molesworth,
          History of the Reform Bill of 1832.

          W. Jones,
          Biographical Sketches of the Reform Ministers.

          Lord Brougham, Life and Times, by Himself,
          chapters 21-22.

          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 11 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1831.
       First assumption of the name Conservatives by the Tories.

          See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.
       Intervention in the Netherlands.
       Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
       War with Holland.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.
       Abolition of Slavery in the West Indies.
       Trade monopoly of the East India Company withdrawn.
       Factory Bill.
       Irish tithes.

       "The period which succeeded 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 suppressed so far as we could suppress it long
       before 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 Macaulay, father of the
       historian and statesman, Thomas Fowell 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 children subsequently born, and to all those
       who were then under six years of age; while it determined for
       all other slaves a period of apprenticeship, lasting five
       years in one class and seven years in another, after which
       they attained absolute 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 Ashley, since everywhere known as the Earl of
       Shaftesbury, ... brought forward the motion which ended in the
       appointment of the commission. 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 duration of 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 energetic
       action of this period of reform. The people of Ireland
       complained with justice of having to pay tithes for the
       maintenance of the church establishment 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,
          chapters 7-8.

          ALSO IN: C. Knight, Popular History of England,
          volume 8, chapter 17.

          H. Martineau,
          History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
          book 4, chapters 6-9 (volumes 2-3).

    {957}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1840.
       Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
       The capture of Acre.
       Bombardment of Alexandria.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1845.
       The Oxford or Tractarian Movement.

          See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837.
       Resignation of Lord Grey and the Reform Ministry.
       The first Melbourne 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
       temporal possessions of the Irish church ought to be reduced.
       The ministers determined to adopt a middle course and appoint
       a commission of inquiry; 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
       interference 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 Mulgrave. 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
       circumstances 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 ministry 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, instructing
       Melbourne at once to send for the Duke of Wellington. The
       sensation in London was great; the dismissal of the ministry
       was considered 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
       colleague, Lord Lyndhurst, who held the great seal, while at
       the same time he sat as Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer.
       This temporary government was called a dictatorship. ... On
       Sir Robert Peel's return from Italy, whence he had been
       called, he waited upon the king and accepted the office 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
       Wellington, Goulburn, Herries, and Aberdeen; Lord Lyndhurst
       was Lord Chancellor; Harding, Secretary for Ireland; and Lord
       Wharncliffe, Privy Seal. With this ministry Peel had to meet a
       hostile House of Commons. ... The Prime Minister therefore
       thought it necessary to dissolve Parliament, and took the
       opportunity [in what was called 'the Tamworth 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 satisfactory and
       final adjustment which does not embody 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 following
       day the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, stated that
       in consequence of the resolution 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, inflammation
       of the lungs, had greatly increased. ... On Tuesday, June 20th,
       the last of these official documents was issued. His Majesty
       had expired 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 Victoria."

          A. H. McCalman,
          Abridged History of England,
          pages 565-570.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Taylor,
          Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
          volume 2, chapters 10-12.

          W. M. Torrens,
          Memoirs of Viscount Melbourne,
          volume 2, chapters 1-8.

          J. W. Croker,
          Correspondence and Diaries,
          chapters 18-20 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1836-1839.
       Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law Agitation.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1837.
       Separation of Hanover.

          See HANOVER: A. D. 1837.

    {958}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839.
       Opening of the reign of Queen Victoria.
       End of personal rule.
       Beginning of purely constitutional government.
       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 Melbourne].
       '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 companions.
       He did not know, did not foresee, that with the accession of
       Queen Victoria the real reign of constitutional government in
       these islands 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 troubles. They were not reformers
       enough for the great body of their supporters. ... The
       Radicals had split off from them. They could not manage
       O'Connell. The Chartist fire was already burning. There was
       many a serious crisis in foreign policy--in China and in
       Egypt, for example. The Canadian Rebellion and the mission of
       Lord Durham involved the Whigs in fresh anxieties, and laid
       them open to new attacks 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 Ministers, and that she did
       not disapprove of their conduct, but that she felt bound to
       act in accordance 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 jupons.' The Queen wished to retain her
       ladies-in-waiting; Peel insisted that there must be some
       change. Two of these ladies were closely related to Whig
       statesmen whose policy was diametrically opposed to that of
       Peel on no less important a question than the Government of
       Ireland. Peel insisted that he could not undertake 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 Robert Peel,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          W. N. Molesworth,
          History of England, 1830-1874,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

          H. Dunckley,
          Lord Melbourne,
          chapter 11.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1837.
       The Victorian Age in Literature.

       "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, although
       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 literature of Victoria
       separates itself from that of the era whose heroes were Scott,
       Byron, and Wordsworth: 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 intellectual 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 purposes 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 antagonists 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, January, 1879, page 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 respect, however,
       it differs from most of those epochs which derive their
       appellation from a sovereign. The names of Augustus, Lorenzo,
       Louis XIV., Anne, are associated with a literary advance, 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. Delight 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 Queen's reign
       intellectually memorable.
    {959}
       Looking 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
       antiquity 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, indeed, 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 unattained
       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 Reign of Queen Victoria,
          edited by T. H. Ward, volume 2, pages 445-446).

       "The most conspicuous of the substantial distinctions 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 verse was in the ascendant; in
       the Victorian era the supremacy has passed to prose. It is not
       easy for anyone who has grown up in the latter to estimate
       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 anyone 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
       reception 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 village 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 public mind, or
       drew any considerable amount of attention, till the Waverley
       novels began to appear; 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 the other prose writing that then went on what was
       most effective was that of the periodical press,--of the
       Edinburgh Review and Cobbett's Register, and, at a later date,
       of Blackwood's Magazine and the London Magazine (the latter
       with Charles Lamb and De Quincey among its
       contributors),--much of it owing more or less of its power to
       its vehement political partisanship. A descent from poetry 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 History of English Literature,
          volume 2, pages 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 the 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 Tennyson; 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 artistic fancy, as in
       Keats' "Endymion" 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 because 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, Arnold, 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 comprehensive 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 impulses 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! 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 Personæ,'
       Thomson's 'City of Dreadful Night' and Mary Robinson's
       'Handful of Honeysuckles,' Andrew Lang's Ballades and Sharp's
       'Weird of Michael Scot,' Dobson's dealings with the eighteenth
       century and Noel's 'Child's Garland,' Barnes's Dorsetshire
       Poems and Buchanan's London Lyrics, the songs from Empedocles
       on Etna and Ebenezer Jones's 'Pagan's Drinking Chant,'
       Shelley's Ode to the West Wind and Mrs. Browning's 'Pan is
       Dead,' Newman's hymns and Gosse's Chant Royal.
    {960}
       The kaleidoscope presented by this lyric is so inexhaustible
       that any man with the fragment of a memory might pair off
       scores of poems by admired authors, and yet not fall upon the
       same parallels as those which I have made. The genius of our
       century, debarred from epic, debarred 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 'Excursion,' Byron's 'Don Juan' and 'Childe
       Harold,' 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 distinctly 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 Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry
          (Fortnightly Review, January 1, 1889,
          pages 62-64).

       The difference between the drama and the novel "is one of
       perspective; and it is this which in a wide sense
       distinguishes 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 contrive, 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, roundness and balance,
       but, to us, a want of fulness; in the Victorian, amplified
       knowledge, but a falling short of comprehensiveness. And
       adapted to each respectively, the drama and the novel are its
       most expressive literary form. The limitations and scope of
       the drama are those of its time, and so of the novel. Even as
       the Elizabethan 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 treatment 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 possibility 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-Elizabethan. It argues what Burns would call a castigated
       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 romance. 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 Elizabethan Drama and the Victorian Novel
          (Lippincott's Monthly Magazine, April, 1891,
          pages 520-522).

    England: A. D. 1838-1842.
       The Chartist agitation.

       "When the Parliament was opened by the Queen on the 5th of
       February, 1839, a passage in the Royal Speech had reference to
       a state of domestic affairs which presented an unhappy
       contrast 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 country to excite my subjects to disobedience and
       resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous 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 assemblies, 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 inflammatory 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 parliaments; no
       property qualification for members; and a payment to every
       member for his legislative services. These principles so
       quickly recommended themselves to the working-classes that in
       the session of 1839 the number of signatures to a petition
       presented to Parliament was upwards of a million and a
       quarter. The middle classes almost universally looked with
       extreme jealousy and apprehension upon any attempt for an
       extension of the franchise. The upper classes for the most
       part regarded the proceedings of the Chartists with a contempt
       which scarcely concealed their fears. This large section of the
       working population very soon became divided into what were
       called physical-force Chartists and moral-force Chartists. As
       a natural consequence, the principles and acts of the
       physical-force Chartists disgusted every supporter of order
       and of the rights of property."

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 8, chapter 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
       eloquence; some were impassioned young poets, drawn from the
       class whom Kingsley has described in his 'Alton Locke'; some
       were men of education; many were earnest and devoted fanatics;
       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, appears to have been
       sincere, and to have personally lost more than he gained by
       his Chartism. ... He was of commanding presence, great
       stature, and almost gigantic strength. He had education; 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 scant measure of poetic inspiration as
       well. Henry Vincent was a man of unimpeachable character. ...
    {961}
       Ernest Jones was as sincere and self-sacrificing a man as ever
       joined a sinking cause. ... It is necessary to read such a
       book as Thomas Cooper's Autobiography to understand how
       genuine was the poetic and political enthusiasm which was at
       the heart of the Chartist 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 willing 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 identified 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 conducted by Feargus
       O'Connor, was the most popular 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 failures. The Chartists would not
       give up their Charter; many of them would not renounce the
       hope of seeing it carried by force. The Government 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 imprisonment 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 the sentence was
       commuted to one of transportation. "The trial and conviction
       of Frost, Williams, and Jones, did not put a stop to the
       Chartist agitation. 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 terms 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 that reason
       that the Chartists would not join hands with the Anti-Corn-Law
       movement, then in full progress. "It is clear that at that
       time the Chartists, 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 English
       working men who joined the Chartist movement to be a race of
       fierce, unmanageable, and selfish communists, who, if they
       were allowed their own way for a moment, would prove
       themselves determined to overthrow throne, altar, and all
       established securities of society."

          J. McCarthy,
          History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

       Among the measures of coercion advocated in the councils of
       the Chartists was that of appointing 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,
          History of England, 1830-1874,
          volume 2, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Cooper,
          Life, by himself,
          chapter 14-23.

          W. Lovett,
          Life and Struggles,
          chapters 8-15.

          T. Frost,
          Forty Years' Recollections,
          chapters 3-11.

          H. Jephson,
          The Platform,
          part 4, chapters 17 and 19 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1839-1842.
       The Opium War with China.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.
       Adoption of Penny-Postage.

       "In 1837 Mr. Rowland Hill had published his plan of a cheap
       and uniform postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was
       appointed in 1837, which continued its inquiries throughout
       the session of 1838, and arrived at the conviction 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 weighing
       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 accomplishment is mainly due to the
       sagacity and perseverance of the man who first conceived the
       scheme."

          C. Knight,
          Crown History of England,
          page 883.

       "Up to this time the rates of postage on letters were very
       heavy, and varied according to the distance. For instance, a
       single letter conveyed from one part of a town to another cost
       2d.; a letter from Reading, to London 7d.; from Brighton, 8d.;
       from Aberdeen, 1s. 3½d.; from Belfast, 1s. 4d. If the letter
       was written on more than a single sheet, the rate of postage
       was much higher."

          W. N. Molesworth,
          History of England, 1830-1874,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Hill,
          Life of Sir Rowland Hill.

    ENGLAND: 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 marriage 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 marriage between the Princess Victoria and Prince
       Albert had been thought of as desirable among the families on
       both sides, but it was always wisely resolved that nothing
       should be said to the young Princess on the subject unless she
       herself showed a distinct liking for her cousin.
    {962}
       In 1836, Prince Albert was brought by his father to England,
       and made the personal acquaintance of the Princess, and she
       seems at once to have been drawn toward him in the manner
       which her family and friends would most have desired. ... The
       marriage of the Queen and the Prince took place on February
       10, 1840."

          J. McCarthy,
          History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842.
       Interference in Afghanistan.
       The first Afghan War.

          See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838; 1838-1842; 1842-1869.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842.
       Fall of the Melbourne Ministry.
       Opening of the second administration of Sir Robert Peel.

       In 1841, the Whig Ministry (Melbourne's) determined "to do
       something 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 according 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 sliding scale of the Corn Laws then in force [see
       TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828] with a fixed
       duty of 8s. per quarter. ... The concessions offered by the
       Ministry, too small to excite the enthusiasm of the 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 expected 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 623 members. Instead of
       resigning, the Ministers appealed to the country. The
       elections went on through the 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 the 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 Address, which were carried by
       majorities of 91 and 72 respectively." The Ministry resigned
       and a Conservative Government was formed, with Peel at its
       head, as First Lord of the Treasury. "Wellington entered the
       Cabinet without office, and Lyndhurst assumed for the third
       time the 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 experienced 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 Duchess of
       Bedford, the Duchess of Sutherland, and Lady Normanby, should
       resign of their own accord. One or two other changes in the
       Household contented Peel, and these the Queen accorded with a
       frankness which placed him entirely at his ease. ... During
       the recess Peel took a wide survey of the ills affecting the
       commonwealth, and of the possible remedies. To supply the
       deficiency in the revenue without laying new burthens upon the
       humbler class; to revive our fainting manufactures by
       encouraging the importation of raw material; to assuage
       distress by making the price of provisions lower and more
       regular, without taking away that protection which he still
       believed essential 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 importation of
       corn and other commodities. It announced the beginning of a
       revolution which few persons in England thought possible,
       although it was to be completed in little more than ten
       years."

          F. C. Montague,
          Life of Sir Robert Peel,
          chapter 7-8.

          ALSO IN:
          J. R. Thursfield,
          Peel,
          chapter 7-8.

          W. C. Taylor,
          Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
          volume 3, chapters 3-5.

          J. W. Croker,
          Correspondence and Diaries,
          chapter 22 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1842.
       The Ashburton Treaty with the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846.
       Repeal of the Corn Laws and dissolution of the League.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1845-1846.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846.
       First war with the Sikhs.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
       Settlement of the Oregon Boundary Question with the United
       States.

          See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

    ENGLAND: 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 [extinguishing 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 office, had usually made
       it their principle to oppose Coercion Bills, if they were not
       attended with some promises of legislative reform. The English
       Radical members, led by Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, were
       certain to oppose coercion. If the protectionists should join
       with these other opponents 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 Bentinck into the lobby
       against the Bill, in combination with the Free Traders, the
       Whigs, and the Irish Catholic and national members. The
       division took place on the second reading of the Bill on
       Thursday, June 25, and there was a majority of 73 against the
       Ministry."

          J. McCarthy,
          The Epoch of Reform,
          page 183.

    {963}

       The revengeful Tory-Protectionist attack on Peel was led by
       Sir George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli, then just making
       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 unconstitutional
       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 the 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
       uncertainty, 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
       themselves under a real leader, and Disraeli was the single
       person that they had who was equal to the situation. ... He
       had overthrown Peel and succeeded to Peel's honours."

          J. A. Froude,
          Lord Beaconsfield,
          chapter 9.

       Although the Tory-Protectionists 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
       Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Macaulay
       Paymaster-General.

          W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
          volume 3, chapter 11.

       The most important 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 proclaiming
       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,
          History of England,
          period 4, page 137.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Walpole,
          Life of Lord John Russell,
          chapter 16 (volume 1).

          B. Disraeli,
          Lord George Bentinck,
          chapter 14-16.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
       Difference with France on the Spanish marriages.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.
       The last Chartist demonstration.

       "The more violent Chartists had broken from the Radical
       reformers, and had themselves 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 into a land scheme of a somewhat doubtful
       character. ... He had also injudiciously 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 supporters. Yet the Parliament elected in 1846
       contained several representatives of the Chartist principles,
       and O'Connor himself had been returned 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 country was filled with meetings at which
       violent speeches were uttered and hints, not obscure, dropped
       of the forcible establishment of a republic in England. A new
       Convention was summoned for the 6th 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 the House in procession.
       The alarm felt in London was very great. It was thought
       necessary to swear in special constables, and the wealthier
       classes came forward in vast numbers to be enrolled. There are
       said to have been no less than 170,000 special constables. The
       military arrangements were entrusted 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 determination seemed almost ridiculous 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 Commissioner 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 followed, 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
       disclosures 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,
          History of England,
          period 4, pages 176-178.

          ALSO IN:
          S. Walpole,
          History of England from 1815,
          chapter 20 (volume 4).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1848-1849.
       Second war with the Sikhs.
       Conquest and annexation of the Punjab.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1849.
       Repeal of the Navigation Laws.

          See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850.
       The Don Pacifico Affair.
       Lord Palmerston's speech.

       The little difficulty 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 commonly called the Don Pacifico
       Affair, gave occasion for a memorable speech in Parliament by
       Lord Palmerston, defending his foreign policy against attacks.
    {964}
       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 raising the
       speaker's reputation. "The Don Pacifico debate was
       unquestionably an important landmark 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 received with a universal verdict of
       approval. From that hour Lord Palmerston became the man of the
       people, and his rise to the premiership only a question of
       time."

          L. C. Sanders,
          Life of Viscount Palmerston,
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          Marquis of Lorne,
          Viscount Palmerston,
          chapter 7.

          J. McCarthy,
          History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 19 (volume 2).

          J. Morley,
          Life of Cobden,
          volume 2, chapter 3.

          T. Martin,
          Life of the Prince Consort,
          chapter 38 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1850.
       The so-called Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with the United States,
       establishing a joint protectorate over the projected Nicaragua
       Canal.

          See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1850.
       Restoration of the Roman Episcopate.
       The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1850.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1850-1852.
       The London protocol and treaty on the Schleswig-Holstein
       Question.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

    ENGLAND: 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
       organised 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 influence 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 regarded Prince Albert as a
       foreigner and a pedant, 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. Paxton sketched out his plan hastily, and the idea was
       eagerly accepted by the Royal Commissioners. 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,
          History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 21 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Martin,
          Life of the Prince Consort,
          chapters 33-36, 39, 42-43 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: 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 Ministry 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 Palmerston 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 representative in
       Paris, expressing in strong terms his satisfaction at the
       success of the French President'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 Palmerston'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 forward; 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 cooperation of Palmerston,
       but the offer was declined, as the two statesmen differed on
       the question of imposing a duty on the importation of corn,
       and other matters.'

          G. B. Smith,
          The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
          pages 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 understood 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 inexperience,
       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 have been quite willing to entrust its destinies to
       their hands.
    {965}
       But that one consideration was all important. ... The
       Government was obliged to go to the country, to some extent,
       on Protectionist 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 to the ground; and Lord Derby had to meet the
       Opposition attack without any reinforcements. ... On the 16th
       of December, ... being defeated on the Budget by a majority of
       19, Lord Derby at once resigned."

          T. E. Kebbel,
          Life of the Earl of Derby,
          chapter 6.

       "The new Government [which succeeded that of Derby] was a
       coalition of Whigs and Peelites, with Sir William Molesworth
       thrown in to represent the Radicals. Lord Aberdeen became
       Prime Minister, and Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer.
       The other Peelites in the Cabinet were the Duke of Newcastle,
       Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert."

          G. W. E. Russell,
          The Rt. Hon. William Ewart Gladstone,
          chapter 5.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1852.
       Second Burmese War.
       Annexation of Pegu.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1852-1853.
       Abandonment of Protection by the Conservatives.
       Further progress in Free Trade.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1846-1879.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1855.
       Civil-Service Reform.

          See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1856.
       The Crimean War.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1855.
       Popular discontent with the management of the war.
       Fall of the Aberdeen Ministry.
       Palmerston's first premiership.
       A brightening of prospects.

       "Our army system entirely broke down [in the Crimea], and Lord
       Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle were made the scapegoats of
       the popular indignation. ... But England was not only
       suffering from unpreparedness and want of administrative power
       in the War department; there were dissensions in the Cabinet.
       ... Lord John Russell gave so much trouble, that Lord
       Aberdeen, 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 before Sebastopol, and Lord John
       definitively resigned. The Ministry remained in office to
       await the fate of Mr. Roebuck's motion, which was carried
       against them by the very large majority of 157. Lord Aberdeen
       now placed the resignation of the Cabinet in the hands of the
       Queen [January 31, 1855]. ... Thus fell the Coalition Cabinet
       of Lord Aberdeen. In talent and parliamentary 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,
          pages 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 Clarendon 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 Roebuck'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 Lorne,
          Viscount Palmerston,
          chapter 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, Lansdowne, 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 suspicion 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 completely relaxed the bonds of Party. If
       there was no regular 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 wonderful
       vigour of constitution. He was soon restored 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,
          chapter 10.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1855.
       Mr. Gladstone's Commission to the Ionian Islands.

          See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1856-1860.
       War with China.
       French alliance in the war.
       Capture of Canton.
       Entrance into Pekin.
       Destruction of the Summer Palace.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

    {966}

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1857-1858.
       The Sepoy Mutiny in India.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

    ENGLAND: 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.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.
       The Conspiracy Bill.
       Fall of Palmerston's government.
       Second Ministry of Derby and Disraeli.
       Lord Palmerston 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 London. Not without
       some reason it was felt in France that 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, always anxious to cultivate the good feeling
       of the French nation, desired 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 England in the French press, and the
       repetition of such language by officers of the French army who
       were received by the Emperor when they waited on him 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 200. 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 resign. 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
       Conservatives 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 Palmerston was entrusted the task. He succeeded in forming
       what was considered the strongest Ministry of modern 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 Lorne,
          Viscount Palmerston,
          chapters 10-11.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Martin,
          Life of the Prince Consort,
          chapters 82-84, 91-92,
          and 94 (volume 4).

          T. E. Kebbel,
          Life of the Earl of Derby,
          chapter 7.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1860.
       The Cobden-Chevalier commercial treaty with France.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (May).
       The Queen's Proclamation of Neutrality with reference
       to the American Civil War.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (October).
       The allied intervention in Mexico.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (November).
       The Trent Affair.
       Seizure of Mason and Slidell.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).

    ENGLAND: 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
       refused 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' supply 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 the 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
       established Confederate government was doing its best to
       render it effective. They believed that cotton was 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. Mills began to run short time or
       to close in the month of October, but no noise was made about
       it; and the only evidence of anything unusual was at the
       boards of guardians, where the applications had reached the
       mid-winter 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 labourers 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 December the increase was again 7,000; so
       that the recipients of relief were at this time 12,000 (or
       about 25 per cent) more than in the January previous. And now
       serious thoughts began to agitate many minds; cotton was very
       largely held by speculators for a rise, the arrivals were
       meagre in quantity, and the rates of insurance began to show
       that, notwithstanding the large profits on imports, the
       blockade was no longer on paper alone. January, 1862, added
       16,000 more to the recipients 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 evidently 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 spring appear; but in 1862 it
       added nearly 9,000 to the already large number of extra cases,
       the recipients being now 105 per cent above the average for the
       same period of the year.
    {967}
       But this average gives no idea of the pressure in particular
       localities. ... The cotton operatives were now, if left to
       themselves, like a ship's crew upon short provisions, and
       those very unequally distributed, and without chart or
       compass, and no prospect of getting to land. In Ashton there
       were 3,197; in Stockport, 8,588; and in Preston, 9,488 persons
       absolutely foodless; and who nevertheless declined 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, and 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 humiliation; and
       organisations spring up for any important work so soon as the
       necessity of the case becomes urgent in any locality.
       Committees arose almost simultaneously in Ashton, Stockport,
       and Preston; and in April, Blackburn followed in the train,
       and the guardians and the relief committees of these several
       places divided an extra 6,000 dependents between them. The
       month of May, which usually reduces pauperism to almost its
       lowest ebb, added 6,000 more to the recipients from the
       guardians, and 5,000 to the dependents 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
       dependents as the whole of the boards of guardians in the
       twenty-eight unions supported in ordinary years. ... In the
       month of July, when all unemployed 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 additional 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
       increased recipients of poor-law relief were in a single
       month, 33,000, being nearly as many as the total number
       chargeable in the same month of the previous year, 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 alterations 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. ... Another
       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 approaches,
       and the authorities have to deal not only with hundreds of
       thousands who are compulsorily 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, 200,084; 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 confederacy in America. And
       meetings were called in various places to memorialise the
       government to this effect. Such meetings were always balanced
       by counter meetings, at which it was shown that simple
       recognition would be waste of words; that it would not bring
       to our shores 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 miles away, the cotton, if we succeeded in
       getting it, would be stained with blood and cursed with the
       support of slavery, and would also prevent our getting the
       food which we needed from the North equally as much as the
       cotton from the South. ... These meetings and counter meetings
       perhaps helped to steady the action of the government
       (notwithstanding the sympathy of some of its members towards
       the South), to confirm them in the policy of the royal
       proclamation, and to determine them to enforce the provisions
       of the Foreign Enlistment Act against all offenders. ... 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 1862, 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,
          chapters 8 and 12.

          ALSO IN:
          R. A. Arnold,
          History of the Cotton Famine.

          E. Waugh,
          Factory Folk during the Cotton Famine.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1862 (JULY).
       The fitting out of the Confederate cruiser Alabama
       at Liverpool.

          See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1864.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1865.
       Governor Eyre and the Jamaica Insurrection.

          See JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
       Death of Palmerston.
       Ministry of Lord John Russell.
       Its unsatisfactory Reform Bill and its resignation.
       Triumph of the Adullamites.
       Third administration of Derby and Disraeli,
       and its Reform Bills.

       "On the death of Lord Palmerston [which occurred October 18,
       1865], the premiership was intrusted for the second time to
       Earl Russell, with Mr. Gladstone as leader in the House of
       Commons. The queen opened her seventh 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 opposition of the moderate
       Liberals, and their joining the Conservatives, proved fatal to
       the measure, and in consequence the ministry of Earl Russell
       resigned.
    {968}
       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 government: he as Premier and First Lord
       of the Treasury; Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer."

          A. H. McCalman,
          Abridged History of England,
          page 603.

       "The measure, in fact, was too evidently a compromise. The
       Russell and Gladstone section of the Cabinet wanted reform:
       the remnants of Palmerston's followers still thought it
       unnecessary. The result was this wretched, tinkering measure,
       which satisfied nobody, and disappointed the expectation of
       all earnest Reformers. ... The principal opposition came not
       from the Conservatives, as might have been expected, but from
       Mr. Horsman and Mr. Robert Lowe, both members of the Liberal
       party, who from the very first declared they would have none
       of it. ... Mr. Bright denounced them furiously as
       'Adullamites'; all who were in distress, all who were
       discontented, had gathered themselves together 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, which 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 reinforced by deserters from the ranks of
       the Government until at last the Adullamites 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
       Adullamites and Conservatives carried triumphantly an
       amendment brought forward by one of the Adullamite chiefs,
       Lord Dunkellin, to the effect that a rating 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 leadership 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 Gladstone
       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 exasperated Liberals, however,
       were rousing a widespread agitation throughout the country in
       favour of Reform: monster meetings were held in Hyde 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. Disraeli's opinion naturally carried the day. The
       Government, however, did not go straight to the point at once.
       They began by proposing a number of resolutions on the
       subject, which were very soon laughed out of existence. Then
       they brought a bill founded on them, which, however, 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 measure. The measure in question
       proposed household 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 qualification by rating and by profession.
       The great objection to the bill was that it excluded the
       compound householder.' The compound householder is now as
       extinct an animal as the potwalloper 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 landlord. Now the occupiers of these very small
       houses were naturally by far the most numerous class of
       occupiers in the boroughs, and the omission 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 remembered,
       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 section 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 Commons 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 language, and his passion was
       emulated by Mr. Bright. ... Mr. Gladstone had to give in, and
       his surrender was followed by that of Mr. Disraeli. The
       Tea-Room Party, in fact, were masters of the day, and were
       able to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Government to
       induce them to admit the principle of household suffrage pure
       and simple, and to abolish all distinctions of rating. ... Not
       only was the household suffrage clause considerably extended,
       the dual vote abolished, and most of the fancy franchises
       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 reform."

          B. C. Skottowe,
          Short History of Parliament,
          chapter 22.

    {969}

       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 householders 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 labourers and women."

          D. W. Rannie,
          Historical Outline of the English Constitution,
          chapter 12, section 4.

          ALSO IN:
          W. BAGEHOT,
          Essays on Parliamentary Reform, 3.

          G. B. Smith,
          Life of Gladstone,
          chapters 17-18 (volume 2).

          W. Robertson,
          Life and Times of John Bright,
          chapters 39-40.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1869.
       Discussion of the Alabama Claims of the United States.
       The Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and its rejection.

          See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1867-1868.
       Expedition to Abyssinia.

          See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
       Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
       Retirement of the Derby-Disraeli Ministry.
       Mr. Gladstone in power.
       His Irish Land Bill.

       "On March 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 Englishman
       capable of forming an opinion who did not know that from the
       moment when Mr. Gladstone made his declaration, the fall of
       the Irish State Church had become merely a question of time.
       Men only waited to see how Mr. Gladstone would proceed to
       procure its fall. Public expectation was not long kept in
       suspense. A few days after the debate on Mr. 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 personal 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 disposal of
       Parliament her interest in the temporalities 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. Gladstone proposed his resolutions. Not many persons could
       have had much doubt as to the result of the debate. But if
       there were any such, their doubts must have begun to vanish
       when they read the notice of amendment to the resolutions
       which was given by Lord Stanley. The amendment proclaimed even
       more surely than the resolutions the impending fall of the Irish
       Church. Lord Stanley must have been supposed to speak in the
       name of the Government and the Conservative party; and his
       amendment merely declared that the House, while admitting that
       considerable 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 270
       votes for the amendment, and 331 against it. The doom of the
       Irish Church was pronounced by a majority of 61. An interval
       was afforded 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 Government 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 dissolved
       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 country might look for a career of
       energetic reform. ... Mr. Disraeli did not meet the new
       Parliament as Prime Minister. He decided very properly 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 advancing years to be
       seen on his face. ... The Government he formed was one of
       remarkable strength. ... Mr. Gladstone went to work at once
       with his Irish policy.
    {970}
       On March 1, 1869, the Prime Minister introduced his measure
       for the disestablishment and partial disendowment 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 Government, 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 amendments
       were introduced and discussed; and some of these led to a
       controversy between the two Houses of Parliament; but the
       controversy ended in compromise. On July 26, 1869, the measure
       for the disestablishment of the Irish Church received 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. Be died before the Irish State Church had
       ceased to live. ... When the Irish Church had been disposed
       of, Mr. 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 declared 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. Gladstone 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 established 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 substantial 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. McCarthy,
          Short History of Our Own Times,
          chapter 23.

          ALSO IN:
          W. N. Molesworth,
          History of England, 1830-1874,
          volume 3, chapter 6.

          Annual Register, 1869,
          part 1: English History,
          chapters 2-3, and 1870, chapters 1-2.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1870.
       The Education Bill.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
          ENGLAND: A. D. 1699-1870.

    ENGLAND: 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
       regulation value being a legal price, fixed by a Royal
       Warrant, but which in practice was never regarded]. In future,
       commissions were to be awarded either to those who won them by
       open competition, or who had served as subalterns in the
       Militia, or to deserving non-commissioned officers. ... The
       debate, which seemed interminable, ended in an anti-climax
       that astonished the Tory Opposition. Mr. Disraeli threw over
       the advocates of Purchase, evidently dreading an appeal to the
       country. ... The Army Regulation 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 permitting Purchase, and thus the opposition of
       the Peers was crushed by what Mr. Disraeli indignantly termed
       'the high-handed though not illegal' exercise of the Royal
       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 alterations. ... 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 rejected 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 consideration.
       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,
          volume 2, chapter 16.

          ALSO IN:
          G. W. E. Russell,
          The Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone,
          chapter 9.

    ENGLAND: 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.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
       Rise of the Irish Home Rule Party
       and organization of the Land League.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.
       Decline and fall of the Gladstone government.
       Disraeli's Ministry.
       His rise to the peerage, as Earl of Beaconsfield.
       The Eastern Question.
       Overthrow of the administration.
       The Second Gladstone Ministry.

    {971}

       "One of the little wars in which we had to engage broke out
       with the Ashantees, a misunderstanding resulting from our
       purchase of the Dutch possessions (1873) in their
       neighbourhood. 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 protection. 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 Administration, 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 declined to undertake the responsibility of
       governing 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
       Exchequer (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 reduction in some other 'imposts.' The elections
       went against him. The 'harassed' interests overturned the
       Ministry (17th February, 1874). ... On the accession of the
       Conservative Government under Mr. Disraeli (February, 1874),
       the budget showed a balance of six millions in favour of the
       reduction of taxation. Consequently 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 six years. ... Mr. Disraeli, now the Earl of Beaconsfield,
       was fond of giving the country surprises. One of these
       consisted in the purchase of the interest of the Khedive of
       Egypt in the Suez Canal for four millions sterling (February,
       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 encroachments.
       ... 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 support by
       solemn treaties, we were treated to a third surprise by the
       conveyance, in anticipation of a breach with Russia, of 7,000
       troops from India to Malta. The Earl of Derby, looking upon
       this manœuvre as a menace to that Power, resigned his office,
       which was filled by Lord Salisbury (1878). ... The war proving
       disastrous to Turkey, the treaty of St. Stephano (February,
       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 intercession, however, of
       Bismarck, the German Chancellor, war was averted, and a
       congress soon met in Berlin, at which Britain was represented
       by Lords Salisbury and Beaconsfield; the result being the
       sanction of the treaty already made, with the exception that
       the town of Erzeroum 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 Ministry. ... The Parliament was dissolved March
       24th, but the elections went so decisively in favour of the
       Liberals that Beaconsfield resigned (April 23rd). Early in the
       following year he appeared in his place in the House of Peers,
       but died April 19th. Though Mr. Gladstone had in 1875
       relinquished the political leadership in favour of Lord
       Hartington yet the 'Bulgarian Atrocities' and other writings
       brought him again so prominent before the public that his
       leadership was universally acknowledged 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 of 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
       included in this beneficent legislation."

          R. Johnston,
          A Short History of the Queen's Reign,
          pages 49-57.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Froude,
          Lord Beaconsfield,
          chapters 16-17.

          G. B. Smith,
          Life of Gladstone,
          chapters 22-28 (volume 2).

          H. Jephson,
          The Platform,
          chapters 21-22 (volume 2).

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1877.
       Assumption by the Queen of the title of Empress of India.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

    ENGLAND: 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 BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878;
          and TURKS: A. D. 1878.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1881.
       Annexation of the Transvaal.
       The Boer War.

          See SOUTH AFRICA:  A. D. 1806-1881.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1878.
       The Congress of Berlin.
       Acquisition of the control of Cyprus.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1878-1880.
       The second Afghan War.

          See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1880.
       Breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1880.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1882.
       War in Egypt.
       Bombardment of Alexandria.
       Battle of Tel-el-Kebir.

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.
       The Act for Prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices at
       Parliamentary Elections.

    {972}

       "Prior to the General Election of 1880 there were those who
       hoped and believed that Corrupt Practices at Elections were
       decreasing. 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 sums were expended in bribery and treating, never
       probably had so many 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 appointed
       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 meritorious not as a
       disgraceful act. Thirty magistrates were reported as guilty of
       corrupt practices and removed from the Commission of the Peace
       by the Lord Chancellor. Mayors, aldermen, town-councillors,
       solicitors, the agents of the candidates, 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 election.
       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 conclusive proof, that election
       expenses were extravagant even to absurdity, and moreover were
       on the increase. The lowest estimate of the expenditure 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 alarming. ... The
       necessity for some change was self-evident. Public opinion
       insisted that the subject should be dealt with, and the evil
       encountered. ... 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 the
       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 constituents
       alike were ashamed of the excesses so recently brought to
       light. It is true that the two and a half years' delay that
       intervened between the introduction of the Bill and its
       finally becoming law (a delay caused by the necessities of
       Irish legislation), sufficed very considerably to cool the
       enthusiasm of Parliament and the public. 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 Parliamentary 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 the
       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 corrupt 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 holding any public office or exercising any
       franchise for the same period. Moreover, if any persons so
       found guilty are magistrates, barristers, solicitors, or
       members of other honourable professions, 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 misconduct. 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 forbidden; 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
       sufficient. Had these alone been enacted, the money of wealthy
       and reckless candidates would have found other channels in
       which to flow. ... And thus it was that the 'maximum scale'
       was adopted as at once the most direct and the most
       efficacious means of limiting expenditure. Whether by himself
       or his agents, by direct payment or by contract, the candidate
       is forbidden to spend more in 'the conduct and management of
       an election' than the sums permitted by the Act, sums which
       depend in each case on the numerical extent of the
       constituency."

          H. Hobhouse,
          The Parliamentary Elections
          (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1883,
          pages 1-8.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
       The Third Reform Bill and the Redistribution Bill.
       The existing qualifications and disqualifications
       of the Suffrage.

       "Soon after Mr. Gladstone came into power in 1880, Mr.
       Trevelyan 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 misleading. 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 Midlothian. ... On the 17th of October, 1883, a
       great Conference was held at Leeds, for the purpose of
       considering the Liberal programme for the ensuing season. The
       Conference was attended by no fewer than 2,000 delegates, who
       represented upwards of 500 Liberal Associations.
    {973}
       It was presided over by Mr. John Morley. ... To a man the
       delegates agreed as to the imperative necessity of household
       suffrage being extended to the counties; and almost to a man
       they agreed also as to the necessity of the measure being no
       longer delayed. ... When Parliament met on the 5th 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 occupied with affairs
       in Egypt and the Soudan, however, 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 the 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
       presided, 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 henceforth the question of mending the House of
       Commons from the question of mending, or ending, the House of
       Lords.' On the 4th of August, Mr. Bright, speaking at
       Birmingham, referred 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. Chamberlain, used
       even bolder words: 'During the last one hundred years the
       House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular
       liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the
       common weal; and during that time it has protected every abuse
       and sheltered every privilege. ... It is irresponsible without
       independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without
       judgment, 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 concentrate the whole strength of the Liberal party on
       one final struggle for the Reform (or, preferably, the
       extinction) of the Upper House." But Mr. Gladstone gave no
       encouragement to this inclination of his party. The outcome of
       the agitation was the passage of the Franchise Bill a second time
       in the House of Commons, in November, 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 introduced 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 Parliament,
          chapter 6.

       "In regard to electoral districts, the equalization, in other
       words, the radical refashioning of electoral districts, having
       about the same number of inhabitants, is carried out. For this
       purpose, 79 towns, having less than 15,000 inhabitants, are
       divested of the right of electing a separate member; 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 electoral districts; Liverpool 9.
       To sum up, the result stands thus:--the counties choose 253
       members (formerly 187), the towns 237 (formerly 297). 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-enfranchised is supposed, according to an average
       estimate, to be 2,000,000."

          Dr. R. Gneist,
          The English Parliament in its Transformations,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Murdoch,
          History of Constitutional Reform in Great
          Britain and Ireland,
          pages 277-398.

          H. Jephson,
          The Platform,
          chapter 23 (volume 2).

       The following is the text of the "Third Reform Act," which is
       entitled "The Representation of the People Act, 1884":

          An Act to amend the Law relating to the Representation 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 Representation of the
          People Act, 1884.

          2. A uniform household franchise and a uniform lodger
          franchise at elections shall be established in all counties
          and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom, and every man
          possessed of a household qualification or a lodger
          qualification 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 office, service, or employment, 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
          Representation 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 existing 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 ownership of any rentcharge except
          the owner of the whole of the tithe rentcharge of a
          rectory, vicarage, chapelry, or benefice to which 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 sufficient to confer a qualification as a
          voter in respect of the ownership of such estate, be
          entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
          conditions as if he were the sole owner) to be registered
          as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election.
    {974}
          Provided that where such owners have derived their interest
          by descent, succession, marriage, marriage settlement, or
          will, or where they occupy the land or tenement, and are
          bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business
          thereon, each of such owners whose interest is sufficient
          to confer on him a qualification as a voter shall be
          entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
          conditions as if he were sole owner) to be registered 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
          ascertained by the division of the total value of the land
          or tenement equally among the whole of such owners.

          5. Every man occupying any land or tenement in a county or
          borough in the United Kingdom 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 respectively 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 occupation
          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 occupation of any dwelling-house,
          lodgings, land, or tenement, situate in a borough.

          7. (1.) In this Act the expression "a household
          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 boroughs in
          Ireland.

         (2.) In the construction of the said enactments, as amended
         and applied to Ireland, the following dates shall be
         substituted for the dates therein mentioned, that is to say,
         the twentieth day of July for the 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
         comments appended to this text], and the enactments amending
         or affecting the same, and as respects Ireland, by the
         fourth section of the Representation 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 section 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 Parliamentary and Municipal Registration
         Act, 1878, so far as they relate to lodgings, shall apply to
         Ireland, and for the purpose of such application the
         reference in the said section six to the Representation of
         the People Act, 1867, shall be deemed to be made to the
         Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and in the
         said section twenty-two of the Parliamentary and Municipal
         Registration Act, 1878, the reference to section thirteen of
         the Parliamentary Registration 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 Registration 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 qualification" means, as
          respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the third
          section of the Representation 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
          dwelling, 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 Scotland, the qualification enacted by the fourth
          section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act,
          1868, 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
          Scotland.

          (6.) The expression "county occupation franchise" means, as
          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 franchise enacted by the sixth section of the
          Representation 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 thirteenth and
          fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty,
          chapter sixty-nine.

          (7.) The expression "borough occupation franchise" means,
          as respects England, the franchise enacted by the
          twenty-seventh section of the Act of the session of the
          second and third years of the reign of King William 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 years of the reign of King William the
          Fourth, chapter sixty-five; and as respects 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.

    {975}

          (8.) Any enactments amending or relating to the county
          occupation franchise or 'borough occupation franchise other
          than the sections in 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 Representation of
          the People Acts" means the enactments for the 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, relating to the
          registration of persons entitled to vote at elections for
          counties and boroughs, inclusive of the Rating Acts as
          defined by this Act.

          (3.) The expressions "the Representation of the People
          Acts" and "the Registration Acts" respectively, 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 enactments for the time being in
          force in that part.

          (4.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate
          to the registration of persons entitled to vote in boroughs
          in England in respect of a household or a lodger
          qualification, and in boroughs in Ireland in respect of a
          lodger qualification, shall, with the necessary variations
          and with the necessary alterations 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 registration in
          counties and boroughs in Ireland of persons entitled to
          vote in respect of the household 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 provisions relating to dates,
          shall, with the necessary variations, and with the
          necessary alterations 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 counties 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 respectively, relating to the placing
          of the names of occupiers on the rate book, or other
          enactments relating to rating in so far as they are
          auxiliary to or deal with the registration of persons
          entitled to vote at elections; and the expression "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, whether 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 enter 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 summary 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 Registration Acts, and
          shall be liable to be fined accordingly a sum not exceeding
          forty shillings for each default.

          (4.) The notice under this section may be served in manner
          provided by the Representation of the People Acts with
          respect to the service on occupiers of notice of
          non-payment 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 section to Scotland the
          expression rate book means the valuation roll, and where a
          man entered on the valuation roll by virtue of this section
          inhabits a dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service,
          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 reason 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 Representation 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 rating
          authority entitled to impose assessments according 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.

    {976}

          (7.) In Ireland where the owner of a dwelling-house is
          rated instead of the occupier, the occupier shall
          nevertheless be entitled to be registered as a voter, and
          to vote under the same conditions under which an occupier
          of a dwelling-house in England is entitled in pursuance of
          the Poor Rate Assessment 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 Representation of the People Acts to be an
          inhabitant occupier 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
          amending 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 belonging to or being
          occupied on behalf of the Crown, or by reason of any other
          ground of exemption, such person shall not be disentitled
          to be registered 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 person (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
          qualification in like manner as if this Act had not passed.
          Provided that where a man is so registered in respect of
          the county or borough occupation 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 subject to any legal
          incapacity to be registered as a voter or to vote, any
          right to be registered as a voter or to vote.

          11. 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 "election," "county," and "borough," and other
          expressions in this Act and in the enactments applied by
          this Act, shall have the same meaning as in the said Acts.
          Provided that in this Act and the said enactments--The
          expression "overseers" 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 overseers in England. The
          expression "rentcharge" includes a fee farm rent, a feu
          duty in Scotland, a rent seck, 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 purpose of any trade, business,
          or profession, and that expression, and also the expression
          "hereditament" when used in this Act, in Scotland includes
          "lands and heritages." The expressions "joint tenants" and
          "tenants in common" shall include "pro indiviso
          proprietors." The expression "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 occupier 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 conferred 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
          repealed 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 repealed 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 thousand eight hundred and
          eighty-five: Provided that the register of voters in any
          county or borough 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 register 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 Representation 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 question 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:

          (1.) Is of full age and not subject to any legal
          incapacity;

          (2.) 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 inhabitant occupier as owner or
          tenant of any dwelling house within the borough [or within
          a county or division of a county];

    {977}

          (3.) Has during the time of such occupation been rated as
          an ordinary 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 premises; 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 ordinary 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 subject 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 imposed on the lodger franchise;
          but these were swept away by the 41 & 42 Vict., c. 26, the
          6th section of which considerably enlarged the franchise by
          enacting that:--

          (1.) Lodgings occupied by a person in any year or two
          successive years shall not be deemed to be different
          lodgings by reason only that in that year or either of
          those years he has occupied some other rooms or place in
          addition to his original lodgings.

          (2.) For the purpose of qualifying a lodger to vote the
          occupation in immediate succession of different lodgings of
          the requisite value in the same house shall have the same effect
          as continued occupation of the same lodgings.

          (3.) Where 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 conditions 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
          householder 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 expressly 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 officials, 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 tenants (under Section 3 of the
          recent Act), notwithstanding that they occupy their
          dwelling houses 'by virtue of any office, service or
          employment.' But this is subject to the condition that a
          subordinate 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 situated. 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
          drawing a distinction between (1) freeholds of inheritance,
          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 Parliamentary borough), the owners of the latter
          were subjected to a variety of conditions and restrictions. ...
          Before the passing of the Representation of the People Act,
          1884, any number of persons might qualify and obtain county
          votes as joint owners of a freehold of inheritance,
          provided 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 bonâ 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 acquired the property after the date by marriage,
          marriage settlement, devise, or promotion to a benefice or
          office. ... Persons seised of an estate 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
          qualification is not confined to the ownership of freehold
          lands. Under the words 'of any tenure whatever' (30 & 31
          Vict., c. 102, s. 5) copyholders have county votes if their
          property is of the annual value of £5. ... The electoral
          qualifications in Scotland are defined by the 2 & 3 Will.
          IV., c. 65, the 31 & 32 Vict., c. 48, and the
          Representation 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 condition 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. Lodgers.

          6. The service franchise.

          Borough franchises.
          1. Occupiers of land or tenements of the annual value of £10.
          2. Householders.
          3. Lodgers.
          4. The service franchise.

    {978}

          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 the franchise
          in Ireland are 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 88, 13 & 14 Vict., c.
          69, the representation of the People (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 freeholds for
          lives renewable for ever rated to the poor at the annual
          value of £5.

          2. Freeholders and copyholders of a clear annual value of
          £10.

          3. Leaseholders of various terms and value.

          4. Occupiers of land or a tenement of the clear annual
          value of £10.

          5. Householders.

          6. The lodger franchise.

          7. The service franchise.

          Borough franchises.

          1. Occupiers of lands and tenements of the annual value of
          £10.

          2. Householders. ...

          3. Lodgers.

          4. The service franchise.

          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 drunkenness 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 continues for six months after
       an officer has left the force. ... Persons are disqualified
       who are convicted 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 Parliament. 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 relief or other alms which by the law of Parliament
       disqualify from voting. Persons employed at an election for
       reward or payment are disqualified from voting thereat
       although they may be on the register. ... The Corrupt and
       Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict., c. 51),
       disqualifies a variety of offenders [see above, A. D. 1883]
       against its provisions from being registered or voting."

          W. A. Holdsworth,
          The New Reform Act,
          pages 20-36.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1881-1885.
       Campaign in the Soudan for the relief of General Gordon.

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1885.
       The fall of the Gladstone government.
       The brief first Ministry of Lord Salisbury.

       "Almost simultaneously with the assembling 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.
       Gladstone, who was strongly moved by Gordon's death, rose to
       the situation, and announced that it was necessary to
       overthrow the Mahdi at Khartoum, 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 reserves. Sir Stafford Northcote
       initiated a debate on the Soudan question with a motion
       affirming that the risks and sacrifices which the Government
       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 Minister,
       but expressing regret at its decision to continue the conflict
       with the Mahdl. Mr. Gladstone skilfully dealt with both motion
       and amendment. Observing that it was impossible to give rigid
       pledges as to the future, he appealed to the Liberal party, if
       they had not made up their minds to condemn and punish the
       Government, to strengthen their hands by an unmistakable vote
       of confidence. The Government obtained a majority of 14, the
       votes being 302 in their favour with 288 against; but many of
       those who supported the Government had also voted for the
       amendment by Mr. Morley. ... Financial 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 proposals was one to levy
       upon land 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 sufficient, 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
       252, and the Ministry went out. ... Lord Salisbury became
       Premier. ... The general election ... [was] fixed for November
       1885."

          G. B. Smith,
          The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
          pages 373-377.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
       The partition of East Africa with Germany.

          See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

    {979}

    ENGLAND: 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 Ministry.

       "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 electorate had taken all
       parties by surprise. The Tories found themselves, by the help
       of their Irish 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
       English representation--exclusive of one Irish Nationalist for
       Liverpool--gave a liberal majority of 28 in the English
       constituencies; which Wales and Scotland 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 between 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, 249 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 defeated 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
       Secretary for Ireland, and Mr. Chamberlain for President 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 Ireland'; 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
       Commons was densely crowded when Mr. Gladstone introduced his
       measure for giving Home Rule to Ireland. In a speech which
       lasted three hours and a half he set forth the details of his
       plan and the reasons on which they were based. The essential
       conditions observed in the framing of the measure, as he
       defined them, were these: "The unity of the Empire must not be
       placed in jeopardy; the minority must be protected; the
       political equality of the three countries must be maintained,
       and there must be an equitable distribution 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 Provincial 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
       taxation 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 tampered 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 two 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 subject 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, religious
       endowments and establishments, would be beyond its authority.
       Trade and navigation, coinage, currency, weights and measures,
       copyright, census, quarantine laws, and some other matters,
       were not to be within the powers of the Irish Parliament. The
       composition of the legislature was to be first, the 103
       members now representing Ireland with 101, elected by the same
       constituencies, with the exception of the University, 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 Irish people
       under a property qualification. The Viceroyalty was to be
       left, but the Viceroy was not to quit office 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 Consolidated 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
       arrangements Mr. Gladstone spoke in careful and minute detail.
       He fixed the proportion of Imperial charges Ireland should pay at
       one-fifteenth, or in other words she would pay one part and
       Great Britain fourteen parts. More than a million of duty is
       paid on spirits in Ireland which come to Great Britain, and
       this would be practically a contribution towards the Irish
       revenue. So with Irish porter and with the tobacco
       manufactured 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 opposition to his policy within the ranks of the Liberal
       party had been rapidly taking form. It Mr. Trevelyan, Sir
       Henry James, Sir John Lubbock, 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.
    {980}
       It ended in 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 Commons, 657 members being present.
       The majority was made up of 249 Conservatives and 94 Liberals.
       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 as follows:

       Home Rule Liberals, or Gladstonians, 194,
       Irish Nationalists 85
       total 279;
       seceding Liberals 75,
       Conservatives 316
       total 391.

       Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues resigned and a new Ministry
       was formed under Lord Salisbury. The Liberals, in alliance
       with the Conservatives and giving their support to Lord
       Salisbury's Government, became organized as a distinct party
       under the leadership of Lord Hartington, and took the name of
       Liberal Unionists.

          P. W. Clayden,
          England under the Coalition,
          chapters 1-6.

          ALSO IN:
          H. D. Traill,
          The Marquis of Salisbury,
          chapter 12.

          Annual Register, 1885, 1886.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1888.
       Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of
       Washington.
       Renewed controversies with the United States.
       The rejected Treaty.

          See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1886.
       Defeat of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill.
       The plan of campaign in Ireland.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1886-1893.
       The Bering Sea Controversy and Arbitration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1890.
       Settlement of African questions with Germany.
       Cession of Heligoland.

          See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

    ENGLAND: A. D. 1891.
       The Free Education Bill.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
          ENGLAND: A. D. 1891.

    ENGLAND: 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, 1892, Parliament 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 42
       in the House of Commons; but in the representation of England
       alone there was a majority of 70 returned 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 2 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 12, 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 August,
       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 provides 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 authorized to make
       laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in
       respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some
       part thereof. The bill says that the powers of the Irish
       Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law
       respecting the establishment or endowment of religion or
       prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or imposing any
       disability or conferring any privilege 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 compensation.
       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
       prerogatives 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 summon, prorogue, and dissolve the
       Legislature. An Executive Committee of the Privy Council of
       Ireland is provided for, which 'shall aid and advise in the
       government of Ireland.' The Lord Lieutenant, with the advice
       and consent of the Executive Council, is authorized to give or
       withhold 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 entitled to vote for a Councilor who owns or occupies
       any land or tenement of a ratable value of £20. 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 Parliamentary
       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 revenue, and general revenue shall consist
       of the gross revenue collected in Ireland from taxes; the portion
       due to Ireland of the hereditary revenues of the crown which
       are managed by the Commissioners of Woods, an annual sum for
       the customs and excise duties collected in Great Britain 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 revenue
       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
       Treasury. 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 six years,
       at the end of which time a new scheme of tax division shall be
       devised.
    {981}
       The Legislature, in order to meet expenses of the public
       service, 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 that all persons having the
       right of appeal shall have a like right to appeal to the Queen in
       council. 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 permitted to be formed. The Irish Legislature shall
       be summoned to meet on the first Tuesday in September, 1894,
       and the first election for members 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 overwhelming vote of 419 to 41.

    ----------ENGLAND: End----------

    ENGLE.--ENGLISH.

          See ANGLES AND JUTES;
          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 exasperated English, William the Conqueror ordained
       that the whole Hundred within which one was slain should pay a
       heavy penalty. "In connexion with this enactment there grew up
       the famous law of 'Englishry,' by which every murdered 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,
          English Constitutional History.
          page 68.

    ENNISKILLEN, The defence of.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.

    ENÔMOTY, The.

       In the Spartan military organization the enômoty "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 Enômoty had a separate captain or
       enomotarch, the strongest and ablest soldier of the company."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 8.

    ENRIQUE.

          See HENRY.

    ENSISHEIM, Battle of (1674).

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

    EORL AND CEORL.

       "The modern English 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, irrespective 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 opposed to each other--form an
       exhaustive division of the free members of the state. The
       distinction in modern language is most nearly expressed br the
       words 'Gentle' and 'Simple.' The 'Ceorl' is the simple
       freeman, the mere unit in the army or in the assembly, whom no
       distinction of birth or office marks out from his fellows."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of the Norman Conquest of England,
          chapter 3, section 2.

          See, also, ETHEL;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

    EORMEN STREET.

          See ERMYN STREET.

    EPAMINONDAS, and the greatness of Thebes.

          See GREECE: B. C. 379-371, and 371-362;
          also THEBES: B. C. 378.

    EPEIROS.

          See Epmus.

    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 measure 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 divided
       into six hin, 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,
          chapter 2.

    EPHES-DAMMIM, Battle of.

       The battle which followed David's encounter with Goliath, the
       gigantic Philistine.

          1 Samuel, xvii.

    EPHESIA, The.

          See IONIC (PAN-IONIC) AMPHIKTYONY.

    EPHESUS.
       The Ephesian Temple.

       "The ancient city of Ephesus was situated on the river
       Cayster, which 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 Crœsus, the last of
       the kings of Lydia, and, on the overthrow of Crœsus by Cyrus,
       it passed under the heavier yoke of the Persian despot.
       Although from that time, during a period of at least five
       centuries, to the conquest by the Romans, the city underwent
       great changes of fortune, it never lost its grandeur and
       importance. The Temple of Artemis (Diana), whose splendour has
       almost become proverbial, tended chiefly to make Ephesus the most
       attractive 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
       goddess. 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 time
       on the same grand scale."

          J. T. Wood,
          Discoveries at Ephesus,
          chapter 1.

    {982}

       The excavations which were carried on at Ephesus 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.

    EPHESUS: Ionian conquest and occupation.

          See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

    EPHESUS: Ancient Commerce.

       "The spot on the Asiatic 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 provincial town. The
       mild sway of Augustus restored it to wealth and eminence, and
       as the official capital of the province of Asia, it was
       reputed to be the metropolis of no less than 500 cities."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 40.

    EPHESUS: A. D. 267.
       Destruction by the Goths of the Temple of Diana.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

    EPHESUS: A. D. 431 and 449.
       The General Council and the "Robber Synod."

          See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

    ----------EPHESUS: End----------

    EPHETÆ, 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. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 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 further
       than to the fact of their existence; while the name, which
       signifies quite generally 'overseers,' 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 absence in military service, or through some other
       cause. ... When the monarchy and the Gerousia 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 punish whatever they
       found to be contrary to the laws or adverse to the public
       interest."

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 1, section 8.

          See, also, SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

    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 ancient Athens.

          G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 3.

    EPIGONI, The.

          See BŒOTIA.

    EPIPOLÆ.

       One of the parts or divisions of the ancient city of Syracuse,
       Sicily.

    EPIROT LEAGUE, The.

       "The temporary 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 Epeirots formed one political body; Polybios always speaks
       of them, like the Achaians and Akarnanians, 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,
          History of Federal Government,
          book 4, section 1.

    EPIRUS.--THE EPIROTS.

       "Passing over the borders of Akarnania [in ancient western
       Greece] we find small nations or tribes not considered 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 comprehensive 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 Chaonians, Thesprotians, Kassopians, and
       Molossians, who occupied the country inland as well as
       maritime along the Ionian Sea, from the Akrokeraunian
       mountains to the borders of Ambrakia in the interior of the
       Ambrakian Gulf. ... Among these various tribes it is difficult
       to discriminate the semi-Hellenic from the non-Hellenic; for
       Herodotus considers both Molossians and Thesprotians as
       Hellenic,--and the oracle of Dôdôna, 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
       cattle as well as its shepherds and shepherds' dogs were
       celebrated throughout all antiquity; and its population then,
       as now, found divided village 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 B. C."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 24.

    {983}

       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. 282-275) is one
       of the well known episodes of history, was the most ambitious
       and energetic of the dynasty (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280);
       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 the southern half of the province of
       Turkey, called Albania.

          See, also, ŒNOTRIANS.

    EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.
       The Greek Despotat.

       From the ruins of the Byzantine empire, overthrown by the
       Crusaders and the Venetians in 1204, "that portion ...
       situated to the west of the range of Pindus was saved from
       feudal domination by Michael, a natural son of Constantine
       Angelos, the uncle of the Emperors Isaac II. and Alexius III.
       After the conquest of Constantinople, he escaped into Epirus,
       where his marriage with a lady of the country gave him some
       influence; and assuming the direction of the administration of
       the whole country from Dyrrachium to Naupactus, he collected a
       considerable military force, and established the seat of his
       authority generally at Ioannina or Arta. ... History has
       unfortunately preserved very little information concerning the
       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 despotat, distinguished
       himself by his talents as a soldier and a negotiator. He
       extended his authority over all Epirus, Acarnania and Etolia,
       and a part of Macedonia and Thessaly. Though virtually
       independent, he acknowledged Theodore I. (Laskaris), [at
       Nicæa] as the lawful emperor 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. 1222), and assumed
       the title of emperor, in rivalry with the Greek emperor at
       Nicæa, establishing his capital at Thessalonica. The empire of
       Thessalonica was short lived. Its capital was taken by the
       emperor of Nicæa, in 1234, 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 conflicts. In 1350 its
       remaining territory was occupied by the king of Servia, and
       finally it was swallowed up in the conquests of the Turks.

          G. Finlay,
          History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusader,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir J. E. Tennent,
          History of Modern Greece,
          chapter 3.

    EPIRUS: Modern History.

       See ALBANIANS.

    EPISCOPALIAN 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 imagination, an heroic personage who
       is supposed to be their common progenitor and the source of
       their name.

    EPONYM CANON OF ASSYRIA.

          See ASSYRIA, EPONYM CANON OF.

    EPPING FOREST.

       Once so extensive that it covered the whole county of Essex,
       England, and was called the Forest of Essex. Subsequently,
       when diminished in size, it was called Waltham Forest. Still
       later, when further retrenched, 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 formally declared by the
       Queen "a people's park."

          J. C. Brown,
          Forests of England.

    EPULONES, The.

       "The epulones [at Rome] formed a college for the
       administration of the sacred festivals."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 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 unserviceable, 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 admitted, 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 system, 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,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 11.

       "The eighteen centuries, therefore, in course of time ... lost
       their original military character and remained only as a
       voting body. It was by the transformation thus effected in the
       character of the eighteen centuries of knights, whilst the
       cavalry service passed over to the richer citizens 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,
          History of Rome,
          book 7, chapter. 1.

       The equestrian order became a legally constituted class under
       the judicial law of Caius Gracchus, B. C. 123, 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, as a counterweight to the
       nobility.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 7, chapter 6.

    {984}

    ERA, Christian.

       "Unfortunately for ancient Chronology, there was no one fixed
       or universally established Era. Different countries reckoned
       by different eras, whose number is embarrassing, and their
       commencements not always easily to be adjusted or reconciled
       to each other; and it was not until A. D. 532 that the
       Christian Era was invented by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian by
       birth, and a Roman Abbot, who flourished in the reign of
       Justinian. ... Dionysius 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 Emperor Arcadius, A. D. 395, had dated the
       incarnation in the same year. But 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 Nativity, U. C. 753,
       from the Evangelist Luke's account that John the Baptist began
       his ministry 'in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius
       Cæsar'; and that Jesus, at his baptism, 'was beginning 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,
          New Analysis of Chronology,
          volume 1, book l.

       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
       Prideaux 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. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER),
          and 1793 (OCTOBER).

    ERA, Gregorian.

          See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

    ERA, Jalalæan.

          See TURKS (THE SELJUK): A. D. 1073-1092.

    ERA, Julian.

          See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

    ERA, Mahometan, or Era of the Hegira.

       "The epoch of the Era of the Hegira is, according to the civil
       calculation, Friday, the 16th of July, A. D. 622, the day of
       the flight of Mahomet 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 contain
       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 history, however,
       and in dating their public instruments, the Turks use months
       which contain alternately thirty and twenty-nine days,
       excepting 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 2d, 5th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 18th,
       21st, 24th, 26th and 29th. To ascertain whether any given year
       be intercalary or not divide it by 30; and if either of the
       above numbers remain, the year is one of 355 days."

          Sir H. Nicolas,
          Chronology of History.

          See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

    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
       till 1358, in Castile till 1383, and in Portugal till 1415."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 34, note.

    ERA OF DIOCLETIAN, or Era of Martyrs.

          See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

    ERA OF GOOD FEELING.

       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1824.

    ERA OF THE FOUNDATION OF ROME.

          See ROME: B. C. 753.

    ERA OF THE OLYMPIADS.

          See OLYMPIADS, ERA OF THE.

    ERANI.

       Associations existing in ancient Athens which resembled the
       mutual benefit or friendly-aid societies of modern times.

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 3.

    ERASTIANISM.

       A doctrine which "received 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 between 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. Simple as this
       idea is, it strikes at the root of all priestcraft."

          W. Godwin,
          History of the Commonwealth,
          volume 1, chapter 13.

    ERCTÉ, 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).

    {985}

    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,
       Erectheus. ... 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
       finished by him, it is generally not mentioned amongst his
       works. ... This temple was renowned 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 Erectheion, as it was to the Parthenon."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks,
          section 14.

          See, also, ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

    ERIC,
       King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, A. D. 1412-1439.
       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. 854-883.
       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 Stammerer), King of Sweden, A. D. 1222-1250.
       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. 1259-1286.
       Eric VIII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1286-1319.
       Eric XIV., King of Sweden, A. D. 1560-1568.

    ERICSSON, John
       Invention and construction of the Monitor.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH).

    ERIE, The City of: A. D. 1735.
       Site occupied 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 blockhouse 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 untenable, or
       unnecessary, and evacuated and partly destroyed it, in May,
       1813.

          C. K. Remington,
          Old Fort Erie.

    ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1814.
       The siege and the destruction.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1866.
       The Fenian invasion.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

    ----------ERIE: End----------

    ERIE, Lake:
       The Indian name.

          See NIAGARA: THE NAME, &c.

    ERIE, Lake: A. D. 1679.
       Navigated by La Salle.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

    ERIE, Lake: A. D. 1813.
       Perry's naval victory.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

    ----------ERIE, Lake: End----------

    ERIE CANAL, Construction of the.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

    ERIES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.,
          and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS.

    ERIN.

          See IRELAND.

    ERMANRIC, OR HERMANRIC, The empire of.

          See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 350-375; and 376.

    ERMYN STREET.

       A corruption of Eormen street, the Saxon name of one of the
       great Roman roads in Britain, which ran from London to
       Lincoln. Some writers trace it northwards through York to the
       Scottish border and southward to Pevensey.

          See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

    ERNESTINE LINE OF SAXONY.

          See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

    ERPEDITANI, The.

          See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

    ERTANG, The.
       The sacred book of the Manicheans.

          See MANICHEANS.

    ERYTHRÆ.-ERYTHRÆAN SIBYL.

       Erythræ was an ancient Ionian city on the Lydian coast of Asia
       Minor, opposite the island of Chios or Scio. It was chiefly
       famous as the home or seat of one of the most venerated of the
       sibyls--prophetic women--of antiquity. The collection of
       Sibylline oracles which was sacredly preserved at Rome appears
       to have been largely derived from Erythræ. The Cumæan Sibyl is
       sometimes identified with her Erythræan sister, who is said to
       have passed into Europe.

          See, also, SIBYLS.

    ERYTHRÆAN SEA, The.

       The Erythræan Sea, in the widest sense of the term, as used by
       the ancients, comprised "the Arabian Gulf (or what we now call
       the Red Sea), the coasts of Africa outside the straits of Bab
       el Mandeb as far as they had then been explored, as well as
       those of Arabia and India down to the extremity of the Malabar
       coast." The Periplus of the Erythræan Sea is a geographical
       treatise of great importance which we owe to some unknown
       Greek writer supposed to be nearly contemporary with Pliny. It
       is "a kind of manual for the instruction of navigators and
       traders in the Erythræan Sea."

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 25.

       "The Erythrêam Sea is an appellation ... in all appearance
       deduced [by the ancients] from their entrance into it by the
       straits of the Red Sea, styled Erythra by the Greeks, and not
       excluding the gulph of Persia, to which the fabulous history
       of a king Erythras is more peculiarly appropriate."

          W. Vincent,
          Periplus of the Erythrêan Sea,
          book 1, prelim. disquis.

    ERYX.--ERCTE.

       A town originally Phoœnician or Carthaginian on the
       northwestern coast of Sicily. It stood on the slope of a
       mountain which was crowned with an ancient temple of
       Aphrodite, and which gave the name Erycina to the goddess when
       her worship was introduced at Rome.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

    ERZEROUM: A. D. 1878.
       Taken by the Russians.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

    ESCOCÉS, The party of the.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

    ESCOMBOLI.

          See STAMBOUL.

    ESCORIAL, The.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.

    ESCUYER.--ESQUIRE.

          See CHIVALRY.

    ESDRAELON, Valley of.

          See MEGIDDO.

    ESKIMO, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

    ESNE.

          See THEOW.

    ESPARTERO, Regency of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

    ESPINOSA, Battle of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

    {986}

    ESQUILINE, The.

          See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

    ESQUIRE.--ESCUYER.--SQUIRE.

          See CHIVALRY.

    ESQUIROS, Battle of (1521).

          See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

    ESSELENIAN FAMILY, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESSELENIAN FAMILY.

    ESSENES, The.

          See Supplement in volume 5.

    ESSEX.

       Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon
       conquerors of Britain, in the fifth and sixth centuries, who
       acquired, from their geographical position in the island, the
       name of the East Saxons. It covered the present county of
       Essex and also included London and Middlesex.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

    ESSEX JUNTO, The.

       In the Massachusetts election of 1781, "the representatives of
       the State in Congress, and some of the more moderate leaders
       at home, opposed Governor Hancock, the popular candidate, and
       supported James Bowdoin, who was thought to represent the more
       conservative elements. ... It was at this time that Hancock is
       said to have bestowed on his opponents the title of the 'Essex
       Junto,' and this is the first appearance of the name in
       American politics. ... The 'Junto' was generally supposed to
       be composed of such men as Theophilus Parsons, George Cabot,
       Fisher Ames, Stephen Higginson, the Lowells, Timothy
       Pickering, &c., and took its name from the county to which
       most of its reputed members originally belonged. ... The
       reputed members of the 'Junto' held political power in
       Massachusetts [as leaders of the Federalist party] for more
       than a quarter of a century." According to Chief Justice
       Parsons, as quoted by Colonel Pickering in his Diary, the term
       'Essex Junto' was applied by one of the Massachusetts royal
       governors, before the Revolution, to certain gentlemen of
       Essex county who opposed his measures. Hancock, therefore,
       only revived the title and gave it currency, with a new
       application.

          H. C. Lodge,
          Life and Letters of George Cabot,
          pages 17-22.

    ESSLINGEN, OR ASPERN, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

    ESSUVII, The.

       A Gallic tribe established anciently in the modern French
       department of the Orne.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar,
          book 3, chapter 2, note.

    ESTATES, Assembly of.

       "An assembly of estates is an organised collection, made by
       representation or otherwise, of the several orders, states or
       conditions of men, who are recognised as possessing political
       power. A national council of clergy and barons is not an
       assembly of estates, because it does not include the body of
       the people, the plebs, the simple freemen or commons."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 15, section 185.

          See, also, ESTATES, THE THREE.

    ESTATES, The Three.

       "The arrangement of the political factors in three estates is
       common, with some minor variations, to all the European
       constitutions, and depends on a principle of almost universal
       acceptance. This classification differs from the system of
       caste and from all divisions based on differences of blood or
       religion, historical or prehistorical. ... In Christendom it
       has always taken the form of a distinction between clergy and
       laity, the latter being subdivided according to national
       custom into noble and non-noble, patrician and plebeian,
       warriors and traders, landowners and craftsmen. ... The
       Aragonese cortes contained four brazos or arms, the clergy,
       the great barons or ricos hombres, the minor barons, knights
       or infanzones, and the towns. The Germanic diet comprised
       three colleges, the electors, the princes and the cities, the
       two former being arranged in distinct benches, lay and
       clerical. ... The Castilian cortes arranged the clergy, the
       ricos hombres and the communidades, in three estates. The
       Swedish diet was composed of clergy, barons, burghers and
       peasants. ... In France, both in the States General and in the
       provincial estates, the division is into gentz de l'eglise,
       nobles, and gentz des bonnes villes. In England, after a
       transitional stage, in which the clergy, the greater and
       smaller barons, and the cities and boroughs, seemed likely to
       adopt the system used in Aragon and Scotland, and another in
       which the county and borough communities continued to assert
       an essential difference, the three estates of clergy, lords
       and commons, finally emerge as the political constituents of
       the nation, or, in their parliamentary form, as the lords
       spiritual and temporal and the commons. This familiar formula
       in either shape bears the impress of history. The term commons
       is not in itself an appropriate expression for the third
       estate; it does not signify primarily the simple freemen, the
       plebs, but the plebs organised and combined in corporate
       communities, in a particular way for particular purposes. The
       commons are the communitates or universitates, the organised
       bodies of freemen of the shires and towns. ... The third
       estate in England differs from the same estate in the
       continental constitutions, by including the landowners under
       baronial rank. In most of those systems it contains the
       representatives of the towns or chartered communities only."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 15, sections 185, 193.

       "The words 'gens de tiers et commun état' are found in many
       acts [France] of the 15th century. The expressions 'tiers
       état,' 'commun état,' and 'le commun' are used indifferently,
       ... This name of 'Tiers État, when used in its ordinary sense,
       properly comprises only the population of the privileged
       cities; but in effect it extends much beyond this; it includes
       not only the cities, but the villages and hamlets--not only
       the free commonalty, but all those for whom civil liberty is a
       privilege still to come."

          A. Thierry,
          Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
          volume 1, pages 61 and 60.

    ESTATES, or "States," of the Netherland Provinces.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

    ESTATES GENERAL.

          See STATES GENERAL.

    ESTE, The House of.

       "Descended from one of the northern families which settled in
       Italy during the darkest period of the middle ages, the Este
       traced their lineal descent up to the times of Charlemagne.
       They had taken advantage of the frequent dissensions between
       the popes and the German emperors of the houses of Saxony and
       Swabia, and acquired wide dominions in Lunigiana, and the
       March of Treviso, where the castle of Este, their family
       residence, was situated. Towards the middle of the 11th
       century, that family had been connected by marriages with the
       Guelphs of Bavaria, and one of the name of Este was eventually
       to become the common source from which sprung the illustrious
       houses of Brunswick and Hanover. The Este had warmly espoused
       the Guelph party [see GUELFS], during the wars of the Lombard
       League. ...
    {987}
       Towards the year 1200, Azzo V., Marquis of Este, married
       Marchesella degli Adelardi, daughter of one of the most
       conspicuous Guelphs at Ferrara, where the influence of the
       House of Este was thus first established."

          L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga),
          Italy,
          volume 2, pages 62-63.

       The Marquesses of Este became, "after some of the usual
       fluctuations, permanent lords of the cities of Ferrara [1264]
       and Modena [1288]. About the same time they lost their
       original holding of Este, which passed to Padua, and with
       Padua to Venice. Thus the nominal marquess of Este and real
       lord of Ferrara was not uncommonly spoken of as Marquess of
       Ferrara. In the 15th century these princes rose to ducal rank;
       but by that time the new doctrine of the temporal dominion of
       the Popes had made great advances. Modena, no man doubted, was
       a city of the Empire; but Ferrara was now held to be under the
       supremacy of the Pope. The Marquess Borso had thus to seek his
       elevation to ducal rank from two separate lords. He was
       created Duke of Modena [1453] and Reggio by the Emperor, and
       afterwards Duke of Ferrara [1471] by the Pope. This difference
       of holding ... led to the destruction of the power of the
       house of Este. In the times in which we are now concerned,
       their dominions lay in two masses. To the west lay the duchy
       of Modena and Reggio; apart from it to the east lay the duchy
       of Ferrara. Not long after its creation, this last duchy was
       cut short by the surrender of the border-district of Rovigo to
       Venice. ... Modena and Ferrara remained united, till Ferrara
       was annexed [1598] as an escheated fief to the dominions of
       its spiritual overlord. But the house of Este still reigned
       over Modena with Reggio and Mirandola, while its dominions
       were extended to the sea by the addition of Massa and other
       small possessions between Lucca and Genoa. The duchy in the
       end passed by female succession to the House of Austria
       [1771-1803]."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 8, sections 3-4.

       "The government of the family of Este at Ferrara, Modena, and
       Reggio displays curious contrasts of violence and popularity.
       Within the palace frightful deeds were perpetrated; a princess
       was beheaded [1425] for alleged adultery with a stepson;
       legitimate and illegitimate children fled from the court, and
       even abroad their lives were threatened by assassins sent in
       pursuit of them (1471). Plots from without were incessant; the
       bastard of a bastard tried to wrest the crown from the lawful
       heir, Hercules I.: this latter is said afterwards (1493) to
       have poisoned his wife on discovering that she, at the
       instigation of her brother, Ferrante of Naples, was going to
       poison him. This list of tragedies is closed by the plot of
       two bastards against their brothers; the ruling Duke Alfonso
       I. and the Cardinal Ippolito (1506), which was discovered in
       time, and punished with imprisonment for life. ... It is
       undeniable that the dangers to which these princes were
       constantly exposed developed in them capacities of a
       remarkable kind."

          J. Burckhardt,
          The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy,
          part 1, chapter 5.

       For the facts of the ending of the legitimate Italian line of
       Este,

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

    ESTHONIA, OR ESTONIA:
       Origin of the name.

          See ÆSTII.

    ESTHONIA, OR ESTONIA: Christian conquest.

          See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

    ESTIENNES, The Press of the.

          See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.

    ESTREMOS, OR AMEIXAL, Battle of (1663).

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

    ETCHEMINS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    ETHANDUN, OR EDINGTON, Battle of (A. D. 878).

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

    ETHEL, ETHELINGS, OR ÆTHELINGS.

       "The sons and brothers of the king [of the English] were
       distinguished by the title of Æthelings. The word Ætheling,
       like eorl, originally denoted noble birth simply; but as the
       royal house of Wessex rose to pre-eminence and the other royal
       houses and the nobles generally were thereby reduced to a
       relatively lower grade, it became restricted to the near
       kindred of the national king."

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          page 29.

       "It has been sometimes held that the only nobility of blood
       recognized in England before the Norman Conquest was that of
       the king's kin. The statement may be regarded as deficient in
       authority, and as the result of a too hasty generalization
       from the fact that only the sons and brothers of the kings
       bear the name of ætheling. On the other hand must be alleged
       the existence of a noble (edhiling) class among the
       continental Saxons who had no kings at all. ... The laws of
       Ethelbert prove the existence of a class bearing the name of
       eorl of which no other interpretation can be given. That
       these, eorlas and æthel, were the descendants of the primitive
       nobles of the first settlement, who, on the institution of
       royalty, sank one step in dignity from the ancient state of
       rude independence, in which they had elected their own chiefs
       and ruled their own dependents, may be very reasonably
       conjectured. ... The ancient name of eorl, like that of
       ætheling, changed its application, and, under the influence,
       perhaps, of Danish association, was given like that of jarl to
       the official ealdorman. Henceforth the thegn takes the place
       of the æthel, and the class of thegns probably embraces all
       the remaining families of noble blood. The change may have
       been very gradual; the 'north people's law' of the tenth or
       early eleventh century still distinguishes the eorl and
       ætheling with a wergild nearly double that of the ealdorman
       and seven times that of the thegn; but the north people's law
       was penetrated with Danish influence, and the eorl probably
       represents the jarl rather than the ealdorman, the great eorl
       of the fourth part of England as it was divided by Canute. ...
       The word eorl is said to be the same as the Norse jarl and
       another form of ealdor (?); whilst the ceorl answers to the
       Norse Karl; the original meaning of the two being old man and
       young man."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 6, section 64, and note.

    ETHEL.--Family-land.

          See ALOD; and FOLCLAND.

    ETHELBALD,
       King of Mercia, A. D. 716-755.
       Ethelbald, King of Wessex, A. D. 858-860.

    ETHELBERT,
       King of Kent, A. D. 565-616.
       Ethelbert, King of Wessex, A. D. 860-866.

    ETHELFRITH, King of Northumberland, A. D. 593-617.

    ETHELRED,
       King of Wessex, A. D. 866-871.
       Ethelred, called the Unready, King of Wessex, A. D. 979-1016.

    {988}

    ETHELSTAN, King of Wessex, A. D. 925-940.

    ETHELWULF, King of Wessex, A. D. 836-858.

    ETHIOPIA.

       The Ethiopia of the ancients, "in the ordinary and vague sense
       of the term, was a vast tract extending in length above a
       thousand miles, from the 9th to the 24th degree of north
       latitude, and in breadth almost 900 miles, from the shores of
       the Red Sea and Indian Ocean to the desert of the Sahara. This
       tract was inhabited for the most part by wild and barbarous
       tribes--herdsmen, hunters, or fishermen--who grew no corn,
       were unacquainted with bread, and subsisted on the milk and
       flesh of their cattle, or on game, turtle, and fish, salted or
       raw. The tribes had their own separate chiefs, and
       acknowledged no single head, but on the contrary were
       frequently at war one with the other, and sold their prisoners
       for slaves. Such was Ethiopia in the common vague sense; but
       from this must be distinguished another narrower Ethiopia,
       known sometimes as 'Ethiopia Proper' or 'Ethiopia above
       Egypt,' the limits of which were, towards the south, the
       junction of the White and Blue Niles, and towards the north
       the Third Cataract. Into this tract, called sometimes 'the
       kingdom of Meroë,' Egyptian civilisation had, long before the
       eighth century [B. C.], deeply penetrated. Temples of the
       Egyptian type, stone pyramids, avenues of sphinxes, had been
       erected; a priesthood had been set up, which was regarded as
       derived from the Egyptian priesthood; monarchical institutions
       had been adopted; the whole tract formed ordinarily one
       kingdom, and the natives were not very much behind the
       Egyptians in arts or arms, or very different from them in
       manners, customs, and mode of life. Even in race the
       difference was not great. The Ethiopians were darker in
       complexion than the Egyptians, and possessed probably a
       greater infusion of Nigritic blood; but there was a common
       stock at the root of the two races--Cush and Mizraim were
       brethren. In the region of Ethiopia Proper a very important
       position was occupied in the eighth century [B. C.] by Napata.
       Napata was situated midway in the great bend of the Nile,
       between latitude 18° and 19°. ... It occupied the left bank of
       the river in the near vicinity of the modern Gebel Berkal. . .
       Here, when the decline of Egypt enabled the Ethiopians to
       reclaim their ancient limits, the capital was fixed of that
       kingdom, which shortly became a rival of the old empire of the
       Pharaohs, and aspired to take its place. ... The kingdom of
       Meroë, whereof it was the capital, reached southward as far as
       the modern Khartoum, and eastward stretched up to the
       Abyssinian highlands, including the valleys of the Atbara and
       its tributaries, together with most of the tract between the
       Atbara and the Blue Nile. ... Napata continued down to Roman
       times a place of importance, and only sank to ruin in
       consequence of the campaigns of Petronius against Candacé in
       the first century after our era."

          G. Rawlinson,
          History of Ancient Egypt,
          chapter 25.

          ALSO IN:
          A. H. L. Heeren,
          Historical Researches, Carthaginians,
          Ethiopians, &c., pages 143-249.

          See, also, EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1200-670;
          and LIBYANS, THE.

    ETON SCHOOL.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.--ENGLAND.

    ETRURIA, Ancient.

          See ETRUSCANS.

    ETRURIA, The kingdom of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803;
          also PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807;
          and FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808(NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

    ETRUSCANS, The.

       "At the time when Roman history begins, we find that a
       powerful and warlike race, far superior to the Latins in
       civilisation and in the arts of life, hemmed in the rising
       Roman dominion in the north. The Greeks called them Turrhenoi,
       the Romans called them Etrusci, they called themselves the
       Rasenna. Who they were and whence they came has ever been
       regarded as one of the most doubtful and difficult problems in
       ethnology. One conclusion only can be said to have been
       universally accepted both in ancient and in modern times. It
       is agreed on every hand that in all essential points, in
       language, in religion, in customs, and in appearance, the
       Etruscans were a race wholly different from the Latins. There
       is also an absolute agreement of all ancient tradition to the
       effect that the Etruscans were not the original inhabitants of
       Etruria, but that they were an intrusive race of conquerors.
       ... It has been usually supposed that the Rasenna made their
       appearance in Italy some ten or twelve centuries before the
       Christian era. ... For some six or seven centuries, the
       Etruscan power and territory continued steadily to increase,
       and ultimately stretched far south of the Tiber, Rome itself
       being included in the Etruscan dominion, and being ruled by an
       Etruscan dynasty. The early history of Rome is to a great
       extent the history of the uprising of the Latin race, and its
       long struggle for Italian supremacy with its Etruscan foe. It
       took Rome some six centuries of conflict to break through the
       obstinate barrier of the Etruscan power. The final conquest of
       Etruria by Rome was effected in the year 281 B. C. ... The
       Rasennic people were collected mainly in the twelve great
       cities of Etruria proper, between the Arno and the Tiber.
       [Modern Tuscany takes its name from the ancient Etruscan
       inhabitants of the region.] This region was the real seat of
       the Etruscan power. ... From the 'Shah-nameh,' the great
       Persian epic, we learn that the Aryan Persians called their
       nearest non-Aryan neighbours--the Turkic or Turcoman tribes to
       the north of them--by the name Turan, a word from which we
       derive the familiar ethnologic term Turanian. The Aryan
       Greeks, on the other hand, called the Turkic tribe of the
       Rasenna, the nearest non-Aryan race, by the name of Turrhenoi.
       The argument of this book is to prove that the Tyrrhenians of
       Italy were of kindred race with the Turanians of Turkestan. Is
       it too much to conjecture that the Greek form Turrhene may be
       identically the same word as the Persian form Turan?"

          I. Taylor,
          Etruscan Researches,
          chapter 2.

       "The utmost we can say is that several traces, apparently
       reliable, point to the conclusion that the Etruscans may be on
       the whole included among the Indo-Germans. ... But even
       granting those points of connection, the Etruscan people
       appears withal scarcely less isolated. 'The Etruscans,'
       Dionysius said long ago, 'are like no other nation in language
       and manners'; and we have nothing to add to his statement. ...
       Reliable traces of any advance of the Etruscans beyond the
       Tiber, by land, are altogether wanting. ... South of the Tiber
       no Etruscan settlement can be pointed out as having owed its
       origin to founders who came by land; and that no indication
       whatever is discernible of any serious pressure by the
       Etruscans upon the Latin nation."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 9.

    {989}

    EUBŒA.

       "The island of Eubœa, long and narrow like Krête, and
       exhibiting a continuous backbone of lofty mountains from
       northwest to southeast, is separated from Bœotia at one point
       by a strait so narrow (celebrated in antiquity under the name
       of the Eurīpus) that the two were connected by a bridge for a
       large portion of the historical period of Greece, erected
       during the later times of the Peloponnesian war by the
       inhabitants of Chalkis [Chalcis]. Its general want of breadth
       leaves little room for plains. The area of the island consists
       principally of mountain, rock, dell, and ravine, suited in
       many parts for pasture, but rarely convenient for
       grain-culture or town habitations. Some plains there were,
       however, of great fertility, especially that of Lelantum,
       bordering on the sea near Chalkis, and continuing from that
       city in a southerly direction towards Eretria. Chalkis and
       Eretria, both situated on the western coast, and both
       occupying parts of this fertile plain, were the two principal
       places in the island: the domain of each seems to have
       extended across the island from sea to sea. ... Both were in
       early times governed by an oligarchy, which among the
       Chalcidians was called the Hippobotæ, or Horse feeders,--
       proprietors probably of most part of the plain called
       Lelantum."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 12.

          See, also, NEGROPONT.

    EUBOIC TALENT.

       See TALENT.

    EUCHITES, The.

       See MYSTICISM.

    EUDES, King of France
       (in partition with Charles the Simple), A. D. 887-898.

    EUDOSES, The.

          See AVIONES.

    EUGENE (Prince) of Savoy, Campaigns of.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718;
          GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
          ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713;
          NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709, and 1710-1712.

    EUGENE I., Pope, A. D. 655-657.
       Eugene II., Pope, A. D. 824-827.
       Eugene III., Pope, A. D. 1145-1153.
       Eugene IV., Pope, A. D. 1431-1447.

    EUGENIANS, The.

          See HY-NIALS.

    EUMENES, and the wars of the Diadochi.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

    EUMOLPHIDÆ, The.

          See PHYLÆ.

    EUPATRIDÆ, The.

       "The Eupatridæ [in ancient Athens] are the wealthy and
       powerful men, belonging to the most distinguished families in
       all the various gentes, and principally living in the city of
       Athens, after the consolidation of Attica: from them are
       distinguished the middling and lower people, roughly
       classified into husbandmen and artisans. To the Eupatridæ is
       ascribed a religious as well as a political and social
       ascendency. They are represented as the source of all
       authority on matters both sacred and profane,"

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 10.

    EUROKS, OR YUROKS.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

    EUROPE.

    A HISTORICAL SKETCH.

       A general sketch of the history of Europe at large cannot, for
       obvious reasons, be constructed of quotations from the
       historians, on the plan followed in other parts of this work.
       The editor has found it necessary, therefore, to introduce
       here an essay of his own.

       The first inhabitants of the continent of Europe have left no
       trace of their existence on the surface of the land. The
       little that we know of them has been learned by the discovery
       of deeply buried remains, including a few bones and skulls,
       many weapons and tools which they had fashioned out of stone
       and bone, and some other rude marks of their hands which time
       has not destroyed. The places in which these remains are
       found--under deposits that formed slowly in ancient river beds
       and in caves--have convinced geologists that the people whose
       existence they reveal lived many thousands of years ago, and
       that the continent of Europe in their time was very different
       from the Europe of the present day, in its climate, in its
       aspect, and in its form. They find reason to suppose that the
       peninsula of Italy, as well as that of Spain, was then an
       isthmus which joined Europe to Africa; and this helps to
       explain the fact that remains of such animals as the elephant,
       the lion, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, and the hyena, as
       well as the mammoth, are found with the remains of these early
       men. They all seem to have belonged, together, to a state of
       things, on the surface of the earth, which was greatly changed
       before the men and the animals that we have historical
       knowledge of appeared.

    The Stone Age.

       These primitive Europeans were evidently quite at the bottom
       of the savage state. They had learned no use of metals, since
       every relic of their workmanship that can be found is of
       stone, or bone, or wood. It is thought possible that they
       shaped rough vessels out of unbaked clay; but that is
       uncertain. There is nothing to show that they had domesticated
       any animals. It is plain that they dwelt in caves, wherever
       nature provided such dwellings; but what shelters they may
       have built elsewhere for themselves is unknown.

       In one direction, only, did these ancient people exhibit a
       faculty finer than we see in the lowest savages of the present
       day: they were artists, in a way. They have left carvings and
       drawings of animals--the latter etched with a sharp point on
       horns, bones, and stones--which are remarkable for uncultured
       men.

       The period in man's life on the earth at which these people
       lived--the period before metals were known--has been named by
       archæologists the Stone Age. But the Stone Age covers two
       stages of human culture--one in which stone implements were
       fashioned unskilfully, and a second in which they were
       finished with expert and careful hands. The first is called
       the Palæolithic or Old Stone Age, the second the Neolithic or
       New Stone Age. Between the two periods in Europe there seems
       to have been a long interval of time, and a considerable
       change in the condition of the country, as well as in that of
       its people.
    {990}
       In fact, the Europe of the Neolithic Age was probably not very
       different in form and climate from the Europe of our own day.
       Relics of the human life of that time are abundantly scattered
       over the face of the continent. There are notable deposits of
       them in the so-called "kitchen-middens" of Denmark, which are
       great mounds of shells,--shells of oysters and other
       molluscs,--which these ancient fishermen had opened and
       emptied, and then cast upon a refuse heap. Buried in those
       mounds, many bits of their workmanship have been preserved,
       and many hints of their manner of life are gleaned from the
       signs and tokens which these afford. They had evidently risen
       some degrees above the state of the men of the Palæolithic or
       Old Stone Age; but they were inferior in art.

    The Bronze Age.

       The discovery and use of copper--the metal most easily worked,
       and most frequently found in the metallic state--is the event
       by which archæologists mark the beginning of a second state in
       early civilizations. The period during which copper, and
       copper hardened by an alloy of tin, are the only metals found
       in use, they call the Bronze Age. There is no line of positive
       division between this and the Neolithic period which it
       followed. The same races appear to have advanced from the one
       stage to the other, and probably some were in possession of
       tools and weapons of bronze, while others were still
       contenting themselves with implements of stone.

    Lake Dwellings.

       In many parts of Europe, especially in Switzerland and
       northern Italy, plain traces of some curious habitations of
       people who lived through the later Stone Age into the Bronze
       Age, and even after it, have been brought to light. These are
       the "lake dwellings," or "lacustrine habitations," as they
       have been called, which have excited interest in late years.
       They were generally built on piles, driven into a lake-bottom,
       at such distance from shore as would make them easy of defence
       against enemies. The foundations of whole villages of these
       dwellings have been found in the Swiss and North Italian
       lakes, and less numerously elsewhere. From the lake-mud under
       and around them, a great quantity of relics of the
       lake-dwellers have been taken, and many facts about their arts
       and mode of life have been learned. It is known that, even
       before a single metal had come into their hands, they had
       begun to cultivate the earth; had raised wheat and barley and
       flax; had domesticated the horse, the ox, the sheep, the goat,
       the pig and the dog; had become fairly skilful in weaving, in
       rope-making, and in the art of the potter, but without the
       potter's wheel.

       Gradually copper and bronze made their appearance among the
       implements of these people, as modern search discovers them
       imbedded, layer upon layer, in the old ooze of the lake-beds
       where they were dropped. In time, iron, too, reveals itself
       among their possessions, showing that they lived in their
       lake-villages from the later Stone Age into that third period
       of the early process of civilization which is named the Iron
       Age--when men first acquired the use of the most useful of all
       the metals. It appears, in fact, that the lake-dwellings were
       occupied even down to Roman times, since articles of Roman
       make have been found in the ruins of them.

    Barrows.

       In nearly all parts of Europe there are found burial mounds,
       called barrows, which contain buried relics of people who
       lived at one or the other of the three periods named. For the
       most part, they represent inhabitants of the Neolithic and of
       the Bronze Ages. In Great Britain some of these barrows are
       long, some are round; and the skulls found in the long barrows
       are different in shape from those in the round ones, showing a
       difference of race. The people to whom the first belonged are
       called "long-headed," or "dolichocephalic"; the others are
       called "broad-headed," or "brachycephalic." In the opinion of
       some ethnologists, who study this subject of the distinctions
       of race in the human family, the broad-headed people were
       ancestors of the Celtic or Keltic tribes, whom the Romans
       subdued in Gaul and Britain; while the long-headed men were of
       a preceding race, which the Celts, when they came, either
       drove out of all parts of Europe, except two or three
       mountainous corners, or else absorbed by intermarriage. The
       Basques of northwestern Spain, and some of their neighbors on
       the French side of the Pyrenees, are supposed to be survivals
       of this very ancient people; and there are suspected to be
       traces of their existence seen in the dark-haired and
       dark-skinned people of parts of Wales, Ireland, Corsica, North
       Africa, and elsewhere.

    The Aryan Nations.

       At least one part of this conjecture has much to rest upon.
       The inhabitants of western Europe when our historical
       knowledge of them--that is, our recorded and reported
       knowledge of them--begins, were, certainly, for the most
       part, Celtic peoples, and it is extremely probable that they
       had been occupying the country as long as the period
       represented by the round barrows. It is no less probable that
       they were the lake-dwellers of Switzerland, North Italy, and
       other regions; and that they did, in fact, displace some
       earlier people in most parts of Western Europe.

       The Celts--whose nearly pure descendants are found now in the
       Bretons of France, the Welsh, the Highland Scotch and the
       Celtic Irish, and who formed the main stock of the larger part
       of the French nation--were one branch of the great family of
       nations called Aryan or Indo-European. The Aryan peoples are
       assumed to be akin to one another--shoots from one
       stem--because their languages are alike in grammatical
       structure and contain great numbers of words that are
       manifestly formed from the same original "root"; and because
       they differ in these respects from all other languages. The
       nations thus identified as Aryan are the nations that have
       acted the most important parts in all human history except the
       history of extremely ancient times. Besides the Celtic peoples
       already mentioned, they include the English, the Dutch, the
       Germans, and the Scandinavians, forming the Teutonic race; the
       Russians, Poles, and others of the Slavonic group; the ancient
       Greeks and Romans, with their modern representatives, and the
       Persians and Hindus in Asia. According to the evidence of
       their languages, there must have been a time and a place, in
       the remote past, when and where a primitive Aryan race, which
       was ancestral to all these nations, lived and multiplied until
       it outgrew its original country and began to send forth
       successive "swarms," or migrating hordes, as many unsettled
       races have been seen to do within the historic age.
    {991}
       It is hopeless, perhaps, to think of determining the time when
       such a dispersion of the Aryan peoples began; but many
       scholars believe it possible to trace, by various marks and
       indications, in language and elsewhere, the lines of movement
       in the migration, so far as to guess with some assurance the
       region of the primitive Aryan home; but thus far there are
       great disagreements in the guessing. Until recent years, the
       prevailing judgment pointed to that highland district in
       Central Asia which lies north of the Hindoo-Koosh range of
       mountains, and between the upper waters of the Oxus and
       Jaxartes. But later studies have discredited this first theory
       and started many opposing ones. The strong tendency now is to
       believe that the cradle of all the peoples of Aryan speech was
       somewhere in Europe, rather than in Asia, and in the north of
       Europe rather than in the center or the south. At the same
       time, there seems to be a growing opinion that the language of
       the Aryans was communicated to conquered peoples so
       extensively that its spread is not a true measure of the
       existing diffusion of the race.

    The Celtic Branch.

       Whatever may have been the starting-point of the Aryan
       migrations, it is supposed that the branch now distinguished
       as Celtic was the first to separate from the parent stem and
       to acquire for itself a new domain. It occupied southwestern
       Europe, from northern Spain to the Rhine, and across the
       Channel to the British islands, extending eastward into
       Switzerland, North It&ly and the Tyrol. But little of what the
       tribes and nations forming this Celtic race did is known,
       until the time when another Aryan people, better civilized,
       came into collision with them, and drew them into the written
       history of the world by conquering them and making them its
       subjects.

       The people who did this were the Romans, and the Romans and
       the Greeks are believed to have been carried into the two
       peninsulas which they inhabited, respectively, by one and the
       same movement in the Aryan dispersion. Their languages show
       more affinity to one another than to the other Aryan tongues,
       and there are other evidences of a near relationship between
       them; though they separated, it is quite certain, long before
       the appearance of either in history.

    The Hellenes, or Greeks.

       The Greeks, or Hellenes, as they called themselves, were the
       first among the Aryan peoples in Europe to make themselves
       historically known, and the first to write the record which
       transmits history from generation to generation. The peninsula
       in which they settled themselves is a very peculiar one in its
       formation. It is crossed in different directions by mountain
       ranges, which divide the land into parts naturally separated
       from one another, and which form barriers easily defended
       against invading foes. Between the mountains lie numerous
       fertile valleys. The coast is ragged with gulfs and bays,
       which notch it deeply on all sides, making the whole main
       peninsula a cluster of minor peninsulas, and supplying the
       people with harbors which invite them to a life of seafaring
       and trade. It is surrounded, moreover, with islands, which
       repeat the invitation.

       Almost necessarily, in a country marked with such features so
       strongly, the Greeks became divided politically into small
       independent states--city-states they have been named--and
       those on the sea-coast became engaged very early in trade with
       other countries of the Mediterranean Sea. Every city of
       importance in Greece was entirely sovereign in the government
       of itself and of the surrounding territory which formed its
       domain. The stronger among them extended their dominion over
       some of the weaker or less valiant ones; but even then the
       subject cities kept a considerable measure of independence.
       There was no organization of national government to embrace
       the whole, nor any large part, of Greece. Certain among the
       states were sometimes united in temporary leagues, or
       confederacies, for common action in war; but these were
       unstable alliances, rather than political unions. In their
       earliest form, the Greek city-states were governed by kings,
       whose power appears to have been quite limited, and who were
       leaders rather than sovereigns. But kingship disappeared from
       most of the states in Greece proper before they reached the
       period of distinct and accepted history. The kings were first
       displaced by aristocracies--ruling families, which took all
       political rights and privileges to themselves, and allowed
       their fellows (whom they usually oppressed) no part or voice
       in public affairs. In most instances these aristocracies, or
       oligarchies, were overthrown, after a time, by bold agitators
       who stirred up a revolution, and then contrived, while
       confusion prevailed, to gather power into their own hands.
       Almost every Greek city had its time of being ruled by one or
       more of these Tyrants, as they were called. Some of them, like
       Pisistratus of Athens, ruled wisely and justly for the most
       part, and were not "tyrants" in the modern sense of the term;
       but all who gained and held a princely power unlawfully were
       so named by the Greeks. The reign of the Tyrants was nowhere
       lasting. They were driven out of one city after another until
       they disappeared. Then the old aristocracies came uppermost
       again in some cities, and ruled as before. But some, like
       Athens, had trained the whole body of their citizens to such
       intelligence and spirit that neither kingship nor oligarchy
       would be endured any longer, and the people undertook to
       govern themselves. These were the first democracies--the first
       experiments in popular government--that history gives any
       account of. "The little commonwealths of Greece," says a great
       historian, "were the first states at once free and civilized
       which the world ever saw. They were the first states which
       gave birth to great statesmen, orators, and generals who did
       great deeds, and to great historians who set down those great
       deeds in writing. It was in the Greek commonwealths, in short,
       that the political and intellectual life of the world began."

       In the belief of the Greeks, or of most men among them, their
       early history was embodied with truth in the numerous legends
       and ancient poems which they religiously preserved; but people
       in modern times look differently upon those wonderful myths
       and epics, studying them with deep interest, but under more
       critical views. They throw much light on the primitive life of
       the Hellenes, and more light upon the development of the
       remarkable genius and spirit of those thoughtful and
       imaginative people; but of actual history there are only
       glimpses and guesses to be got from them.

    {992}

       The Homeric poems, the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey," describe a
       condition of things in which the ruling state of Peloponnesus
       (the southern peninsula of Greece) was a kingdom of the
       Achaians, having its capital at Mycenæ, in Argolis,--the realm
       of King Agamemnon,--and in which Athens is unknown to the
       poet. Within recent years, Dr. Schliemann has excavated the
       ruins of Mycenæ, and has found evidence that it really must
       have been, in very early times, the seat of a strong and rich
       monarchy. But the Achaian kingdom had entirely disappeared,
       and the Achaian people had shrunk to an insignificant
       community, on the Gulf of Corinth, when the first assured
       views of Greek history open to us.

    The Dorians.

       It seems to be a fact that the Achaians had been overwhelmed
       by a great invasion of more barbarous Greek tribes from the
       North, very much as the Roman Empire, in later times, was
       buried under an avalanche of barbarism from Germany. The
       invaders were a tribe or league of tribes called Dorians, who
       had been driven from their own previous home on the slopes of
       the Pindus mountain range. Their movement southward was part,
       as appears, of an extensive shifting of place, or migration,
       that occurred at that time (not long, it is probable, before
       the beginning of the historic period) among the tribes of
       Hellas. The Dorians claimed that in conquering Peloponnesus
       they were recovering a heritage from which their chiefs had
       been anciently expelled, and their legends were shaped
       accordingly. The Dorian chiefs appeared in these legends as
       descendants of Hercules, and the tradition of the conquest
       became a story of "The Return of the Heraclids."

       The principal states founded or possessed and controlled by
       the Dorians in Peloponnesus, after their conquest, were
       Sparta, or Lacedæmon, Argos, and Corinth. The Spartans were
       the most warlike of the Greeks,--the most resolute and
       energetic,--and their leadership in practical affairs common
       to the whole came to be generally acknowledged. At the same
       time they had little of the intellectual superiority which
       distinguished some of their Hellenic kindred in so remarkable
       a degree. Their state was organized on military principles;
       its constitution (the body of famous ordinances ascribed to
       Lycurgus) was a code of rigid discipline, which dealt with the
       citizen as a soldier always under training for war, and
       demanded from him the utmost simplicity of life. Their form of
       government combined a peculiar monarchy (having two royal
       families and two kings) with an aristocratic senate (the
       Gerousia), and a democratic assembly (which voted on matters
       only as submitted to it by the senate), with an irresponsible
       executive over the whole, consisting of five men called the
       Ephors. This singular government, essentially aristocratic or
       oligarchical, was maintained, with little disturbance or
       change, through the whole independent history of Sparta. In
       all respects, the Spartans were the most conservative and the
       least progressive among the politically important Greeks.

       At the beginning of the domination of the Dorians in
       Peloponnesus, their city of Argos took the lead, and was the
       head of a league which included Corinth and other city-states.
       But Sparta soon rose to rivalry with Argos; then reduced it to
       a secondary place, and finally subjugated it completely.

    The Ionians.

       The extensive shifting of population which had produced its
       most important result in the invasion of Peloponnesus by the
       Dorians, must have caused great commotions and changes
       throughout the whole Greek peninsula; and quite as much north
       of the Corinthian isthmus as south of it. But in the part
       which lies nearest to the isthmus--the branch peninsula of
       Attica--the old inhabitants appear to have held their ground,
       repelling invaders, and their country was affected only by an
       influx of fugitives, flying from the conquered Peloponnesus.
       The Attic people were more nearly akin to the expelled
       Achaians and Ionians than to the conquering Dorians, although
       a common brotherhood in the Hellenic race was recognized by
       all of them. Whatever distinction there may have been before
       between Achaians and Ionians now practically disappeared, and
       the Ionic name became common to the whole branch of the Greek
       people which derived itself from them. The important division
       of the race through all its subsequent history was between
       Dorians and Ionians. The Æolians constituted a third division,
       of minor importance and of far less significance. The
       distinction between Ionians and Dorians was a very real one,
       in character no less than in traditions and name. The Ionians
       were the superior Greeks on the intellectual side. It was
       among them that the wonderful genius resided which produced
       the greater marvels of art, literature and philosophy in Greek
       civilization. It was among them, too, that the institutions of
       political freedom were carried to their highest attainment.
       Their chief city was Athens, and the splendor of its history
       bears testimony to their unexampled genius. On the other hand,
       the Dorians were less thoughtful, less imaginative, less broad
       in judgment or feeling--less susceptible, it would seem, of a
       high refinement of culture; but no less capable in practical
       pursuits, no less vigorous in effective action, and sounder,
       perhaps, in their moral constitution. Sparta, which stood at
       the head of the Doric states, contributed almost nothing to
       Greek literature, Greek thought, Greek art, or Greek commerce,
       but exercised a great influence on Greek political history.
       Other Doric states, especially Corinth, were foremost in
       commercial and colonizing enterprise, and attained some
       brilliancy of artistic civilization, but with moderate
       originality.

    Greeks and Phœnicians.

       It was natural, as noted above, that the Greeks should be
       induced at an early day to navigate the surrounding seas, and
       to engage in trade with neighboring nations. They were not
       original, it is supposed, in these ventures, but learned more
       or less of ship-building and the art of navigation from an
       older people, the Phœnicians, who dwelt on the coast of Syria
       and Palestine, and whose chief cities were Sidon and Tyre. The
       Phœnicians had extended their commerce widely through the
       Mediterranean before the Greeks came into rivalry with them.
       Their ships, and their merchants, and the wares they bartered,
       were familiar in the Ægean when the Homeric poems were
       composed.
    {993}
       They seem to have been the teachers of the early Greeks in
       many things. They gave them, with little doubt, the invention
       of the alphabet, which they themselves had borrowed from
       Egypt. They conveyed hints of art, which bore astonishing
       fruits when planted in the fertile Hellenic imagination. They
       carried from the East strange stories of gods and demigods,
       which were woven into the mythology of the Greeks. They gave,
       in fact, to Greek civilization, at its beginning, the greatest
       impulse it received. But all that Hellas took from the outer
       world it wrought into a new character, and put upon it the
       stamp of its own unmistakable genius. In navigation and
       commerce the Greeks of the coast-cities and the islands were
       able, ere long, to compete on even terms with the Phœnicians,
       and it happened, in no great space of time, that they had
       driven the latter entirely from the Ægean and the Euxine seas.

    Greek Colonies.

       They had now occupied with colonies the coast of Asia Minor
       and the islands on both their own coasts. The Ionian Greeks
       were the principal colonizers of the Asiatic shore and of the
       Cyclades. On the former and near it they founded twelve towns
       of note, including Samos, Miletus, Ephesus, Chios, and Phocæa,
       which are among the more famous cities of ancient times. Their
       important island settlements in the Cyclades were Naxos,
       Delos, Melos, and Paros. They possessed, likewise, the great
       island of Eubœa, with its two wealthy cities of Chalcis and
       Eretria. These, with Attica, constituted, in the main, the
       Ionic portion of Hellas.

       The Dorians occupied the islands of Rhodes and Cos, and
       founded on the coast of Asia Minor the cities of Halicarnassus
       and Cnidus. The important Æolian colonies in Asia were Smyrna
       (acquired later by the Ionians), Temnos, Larissa, and Cyme. Of
       the islands they occupied Lesbos and Tenedos.

       From these settlements on neighboring coasts and islands the
       vigorous Greeks pushed on to more distant fields. It is
       probable that their colonies were in Cyprus and Crete before
       the eighth century, B. C. In the seventh century B. C., during
       a time of confusion and weakness in Egypt, they had entered
       that country as allies or as mercenaries of the kings, and had
       founded a city, Naucratis, which became an important agent in
       the exchange of arts and ideas, as well as of merchandise,
       between the Nile and the Ægean. Within a few years past the
       site of Naucratis has been uncovered by explorers, and much
       has been brought to light that was obscure in Greek and
       Egyptian history before. Within the same seventh century,
       Cyrene and Barca had been built on the African coast, farther
       west. Even a century before that time, the Corinthians had
       taken possession of Corcyra (modern Corfu), and they, with the
       men of Chalcis and Megara, had been actively founding cities
       that grew great and rich, in Sicily and in southern Italy,
       which latter acquired the name of "Magna Græcia" (Great
       Greece). At a not much later time they had pressed northwards
       to the Euxine or Black Sea, and had scattered settlements
       along the Thracian and Macedonian coast, including one
       (Byzantium) on the Bosphorus, which became, after a thousand
       years had passed, the imperial city of Constantinople. About
       597 B. C., the Phocæans had planted a colony at Massalia, in
       southern Gaul, from which sprang the great city known in
       modern times as Marseilles. And much of all this had been
       done, by Ionians and Dorians together, before Athens (in which
       Attica now centered itself, and which loomed finally greater
       in glory than the whole Hellenic world besides) had made a
       known mark in history.

    Rise of Athens.

       At first there had been kings in Athens, and legends had
       gathered about their names which give modern historians a
       ground-work for critical guessing, and scarcely more. Then the
       king disappeared and a magistrate called Archon took his
       place, who held office for only ten years. The archons are
       believed to have been chosen first from the old royal family
       alone; but after a time the office was thrown open to all
       noble families. This was the aristocratic stage of political
       evolution in the city-state. The next step was taken in 683 B.
       C. (which is said to be the beginning of authentic Athenian
       chronology) when nine archons were created, in place of the
       one, and their term of office was reduced to a single year.

       Fifty years later, about 621 B. C., the people of Athens
       obtained their first code of written law, ascribed to one
       Draco, and described as a code of much severity. But it gave
       certainty to law, for the first time, and was the first great
       protective measure secured by the people. In 612 B. C. a noble
       named Kylon attempted to overthrow the aristocratic government
       and establish a tyranny under himself, but he failed.

    Legislation of Solon.

       Then there came forward in public life another noble, who was
       one of the wisest men and purest patriots of any country or
       age, and who made an attempt of quite another kind. This was
       Solon, the famous lawgiver, who became archon in 594 B. C. The
       political state of Athens at that time has been described for
       us in an ancient Greek treatise lately discovered, and which
       is believed to be one of the hitherto lost writings of
       Aristotle. "Not only," says the author of this treatise, "was
       the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect,
       but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were in
       absolute slavery to the rich. ... The whole country was in the
       hands of a few persons, and if the tenants failed to pay their
       rent, they were liable to be haled into slavery, and their
       children with them. Their persons were mortgaged to their
       creditors." Solon saw that this was a state of things not to
       be endured by such a people as the Athenians, and he exerted
       himself to change it. He obtained authority to frame a new
       constitution and a new code of laws for the state. In the
       latter, he provided measures for relieving the oppressed class
       of debtors. In the former, he did not create a democratic
       government, but he greatly increased the political powers of
       the people. He classified them according to their wealth,
       defining four classes, the citizens in each of which had
       certain political duties and privileges measured to them by
       the extent of their property and income. But the whole body of
       citizens, in their general assembly (the Ecclesia), were given
       the important right of choosing the annual archons, whom they
       must select, however, from the ranks of the wealthiest class.
       At the same time, Solon enlarged the powers of the old
       aristocratic senate--the Areopagus--giving it a supervision of
       the execution of the laws and a censorship of the morals of
       the people.

    {994}

       "These changes did not constitute Democracy,--a form of
       government then unknown, and for which there was as yet no
       word in the Greek language. But they initiated the democratic
       spirit. ... Athens, thus fairly started on her
       way,--emancipated from the discipline of aristocratic
       school-masters, and growing into an age of manly liberty and
       self-restraint,--came eventually nearer to the ideal of 'the
       good life' [Aristotle's phrase] than any other State in
       Hellas."

          (W. W. Fowler.)

    Tyranny of Pisistratus.

       But before the Athenians reached their nearness to this "good
       life," they had to pass under the yoke of a "tyrant,"
       Pisistratus, who won the favor of the poorer people, and, with
       their help, established himself in the Acropolis (560 B. C.)
       with a foreign guard to maintain his power. Twice driven out,
       he was twice restored, and reigned quite justly and prudently,
       on the whole, until his death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by
       his two sons, Hippias and Hipparchus; but the latter was
       killed in 514, and Hippias was expelled by the Spartans in 510
       B. C.; after which there was no tyranny in Athens.

    The Democratic Republic.

       On the fall of the Pisistratidæ, a majority of the noble or
       privileged class struggled hard to regain their old
       ascendancy; but one of their number, Cleisthenes, took the
       side of the people and helped them to establish a democratic
       constitution. He caused the ancient tribal division of the
       citizens to be abolished, and substituted a division which
       mixed the members of clans and broke up or weakened the
       clannish influence in politics. He enlarged Solon's senate or
       council and divided it into committees, and he brought the
       "ecclesia," or popular assembly, into a more active exercise
       of its powers. He also introduced the custom of ostracism,
       which permitted the citizens of Athens to banish by their vote
       any man whom they thought dangerous to the state. The
       constitution of Cleisthenes was the final foundation of the
       Athenian democratic republic. Monarchical and aristocratic
       Sparta resented the popular change, and undertook to restore
       the oligarchy by force of arms; but the roused democracy of
       Athens defended its newly won liberties with vigor and
       success.

    The Persian Wars.

       Not Athens only, but all Greece, was now about to be put to a
       test which proved the remarkable quality of both, and formed
       the beginning of their great career. The Ionian cities of Asia
       Minor had recently been twice conquered, first by Crœsus, King
       of Lydia, and then by Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian
       empire, who had overthrown Crœsus (B. C. 547), and taken his
       dominions. The Persians oppressed them, and in 500 B. C. they
       rose in revolt. Athens and Eretria sent help to them, while
       Sparta refused. The revolt was suppressed, and Darius, the
       king of Persia, planned vengeance upon the Athenians and
       Eretrians for the aid they had given to it. He sent an
       expedition against them in 493 B. C., which was mostly
       destroyed by a storm. In 490 B. C. he sent a second powerful
       army and fleet, which took Eretria and razed it to the ground.
       The great Persian army then marched upon Athens, and was met at
       Marathon by a small Athenian force of 9,000 men. The little
       city of Platæa sent 1,000 more to stand with them in the
       desperate encounter. They had no other aid in the fight, and
       the Persians were a great unnumbered host. But Miltiades, the
       Greek general that day, planned his battle-charge so well that
       he routed the Asiatic host and lost but 192 men. The Persians
       abandoned their attempt and returned to their wrathful king.
       One citizen of Athens, Themistocles, had sagacity enough to
       foresee that the "Great King," as he was known, would not rest
       submissive under his defeat; and with difficulty he persuaded
       his fellow citizens to prepare themselves for future conflicts
       by building a fleet and by fortifying their harbors, thus making
       themselves powerful at sea. The wisdom of his counsels was
       proved in 480 B. C., when Xerxes, the successor of Darius, led
       an army of prodigious size into Greece, crossing the
       Hellespont by a bridge of boats. This time, Sparta, Corinth,
       and several of the lesser states, rallied with Athens to the
       defence of the common country; but Thebes and Argos showed
       friendship to the Persians, and none of the important
       island-colonies contributed any help. Athens was the brain and
       right arm of the war, notwithstanding the accustomed
       leadership of Sparta in military affairs.

       The first encounter was at Thermopylæ, where Leonidas and his
       300 Spartans defended the narrow pass, and died in their place
       when the Persians found a way across the mountain to surround
       them. But on that same day the Persian fleet was beaten at
       Artemisium. Xerxes marched on Athens, however, found the city
       deserted, and destroyed it. His fleet had followed him, and
       was still stronger than the naval force of the Greeks.
       Themistocles forced a battle, against the will of the
       Peloponnesian captains, and practically destroyed the Persian
       fleet. This most memorable battle of Salamis was decisive of
       the war, and decisive of the independence of Greece. Xerxes,
       in a panic, hastened back into Asia, leaving one of his
       generals, Mardonius, with 300,000 men, to pursue the war. But
       Mardonius was routed and his host annihilated, at Platæa, the
       next year, while the Persian fleet was again defeated on the
       same day at Mycale.

    The Golden Age of Athens.

       The war had been glorious for the Athenians, and all could see
       that Greece had been saved by their spirit and their
       intelligence much more than by the valor of Sparta and the
       other states. But they were in a woful condition, with their
       city destroyed and their families without homes. Wasting no
       time in lamentations, they rebuilt the town, stretched its
       walls to a wider circuit, and fortified it more strongly than
       before, under the lead of the sagacious Themistocles. Their
       neighbors were meanly jealous, and Sparta made attempts to
       interfere with the building of the walls; but Themistocles
       baffled them cunningly, and the new Athens rose proudly out of
       the ashes of the old.

    {995}

       The Ionian islands and towns of Asia Minor (which had broken
       the Persian yoke) now recognized the superiority and
       leadership of Athens, and a league was formed among them,
       which held the meetings of its deputies and kept its treasury
       in the temple of Apollo on the sacred island of Delos; for
       which reason it was called the Confederacy of Delos, or the
       Delian League. The Peloponnesian states formed a looser rival
       league under the headship of Sparta. The Confederacy of Delos
       was in sympathy with popular governments and popular parties
       everywhere, while the Spartans and their following favored
       oligarchies and aristocratic parties. There were many
       occasions for hostility between the two.

       The Athenians, at the head of their Confederacy, were strong,
       until they impaired their power by using it in tyrannical
       ways. Many lesser states in the league were foolish enough to
       commute in money payments the contribution of ships and men
       which they had pledged themselves to make to the common naval
       force. This gave Athens the power to use that force
       despotically, as her own, and she did not scruple to exercise
       the power. The Confederacy was soon a name; the states forming
       it were no longer allies of Athens, but her subjects; she
       ruled them as the sovereign of an Empire, and her rule was
       neither generous nor just. Thereby the double tie of kinship
       and of interest which might have bound the whole circle of
       Ionian states to her fortunes and herself was destroyed by her
       own acts. Provoking the hatred of her allies and challenging
       the jealous fear of her rivals, Athens had many enemies.

       At the same time, a dangerous change in the character of her
       democratic institutions was begun, produced especially by the
       institution of popular jury-courts, before which prosecutions
       of every kind were tried, the citizens who constituted the
       courts acting as jury and judge at once. This gave them a
       valuable training, without doubt, and helped greatly to raise
       the common standard of intelligence among the Athenians so
       high; but it did unquestionably tend also to demoralizations
       that were ruinous in the end. The jury service, which was
       slightly paid, fell more and more to an unworthy class, made
       up of idlers or intriguers. Party feeling and popular passions
       gained an increasing influence over the juries, and demagogues
       acquired an increasing skill in making use of them.

       But these evils were scarcely more than in their seed during
       the great period of "Athenian Empire," as it is sometimes
       called, and everything within its bounds was suffused with the
       shining splendor of that matchless half-century. The genius of
       this little Ionic state was stimulated to amazing achievements
       in every intellectual field. Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides,
       Aristophanes, within a single generation, crowded Athenian
       literature with the masterpieces of classic drama. Pheidias
       and his companions crowned the Acropolis and filled the city
       with works that have been the models in art for all ages
       since. Socrates began the quizzing which turned philosophy
       into honest truth-seeking paths, and Plato listened to him and
       was instructed for his mission. Thucydides watched events with
       sagacious young eyes, and prepared his pen for the chronicling
       of them; while Herodotus, pausing at Athens from his wide
       travels, matured the knowledge he had gathered up and
       perfected it for his final work. Over all of them came
       Pericles to preside and rule, not as a master, or "tyrant,"
       but as leader, guide, patron, princely republican,--statesman
       and politician in one.

    The Peloponnesian War.

       The period of the ascendancy of Pericles was the "golden age"
       of Athenian prosperity and power, both material and
       intellectual. The beginning of the end of it was reached a
       little before he died, when the long-threatened war between
       Athens and the Peloponnesian league, led by Sparta, broke out
       (B. C. 431). If Athens had then possessed the good will of the
       cities of her own league, and if her citizens had retained
       their old sobriety and intelligence, she might have triumphed
       in the war; for she was all powerful at sea and fortified
       almost invincibly against attacks by land. But the subject
       states, called allies, were hostile, for the most part, and
       helped the enemy by their revolts, while the death of Pericles
       (B. C. 429) let loose on the people a swarm of demagogues who
       flattered and deluded them, and baffled the wiser and more
       honest, whose counsels and leadership might have given her
       success.

       The fatal folly of the long war was an expedition against the
       distant city of Syracuse (B. C. 415-413), into which the
       Athenians were enticed by the restless and unscrupulous
       ambition of Alcibiades. The entire force sent to Sicily
       perished there, and the strength and spirit of Athens were
       ruinously sapped by the fearful calamity. She maintained the
       war, however, until 404 B. C., when, having lost her fleet in
       the decisive battle of Ægospotami, and being helplessly
       blockaded by sea and land, the city was surrendered to the
       Spartan general Lysander. Her walls and fortifications were
       then destroyed and her democratic government was overthrown,
       giving place to an oligarchy known as the "thirty tyrants."
       The democracy soon suppressed the thirty tyrants and regained
       control, and Athens, in time, rose somewhat from her deep
       humiliation, but never again to much political power in
       Greece. In intellect and cultivation, the superiority of the
       Attic state was still maintained, and its greatest productions
       in philosophy and eloquence were yet to be given to the world.

    Spartan and Theban Ascendancy.

       After the fall of Athens, Sparta was dominant in the whole of
       Greece for thirty years and more, exercising her power more
       oppressively than Athens had done. Then Thebes, which had been
       treacherously seized and garrisoned by the Spartans, threw off
       their yoke (B. C. 379) and led a rising, under her great and
       high-souled citizen, Epaminondas, which resulted in bringing
       Thebes to the head of Greek affairs. But the Theban ascendancy
       was short-lived, and ended with the death of Epaminondas in
       362 B. C.

    Macedonian Supremacy.

       Meantime, while the city-states of Hellas proper had been
       wounding and weakening one another by their jealousies and
       wars, the semi-Greek kingdom of Macedonia, to the north of
       them, in their own peninsula, had been acquiring their
       civilization and growing strong. And now there appeared upon
       its throne a very able king, Philip, who took advantage of
       their divisions, interfered in their affairs, and finally made
       a practical conquest of the whole peninsula, by his victory at
       the battle of Chæronea (B. C. 338). At Athens, the great
       orator Demosthenes had exerted himself for years to rouse
       resistance to Philip. If his eloquence failed then, it has
       served the world immortally since, by delighting and
       instructing mankind.

    {996}

       King Philip was succeeded by his famous son, Alexander the
       Great, who led an army of Macedonians and Greeks into Asia (B.
       C. 334), overthrew the already crumbling Persian power,
       pursued his conquests through Afghanistan to India, and won a
       great empire which he did not live to rule. When he died (B.
       C. 323), his generals divided the empire among them and fought
       with one another for many years. But the general result was
       the spreading of the civilization and language of the Greeks,
       and the establishing of their intellectual influence, in
       Egypt, in Syria, in Asia Minor, and beyond.

       In Greece itself, a state of disturbance and of political
       confusion and weakness prevailed for another century. There
       was promise of something better, in the formation, by several
       of the Peloponnesian states, of a confederacy called the
       Achaian League, which might possibly have federated and
       nationalized the whole of Hellas in the end; but the Romans,
       at this juncture, turned their conquering arms eastward, and
       in three successive wars, between 211 and 146 B. C., they
       extinguished the Macedonian kingdom, and annexed it, with the
       whole peninsula, to the dominions of their wonderful republic.

    The Romans.

       The Romans, as stated already, are believed to have been
       originally near kindred to the Greeks. The same movement, it
       is supposed, in the successive outswarmings of Aryan peoples,
       deposited in one peninsula the Italian tribes, and in the next
       peninsula, eastward, the tribes of the Hellenes. Among the
       Italian tribes were Latins, Umbrians, Sabines, Samnites, etc.,
       occupying the middle and much of the southern parts of the
       peninsula, while a mysterious alien people, the Etruscans,
       whose origin is not known, possessed the country north of them
       between the Arno and the Tiber. In the extreme south were
       remnants of a primitive race, the Iapygian, and Greek colonies
       were scattered there around the coasts. From the Latins sprang
       the Romans, at the beginning of their separate existence; but
       there seems to have been a very early union of these Romans of
       the primitive tradition with a Sabine community, whereby was
       formed the Roman city-state of historical times. That union
       came about through the settlement of the two communities,
       Latin and Sabine, on two neighboring hills, near the mouth of
       the river Tiber, on its southern bank. In the view of some
       historians, it is the geographical position of those hills,
       hardly less than the masterful temper and capacity of the race
       seated on them, which determined the marvellous career of the
       city founded on that site. Says Professor Freeman: "The whole
       history of the world has been determined by the geological
       fact that at a point a little below the junction of the Tiber
       and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one another
       than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site marked out
       above all other sites for dominion, the centre of Italy, the
       centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the junction
       of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had the
       great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of
       Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of
       Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of
       Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two
       hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood
       so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on
       those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on
       terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues,
       or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless,
       more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies.
       Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried;
       history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice
       was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the
       men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate
       communities into tribes of a single city."

       The followers of Romulus occupied the Palatine Mount, and the
       Sabines were settled on the Quirinal. At subsequent times, the
       Cœlian, the Capitoline, the Aventine, the Esquiline and the
       Viminal hills were embraced in the circumvallation, and the
       city on the seven hills thus acquired that name.

       If modern students and thinkers, throwing light on the
       puzzling legends and traditions of early Rome from many
       sources, in language and archæology, have construed their
       meaning lightly, then great importance attaches to those first
       unions or incorporations of distinct settlements in the
       forming of the original city-state. For it was the beginning
       of a process which went on until the whole of Latium, and then
       the whole of Italy, and, finally, the whole Mediterranean
       world, were joined to the seven hills of Rome. "The whole
       history of Rome is a history of incorporation"; and it is
       reasonable to believe that the primal spring of Roman
       greatness is found in that early adoption and persistent
       practice of the policy of political absorption, which gave
       conquest a character it had never borne before. At the same
       time, this view of the creation of the Roman state contributes
       to an understanding of its early constitutional history. It
       supposes that the union of the first three tribes which
       coalesced--those of the Palatine, the Quirinal and Capitoline
       (both occupied by the Sabines) and the Cœlian hills--ended the
       process of incorporation on equal terms. These formed the
       original Roman people--the "fathers," the "patres," whose
       descendants appear in later times as a distinct class or
       order, the "patricians"--holding and struggling to maintain
       exclusive political rights, and exclusive ownership of the
       public domain, the "ager publicus," which became a subject of
       bitter contention for four centuries. Around these heirs of
       the "fathers" of Rome arose another class of Romans, brought
       into the community by later incorporations, and not on equal
       terms. If the first class were "fathers," these were children,
       in a political sense, adopted into the Roman family, but without
       a voice in general affairs, or a share in the public lands, or
       eligibility to the higher offices of the state. These were the
       "plebeians" or "plebs" of Rome, whose long struggle with the
       patricians for political and agrarian rights is the more
       interesting side of Roman history throughout nearly the whole
       of the prosperous age of the republic.

    {997}

       At Rome, as at Athens, there was a period of early kingship,
       the legends of which are as familiar to us all as the stories
       of the Bible, but the real facts of which are almost totally
       unknown. It is surmised that the later kings--the well known
       Tarquins of the classical tale--were Etruscan princes (it is
       certain that they were Etruscans), who had broken for a time
       the independence of the Romans and extended their sovereignty
       over them. It is suspected, too, that this period of Etruscan
       domination was one in which Roman civilization made a great
       advance, under the tuition of a more cultivated people. But if
       Rome in its infancy did know a time of subjugation, the
       endurance was not long. It ended, according to Roman
       chronology, in the 245th year of the city, or 509 B.C., by the
       expulsion of Tarquin the Proud, the last of the kings.

    The Roman Republic.

       The Republic was then founded; but it was an aristocratic and
       not a democratic republic. The consuls, who replaced the
       kings, were required to be patricians, and they were chosen by
       the landholders of the state. The senate was patrician; all
       the important powers of government were in patrician hands,
       and the plebs suffered grievous oppression in consequence.
       They were not of a tamely submissive race. They demanded
       powers for their own protection, and by slow degrees they won
       them--strong as the patricians were in their wealth and their
       trained political skill.

       Precisely as in Athens, the first great effort among the
       common people was to obtain relief from crushing burdens of
       debt, which had been laid upon them in precisely the same
       way--by loss of harvests while in military service, and by the
       hardness of the laws which creditors alone had framed. An army
       of plebs, just home from war, marched out of the city and
       refused to return until magistrates of their own choosing had
       been conceded to them. The patricians could not afford to lose
       the bone and sinew of their state, and they yielded the point
       in demand (B. C. 494). This first "secession of the plebs"
       brought about the first great democratic change in the Roman
       constitution, by calling into existence a powerful
       magistracy--the Tribunes of the Plebs--who henceforth stood
       between the consuls and the common people, for the protection
       of the latter.

       From this first success the plebeian order went forward, step
       by step, to the attainment of equal political rights in the
       commonwealth, and equal participation in the lands which Roman
       conquest was continually adding to the public domain. In 450
       B. C., after ten years of struggle, they secured the
       appointment of a commission which framed the famous Twelve
       Tables of the Law, and so established a written and certain
       code. Five years later, the caste exclusiveness of the
       patricians was broken down by a law which permitted marriages
       between the orders. In 367 B. C. the patrician monopoly of the
       consular office was extinguished, by the notable Licinian
       Laws, which also limited the extent of land that any citizen
       might occupy, and forbade the exclusive employment of slave
       labor on any estate. One by one, after that, other
       magistracies were opened to the plebs; and in 287 B. C. by the
       Lex Hortensia, the plebeian concilium, or assembly, was made
       independent of the senate and its acts declared to be valid
       and binding. The democratic commonwealth was now completely
       formed.

    Roman Conquest of Italy.

       While these changes in the constitution of their Republic were
       in progress, the Romans had been making great advances toward
       supremacy in the peninsula. First they had been in league with
       their Latin neighbors, for war with the Æquians, the
       Volscians, and the Etruscans. The Volscian war extended over
       forty years, and ended about 450 B. C. in the practical
       disappearance of the Volscians from history. Of war with the
       Æquians, nothing is heard after 458 B. C., when, as the tale
       is told, Cincinnatus left his plow to lead the Romans against
       them. The war with the Etruscans of the near city of Veii had
       been more stubborn. Suspended by a truce between 474 and 438
       B. C., it was then renewed, and ended in 396 B. C., when the
       Etruscan city was taken and destroyed. At the same time the
       power of the Etruscans was being shattered at sea by the
       Greeks of Tarentum and Syracuse, while at home they were
       attacked from the north by the barbarous Gauls or Celts.

       These last named people, having crossed the Alps from Gaul and
       Switzerland and occupied northern Italy, were now pressing
       upon the more civilized nations to the south of the Po. The
       Etruscans were first to suffer, and their despair became so
       great that they appealed to Rome for help. The Romans gave
       little aid to them in their extremity; but enough to provoke
       the wrath of Brennus, the savage leader of the Gauls. He
       quitted Etruria and marched to Rome, defeating an army which
       opposed him on the Allia, pillaging and burning the city (B.
       C. 390) and slaying the senators, who had refused to take
       refuge, with other inhabitants, in the capitol. The defenders
       of the capitol held it for seven months; Rome was rebuilt,
       when the Gauls withdrew, and soon took up her war again with
       the Etruscan cities. By the middle of the same century she was
       mistress of southern Etruria, though her territories had been
       ravaged twice again by renewed incursions of the Gauls. In a
       few years more, when her allies of Latium complained of their
       meager share of the fruits of these common wars, and demanded
       Roman citizenship and equal rights, she fought them fiercely
       and humbled them to submissiveness (B. C. 339-338), reducing
       their cities to the status of provincial towns.

       And now, having awed or subdued her rivals, her friends, and
       her enemies, near at hand, the young Republic swung into the
       career of rapid conquest which subdued to her will, within
       three-fourths of a century, the whole of Italy below the mouth
       of the Arno.

       In 343 B. C. the Roman arms had been turned against the
       Samnites at the south, and they had been driven from the
       Campania. In 327 B. C. the same dangerous rivals were again
       assailed, with less impunity. At the Caudine Forks, in 321 B.
       C., the Samnites inflicted both disaster and shame upon their
       indomitable foes; but the end of the war (B. C. 304) found
       Rome advanced and Samnium fallen back. A third contest ended
       the question of supremacy; but the Samnites (B. C. 290)
       submitted to become allies and not subjects of the Roman
       state.

       In this last struggle the Samnites had summoned Gauls and
       Etruscans to join them against the common enemy, and Rome had
       overcome their united forces in a great fight at Sentinum.
       This was in 295 B. C. Ten years later she annihilated the
       Senonian Gauls, annexed their territory and planted a colony
       at Sena on the coast. In two years more she had paralyzed the
       Boian Gauls by a terrible chastisement, and had nothing more
       to fear from the northward side of her realm. Then she turned
       back to finish her work in the south.

    {998}

    War with Pyrrhus.

       The Greek cities of the southern coast were harassed by
       various marauding neighbors, and most of them solicited the
       protection of Rome, which involved, of course, some surrender
       of their independence. But one great city, Tarentum, the most
       powerful of their number, refused these terms, and hazarded a
       war with the terrible republic, expecting support from the
       ambitious Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, on the Greek coast opposite
       their own. Pyrrhus came readily at their call, with dreams of
       an Italian kingdom more agreeable than his own. Assisted in
       the undertaking by his royal kinsmen of Macedonia and Syria,
       he brought an army of 25,000 men, with 20 elephants--which
       Roman eyes had never seen before. In two bloody fights (B. C.
       280-279), Pyrrhus was victorious; but the cost of victory was
       so great that he dared not follow it up. He went over to
       Sicily, instead, and waged war for three years (B. C. 278-276)
       with the Carthaginians, who had subjugated most of the island.
       The Epirot king brought timely aid to the Sicilian Greeks, and
       drove their Punic enemies into the western border of the
       island; but he claimed sovereignty over all that his arms
       delivered, and was not successful in enforcing the claim. He
       returned to Italy and found the Romans better prepared than
       before to face his phalanx and his elephants. They routed him
       at Beneventum, in the spring of 275 B. C. and he went back to
       Epirus, with his dreams dispelled. Tarentum fell, and Southern
       Italy was added to the dominion of Rome.

    Punic Wars.

       During her war with Pyrrhus, the Republic had formed an
       alliance with Carthage, the powerful maritime Phœnician city
       on the African coast. But friendship between these two cities
       was impossible. The ambition of both was too boundless and too
       fierce. They were necessarily competitors for supremacy in the
       Mediterranean world, from the moment that a narrow strait
       between Italy and Sicily was all that held them apart. Rome
       challenged her rival to the duel in 264 B. C., when she sent
       help to the Mamertines, a band of brigands who had seized the
       Sicilian city of Messina, and who were being attacked by both
       Carthaginians and Syracusan Greeks. The "First Punic War,"
       then begun, lasted twenty-four years, and resulted in the
       withdrawal of the Carthaginians from Sicily, and in their
       payment of an enormous war indemnity to Rome. The latter
       assumed a protectorate over the island, and the kingdom of
       Hiero of Syracuse preserved its nominal independence for the
       time; but Sicily, as a matter of fact, might already be looked
       upon as the first of those provinces, beyond Italy, which Rome
       bound to herself, one by one, until she had compassed the
       Mediterranean with her dominion and gathered to it all the
       islands of that sea.

       The "Second Punic war," called sometimes the "Hannibalic war,"
       was fought with a great Carthaginian, rather than with
       Carthage herself. Hamilcar Barca had been the last and ablest
       of the Punic generals in the contest for Sicily. Afterwards he
       undertook the conquest of Spain, where his arms had such
       success that he established a very considerable power, more
       than half independent of the parent state. He nursed an
       unquenchable hatred of Rome, and transmitted it to his son
       Hannibal, who solemnly dedicated his life to warfare with the
       Latin city. Hamilcar died, and in due time Hannibal found
       himself prepared to make good his oath. He provoked a
       declaration of war (B. C. 218) by attacking Saguntum, on the
       eastern Spanish coast--a town which the Romans "protected."
       The latter expected to encounter him in Spain; but before the
       fleet bearing their legions to that country had reached
       Massilia, he had already passed the Pyrenees and the Rhone,
       with nearly 100,000 men, and was crossing the Alps, to assail
       his astounded foes on their own soil. The terrific barrier was
       surmounted with such suffering and loss that only 20,000 foot
       and 6,000 horse, of the great army which left Spain, could be
       mustered for the clearing of the last Alpine pass. With this
       small following, by sheer energy, rapidity and precision of
       movement--by force, in other words, of a military genius never
       surpassed in the world--he defeated the armies of Rome again
       and again, and so crushingly in the awful battle of Cannæ (B.
       C. 216) that the proud republic was staggered, but never
       despaired. For fifteen years the great Carthaginian held his
       ground in southern Italy; but his expectation of being joined
       by discontented subjects of Rome in the peninsula was very
       slightly realized, and his own country gave him little
       encouragement or help. His brother Hasdrubal, marching to his
       relief in 207 B. C., was defeated on the river Metaurus and
       slain. The arms of Rome had prospered meantime in Sicily and
       in Spain, even while beaten at home, and her Punic rival had
       been driven from both. In 204 B. C. the final field of battle
       was shifted to Carthaginian territory by Scipio, of famous
       memory, thereafter styled Africanus, because he "carried the
       war into Africa." Hannibal abandoned Italy to confront him,
       and at Zama, in the autumn of 202 B. C., the long contention
       ended, and the career of Carthage as a Power in the ancient
       world was forever closed. Existing by Roman sufferance for
       another half century, she then gave her implacable conquerors
       another pretext for war, and they ruthlessly destroyed her
       (B.C. 146).

    Roman Conquest of Greece.

       In that same year of the destruction of Carthage, the conquest
       of Greece was finished. The first war of the Romans on that
       side of the Adriatic had taken place during the Second Punic
       war, and had been caused by an alliance formed between
       Hannibal and King Philip of Macedonia (B. C. 214). They
       pursued it then no further than to frustrate Philip's designs
       against themselves; but they formed alliances with the Greek
       states oppressed or menaced by the Macedonian, and these drew
       them into a second war, just as the century closed. On
       Cynoscephalæ, Philip was overthrown (B. C. 197), his kingdom
       reduced to vassalage, and the freedom of all Greece was
       solemnly proclaimed by the Roman Consul Flaminius.

    {999}

       And now, for the first time, Rome came into conflict with an
       Asiatic power. The throne of the Syrian monarchy, founded by
       one of the generals of Alexander the Great, was occupied by a
       king more ambitious than capable, who had acquired a large and
       loosely jointed dominion in the East, and who bore the
       sounding name of Antiochus the Great. This vainglorious King,
       having a huge army and many elephants at his disposal, was
       eager to try a passage at arms with the redoubtable men of
       Rome. He was encouraged in his desire by the Ætolians in
       Greece, who bore ill-will to Rome. Under this encouragement,
       and having Hannibal--then a fugitive at his court--to give him
       counsel, which he lacked intelligence to use, Antiochus
       crossed the Ægean and invaded Greece (B. C. 192). The Romans
       met him at the pass of Thermopylæ; drove him back to the
       shores from which he came; pursued him thither; crushed and
       humbled him on the field of Magnesia, and took the kingdoms
       and cities of Asia Minor under their protection, as the allies
       (soon to be subjects) of Rome.

       Twenty years passed with little change in the outward
       situation of affairs among the Greeks. But discontent with the
       harshness and haughtiness of Roman "protection" changed from
       sullenness to heat, and Perseus, son of Philip of Macedonia,
       fanned it steadily, with the hope of bringing it to a flame.
       Rome watched him with keen vigilance, and before his plans
       were ripe her legions were upon him. He battled with them
       obstinately for three years (B. C. 171-168); but his fate was
       sealed at Pydna. He went as a prisoner to Rome; his kingdom
       was broken into four small republics; the Achæan League was
       stricken by the captivity of a thousand of its chief men; the
       whole of Greece was humbled to submissiveness, though not yet
       formally reduced to the state of a Roman province. That
       followed some years later, when risings in Macedonia and
       Achaia were punished by the extinction of the last semblance
       of political independence in both (B. C. 148-146).

    The Zenith of the Republic.

       Rome now gripped the Mediterranean (the ocean of the then
       civilized world) as with four fingers of a powerful hand: one
       laid on Italy and all its islands, one on Macedonia and
       Greece, one on Carthage, one on Spain, and the little finger
       of her "protection" reaching over to the Lesser Asia. Little
       more than half a century, since the day that Hannibal
       threatened her own city gates, had sufficed to win this vast
       dominion. But the losses of the Republic had been greater,
       after all, than the gains; for the best energies of its
       political constitution had been expended in the acquisition,
       and the nobler qualities in its character had been touched
       with the incurable taints of a licentious prosperity.

    Beginning of Decline.

       A century and a half had passed since the practical ending of
       the struggle of plebeians with patricians for political and
       agrarian rights. In theory and in form, the constitution
       remained as democratic as it was made by the Licinian Laws of
       367 B. C., and by the finishing touch of the Hortensian Law of
       287 B. C. But in practical working it had reverted to the
       aristocratic mode. A new aristocracy had risen out of the
       plebeian ranks to reinforce the old patrician order. It was
       composed of the families of men who had been raised to
       distinction and ennobled by the holding of eminent offices,
       and its spirit was no less jealous and exclusive than that of
       the older high caste.

    The Senate and the Mob.

       Thus strengthened, the aristocracy had recovered its
       ascendancy in Rome, and the Senate, which it controlled, had
       become the supreme power in government. The amazing success of
       the Republic during the last century just reviewed--its
       successes in war, in diplomacy, and in all the sagacious
       measures of policy by which its great dominion had been
       won--are reasonably ascribed to this fact. For the Senate had
       wielded the power of the state, in most emergencies, with
       passionless deliberation and with unity and fixity of aim.

       But it maintained its ascendancy by an increasing employment
       of means which debased and corrupted all orders alike. The
       people held powers which might paralyze the Senate at any
       moment, if they chose to exercise them, through their
       assemblies and their tribunes. They had seldom brought those
       powers into play thus far, to interfere with the senatorial
       government of the Republic, simply because they had been
       bribed to abstain. The art of the politician in Rome, as
       distinguished from the statesman, had already become
       demagoguery. This could not well have been otherwise under the
       peculiar constitution of the Roman citizenship. Of the
       thirty-five tribes who made up the Roman people, legally
       qualified to vote, only four were within the city. The
       remaining thirty-one were "plebs urbana." There was no
       delegated representation of this country populace--citizens
       beyond the walls. To exercise their right of suffrage they
       must be personally present at the meetings of the "comitia
       tributa"--the tribal assemblies; and those of any tribe who
       chanced to be in attendance at such a meeting might give a
       vote which carried with it the weight of their whole tribe.
       For questions were decided by the majority of tribal, not
       individual, votes; and a very few members of a tribe might act
       for and be the tribe, for all purposes of voting, on occasions
       of the greatest possible importance. It is quite evident that
       a democratic system of this nature gave wide opportunity for
       corrupt "politics." There must have been, always, an
       attraction for the baser sort among the rural plebs, drawing
       them into the city, to enjoy the excitement of political
       contests, and to partake of the flatteries and largesses which
       began early to go with these. And circumstances had tended
       strongly to increase this sinister sifting into Rome of the
       most vagrant and least responsible of her citizens, to make
       them practically the deputies and representatives of that
       mighty sovereign which had risen in the world--the "Populus
       Romanus." For there was no longer either thrift or dignity
       possible in the pursuits of husbandry. The long Hannibalic War
       had ruined the farming class in Italy by its ravages; but the
       extensive conquests that followed it had been still more
       ruinous to that class by several effects combined. Corn
       supplies from the conquered provinces were poured into Rome at
       cheapened prices; enormous fortunes, gathered in the same
       provinces by officials, by farmers of taxes, by money-lenders,
       and by traders, were largely invested in great estates,
       absorbing the small farms of olden time; and, finally,
       free-labor in agriculture was supplanted, more and more, by
       the labor of slaves, which war and increasing wealth combined
       to multiply in numbers. Thus the "plebs urbana" of Rome were a
       depressed and, therefore, a degenerating class, and the same
       circumstances that made them so impelled them towards the
       city, to swell the mob which held its mighty sovereignty in
       their hands.

    {1000}

       So far, a lavish amusement of this mob with free games, and
       liberal bribes, had kept it generally submissive to the
       senatorial government. But the more it was debased by such
       methods, and its vagrancy encouraged, the more extravagant
       gratuities of like kind it claimed. Hence a time could never
       be far away when the aristocracy and the senate would lose
       their control of the popular vote on which they had built
       their governing power.

    Agrarian Agitations.

       But they invited the quicker coming of that time by their own
       greediness in the employment of their power for selfish and
       dishonest ends. They had practically recovered their monopoly
       of the use of the public lands. The Licinian law, which
       forbade any one person to occupy more than five hundred jugera
       (about three hundred acres) of the public lands, had been made
       a dead letter. The great tracts acquired in the Samnite wars,
       and since, had remained undistributed, while the use and
       profit of them were enjoyed, under one form of authority or
       another, by rich capitalists and powerful nobles.

       This evil, among many that waxed greater each year, caused the
       deepest discontent, and provoked movements of reform which
       soon passed by rapid stages into a revolution, and ended in
       the fall of the Republic. The leader of the movement at its
       beginning was Tiberius Gracchus, grandson of Scipio Africanus
       on the side of his mother, Cornelia. Elected tribune in 133 B.
       C., he set himself to the dangerous task of rousing the people
       against senatorial usurpations, especially in the matter of
       the public domain. He only drew upon himself the hatred of the
       senate and its selfish supporters; he failed to rally a
       popular party that was strong enough for his protection, and
       his enemies slew him in the very midst of a meeting of the
       tribes. His brother Caius took up the perilous cause and won
       the office of tribune (B. C. 123) in avowed hostility to the
       senatorial government. He was driven to bid high for popular
       help, even when the measures which he strove to carry were
       most plainly for the welfare of the common people, and he may
       seem to modern eyes to have played the demagogue with some
       extravagance. But statesmanship and patriotism without
       demagoguery for their instrument or their weapon were hardly
       practicable, perhaps, in the Rome of those days, and it is not
       easy to find them clean-handed in any political leader of the
       last century of the Republic. The fall of Caius Gracchus was
       hastened by his attempt to extend the Roman franchise beyond
       the "populus Romanus," to all the freemen of Italy. The mob in
       Rome was not pleased with such political generosity, and
       cooled in its admiration for the large-minded tribune. He lost
       his office and the personal protection it threw over him, and
       then he, like his brother, was slain (B. C. 121) in a melee.

    Jugurthine War.

       For ten years the senate, the nobility, and the capitalists
       (now beginning to take the name of the equestrian order), had
       mostly their own way again, and effaced the work of the
       Gracchi as completely as they could. Then came disgraceful
       troubles in Numidia which enraged the people and moved them to
       a new assertion of themselves. The Numidian king who helped
       Scipio to pull Carthage down had been a ward of Rome since
       that time. When he died, he left his kingdom to be governed
       jointly by two young sons and an older nephew. The latter,
       Jugurtha, put his cousins out of the way, took the kingdom to
       himself, and baffled attempts at Rome to call him to account,
       by heavy bribes. The corruption in the case became so flagrant
       that even the corrupted Roman populace revolted against it, and
       took the Numidian business into its own hands. War was
       declared against Jugurtha by popular vote, and, despite
       opposing action in the Senate, one Marius, an experienced
       soldier of humble birth, was elected consul and sent out to
       take command. Marius distinguished himself in the war much
       less than did one of his officers, Cornelius Sulla; but he
       bore the lion's share of glory when Jugurtha was taken captive
       and conveyed to Rome (B. C. 104). Marius was now the great
       hero of the hour, and events were preparing to lift him to the
       giddiest heights of popularity.

    Teutones and Cimbri.

       Hitherto, the barbarians of wild Europe whom the Romans had
       met were either the Aryan Celts, or the non-Aryan tribes found
       in northern Italy, Spain and Gaul. Now, for the first time,
       the armies of Rome were challenged by tribes of another grand
       division of the Aryan stock, coming out of the farther North.
       These were the Cimbri and the Teutones, wandering hordes of
       the great Teutonic or Germanic race which has occupied Western
       Europe north of the Rhine since the beginning of historic
       time. So far as we can know, these two were the first of the
       Germanic nations to migrate to the South. They came into
       collision with Rome in 113 B. C., when they were in Noricum,
       threatening the frontiers of her Italian dominion. Four years
       later they were in southern Gaul, where the Romans were now
       settling colonies and subduing the native Celts. Twice they
       had beaten the armies opposed to them; two years later they
       added a third to their victories; and in 105 B. C. they threw
       Rome into consternation by destroying two great armies on the
       Rhone. Italy seemed helpless against the invasion for which
       these terrible barbarians were now preparing, when Marius went
       against them. In the summer of 102 B. C. he annihilated the
       Teutones, near Aquæ Sextiæ (modern Aix), and in the following
       year he destroyed the invading Cimbri, on a bloody field in
       northern Italy, near modern Vercellæ.

    Marius.

       From these great victories, Marius went back to Rome, doubly
       and terribly clothed with power, by the devotion of a reckless
       army and the hero-worship of an unthinking mob. The state was
       at his mercy. A strong man in his place might have crushed the
       class-factions and accomplished the settlement which Cæsar
       made after half a century more of turbulence and shame. But
       Marius was ignorant, he was weak, and he became a mere
       blood-stained figure in the ruinous anarchy of his time.

    {1001}

    Optimates and Populares.

       The social and political state of the capital had grown
       rapidly worse. A middle-class in Roman society had practically
       disappeared. The two contending parties or factions, which had
       taken new names--"optimates" and "populares"--were now
       divided almost solely by the line which separates rich from
       poor. "If we said that 'optimates' signified the men who
       bribed and abused office under the banner of the Senate and
       its connections, and that 'populares' meant men who bribed and
       abused office with the interests of the people outside the
       Senatorial pale upon their lips, we might do injustice to many
       good men on both sides, but should hardly be slandering the
       parties" (Beesly). There was a desperate conflict between the
       two in the year 100, B. C. and the Senate once more recovered
       its power for a brief term of years.

    The Social War.

       The enfranchisement of the so-called "allies"--the Latin and
       other subjects of Rome who were not citizens--was the burning
       question of the time. The attempt of Caius Gracchus to extend
       rights of citizenship to them had been renewed again and
       again, without success, and each failure had increased the
       bitter discontent of the Italian people. In 90 B. C. they drew
       together in a formidable confederation and rose in revolt. In
       the face of this great danger Rome sobered herself to action
       with old time wisdom and vigor. She yielded her full
       citizenship to all Italian freemen who had not taken arms, and
       then offered it to those who would lay their arms down. At the
       same time, she fought the insurrection with every army she
       could put into the field, and in two years it was at an end.
       Marius and his old lieutenant, Sulla, had been the principal
       commanders in this "Social War," as it was named, and Sulla
       had distinguished himself most. The latter had now an army at
       his back and was a power in the state, and between the two
       military champions there arose a rivalry which produced the
       first of the Roman Civil Wars.

    Marius and Sulla.

       A troublesome war in the East had been forced upon the Romans
       by aggressions of Mithridates, King of Pontus. Both Marius and
       Sulla aspired to the command. Sulla obtained election to the
       consulship in 88 B. C. and was named for the coveted place.
       But Marius succeeded in getting the appointment annulled by a
       popular assembly and himself chosen instead for the Eastern
       command. Sulla, personally imperilled by popular tumults, fled
       to his legions, put himself at their head, and marched back to
       Rome--the first among her generals to turn her arms against
       herself. There was no effective resistance; Marius fled; both
       Senate and people were submissive to the dictates of the
       consul who had become master of the city. He "made the tribes
       decree their own political extinction, resuscitating the
       comitia centuriata; he reorganized the Senate by adding three
       hundred to its members and vindicating the right to sanction
       legislation; conducted the consular elections, exacting from
       L. Cornelius Cinna, the newly elected consul, a solemn oath
       that he would observe the new regulations, and securing the
       election of Cn. Octavius in his own interest, and then, like
       'a countryman who had just shaken the lice off his coat,' to
       use his own figure, he turned to do his great work in the
       East."

          (Horton).

       Sulla went to Greece, which was in revolt and in alliance with
       Mithridates, and conducted there a brilliant, ruthless
       campaign for three years (B. C. 87-84), until he had restored
       Roman authority in the peninsula, and forced the King of
       Pontus to surrender all his conquests in Asia Minor. Until
       this task was finished, he gave no heed to what his enemies
       did at Rome; though the struggle there between "Sullans" and
       "Marians" had gone fiercely and bloodily on, and his own
       partisans had been beaten in the fight. The consul Octavius,
       who was in Bulla's interest, had first driven the consul Cinna
       out of the city, after slaying 10,000 of his faction. Cinna's
       cause was taken up by the new Italian citizens; he was joined
       by the exiled Marius, and these two returned together, with an
       army which the Senate and the party of Sulla were unable to
       resist. Marius came back with a burning heart and with savage
       intentions of revenge. A horrible massacre of his opponents
       ensued, which went on unchecked for five days, and was
       continued more deliberately for several months, until Marius
       died, at the beginning of the year 86 B. C. Then Cinna ruled
       absolutely at Rome for three years, supported in the main by
       the newly-made citizens; while the provinces generally
       remained under the control of the party of the optimates. In
       83 B. C. Sulla, having finished with carefulness his work in
       the East, came back into Italy, with 40,000 veterans to attend
       his steps. He had been outlawed and deprived of his command,
       by the faction governing at the capital; but its decrees had
       no effect and troubled him little. Cinna had been killed by
       his own troops, even before Bulla's landing at Brundisium.
       Several important leaders and soldiers on the Marian side,
       such as Pompeius, then a young general, and Crassus, the
       millionaire, went over to Sulla's camp. One of the consuls of
       the year saw his troops follow their example, in a body; the
       other consul was beaten and driven into Capua. Sulla wintered
       in Campania, and the next spring he pressed forward to Rome,
       fighting a decisive battle with Marius the younger on the way,
       and took possession of the city; but not in time to prevent a
       massacre of senators by the resentful mob.

    Sulla's Dictatorship.

       Before that year closed, the whole of Italy had been subdued,
       the final battle being fought with the Marians and Italians at
       the Colline Gate, and Sulla again possessed power supreme. He
       placed it beyond dispute by a deliberate extermination of his
       opponents, more merciless than the Marian massacre had been.
       They were proscribed by name, in placarded lists, and rewards
       paid to those who killed them; while their property was
       confiscated, and became the source of vast fortunes to Sulla's
       supporters, and of lands for distribution to his veterans.

       When this terror had paralyzed all resistance to his rule, the
       Dictator (for he had taken that title) undertook a complete
       reconstruction of the constitution, aiming at a permanent
       restoration of senatorial ascendancy and a curbing of the
       powers which the people, in their assemblies, and the
       magistrates who especially represented them, had gained during
       the preceding century. He remodelled, moreover, the judicial
       system, and some of his reforms were undoubtedly good, though
       they did not prove enduring. When he had fashioned the state
       to his liking, this extraordinary usurper quietly abdicated
       his dictatorial office (B. C. 80) and retired to private life,
       undisturbed until his death (B. C. 78).

    {1002}

    After Sulla.

       The system he had established did not save Rome from renewed
       distractions and disorder after Sulla died. There was no
       longer a practical question between Senate and people--between
       the few and the many in government. The question now, since
       the legionaries held their swords prepared to be flung into
       the scale, was what one should again gather the powers of
       government into his hands, as Sulla had done.

    The Great Game and the Players.

       The history of the next thirty years--the last generation of
       republican Rome--is a sad and sinister but thrilling chronicle
       of the strifes and intrigues, the machinations and
       corruptions, of a stupendous and wicked game in politics that
       was played, against one another and against the Republic, by a
       few daring, unscrupulous players, with the empire of the
       civilized world for the stake between them. There were more
       than a few who aspired; there were only three players who
       entered really as principals into the game. These were
       Pompeius, called "the Great," since he extinguished the Marian
       faction in Sicily and in Spain; Crassus, whose wealth gave him
       power, and who acquired some military pretensions besides, by
       taking the field against a formidable insurrection of slaves
       (B. C. 73-71); and Julius Cæsar, a young patrician, but nephew
       of Marius by marriage, who assiduously strengthened that
       connection with the party of the people, and who began, very
       soon after Sulla's death, to draw attention to himself as a
       rising power in the politics of the day. There were two other
       men, Cicero and the younger Cato, who bore a nobler and
       greater because less selfish part in the contest of that
       fateful time. Both were blind to the impossibility of
       restoring the old order of things, with a dominant Senate, a
       free but well guided populace, and a simply ordered social
       state; but their blindness was heroic and high-souled.

    Pompeius in the East.

       Of the three strong rivals for the vacant dictatorial chair
       which waited to be filled, Pompeius held by far the greater
       advantages. His fame as a soldier was already won; he had been
       a favorite of Fortune from the beginning of his career;
       everything had succeeded with him; everything was expected for
       him and expected from him. Even while the issues of the great
       struggle were pending, a wonderful opportunity for increasing
       his renown was opened to him. The disorders of the civil war
       had licensed a swarm of pirates, who fairly possessed the
       eastern Mediterranean and had nearly extirpated the maritime
       trade. Pompeius was sent against them (B. C. 67), with a
       commission that gave him almost unlimited powers, and within
       ninety days he had driven them from the sea. Then, before he
       had returned from this exploit, he was invested with supreme
       command in the entire East, where another troublesome war with
       Mithridates was going on. He harvested there all the laurels
       which belonged by better right to his predecessor, Lucullus,
       finding the power of Mithridates already broken down. From
       Pontus he passed into Armenia, and thence into Syria, easily
       subjugating both, and extinguishing the monarchy of the
       Seleucids. The Jews resisted him and he humbled them by the
       siege and conquest of their sacred city. Egypt was now the
       only Mediterranean state left outside the all-absorbing
       dominion of Rome; and even Egypt, by bequest of its late king,
       belonged to the Republic, though not yet claimed.

    The First Triumvirate.

       Pompeius came back to Rome in the spring of 61 B. C. so
       glorified by his successes that he might have seemed to be
       irresistible, whatever he should undertake. But, either
       through an honest patriotism or an overweening confidence, he
       had disbanded his army when he reached Italy, and he had
       committed himself to no party. He stood alone and aloof, with
       a great prestige, great ambitions, and no ability to use the
       one or realize the other. Before another year passed, he was
       glad to accept offers of a helping hand in politics from
       Cæsar, who had climbed the ladder of office rapidly within
       four or five years, spending vast sums of borrowed money to
       amuse the people with games, and distinguishing himself as a
       democratic champion. Cæsar, the far seeing calculator,
       discerned the enormous advantages that he might gain for
       himself by massing together the prestige of Pompeius, the
       wealth of Crassus and his own invincible genius, which was
       sure to be the master element in the combination. He brought
       the coalition about through a bargain which created what is
       known in history as the First Triumvirate, or supremacy of
       three.

    Cæsar in Gaul.

       Under the terms of the bargain, Cæsar was chosen consul for 59
       B. C., and at the end of his term was given the governorship
       of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, with command of three
       legions there, for five years. His grand aim was a military
       command--the leadership of an army--the prestige of a
       successful soldier. No sooner had he secured the command than
       fortune gave him opportunities for its use in the most
       striking way and with the most impressive results. The Celtic
       tribes of Gaul, north of the two small provinces which the
       Romans had already acquired on the Mediterranean coast, gave
       him pretexts or provocations (it mattered little to Cæsar
       which) for war with them, and in a series of remarkable
       campaigns, which all soldiers since have admired, he pushed
       the frontiers of the dominion of Rome to the ocean and the
       Rhine, and threatened the nations of Germany on the farther
       banks of that stream. "The conquest of Gaul by Cæsar," says
       Mr. Freeman, "is one of the most important events in the
       history of the world. It is in some sort the beginning of
       modern history, as it brought the old world of southern
       Europe, of which Rome was the head, into contact with the
       lands and nations which were to play the greatest part in
       later times--with Gaul, Germany, and Britain." From Gaul
       Cæsar crossed the channel to Britain in 55 B. C. and again in
       the following year, exacting tribute from the Celtic natives,
       but attempting no lodgment in the island.

    {1003}

       Meantime, while pursuing a career of conquest which excited
       the Roman world, Cæsar never lost touch with the capital and
       its seething politics. Each winter he repaired to Lucca, the
       point in his province which was nearest to Rome, and conferred
       there with his friends, who flocked to the rendezvous. He
       secured an extension of his term, to enable him to complete
       his plans, and year by year he grew more independent of the
       support of his colleagues in the triumvirate, while they
       weakened one another by their jealousies, and the Roman state
       was more hopelessly distracted by factious strife.

    End of the Triumvirate.

       The year after Cæsar's second invasion of Britain, Crassus,
       who had obtained the government of Syria, perished in a
       disastrous war with the Parthians, and the triumvirate was at
       an end. Disorder in Rome increased and Pompeius lacked energy
       or boldness to deal with it, though he seemed to be the one
       man present who might do so. He was made sole consul in 52 B.
       C.; he might have seized the dictatorship, with approval of
       many, but he waited for it to be offered to him, and the offer
       never came. He drew at last into close alliance with the party
       of the Optimates, and left the Populares to be won entirely to
       Cæsar's side.

    Civil War.

       Matters came to a crisis in 50 B. C., when the Senate passed
       an order removing Cæsar from his command and discharging his
       soldiers who had served their term. He came to Ravenna with a
       single legion and concerted measures with his friends. The
       issue involved is supposed to have been one of life or death
       to him, as well as of triumph or failure in his ambitions; for
       his enemies were malignant. His friends demanded that he be
       made consul, for his protection, before laying down his arms.
       The Senate answered by proclaiming him a public enemy if he
       failed to disband his troops with no delay. It was a
       declaration of war, and Cæsar accepted it. He marched his
       single legion across the Rubicon, which was the boundary of
       his province, and advanced towards Rome.

       Pompeius, with the forces he had gathered, retreated
       southward, and consuls, senators and nobles generally streamed
       after him. Cæsar followed them--turning aside from the
       city--and his force gathered numbers as he advanced. The
       Pompeians continued their flight and abandoned Italy,
       withdrawing to Epirus, planning to gather there the forces of
       the East and return with them. Cæsar now took possession of
       Rome and secured the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, from
       which it drew its supply of food. This done, he proceeded
       without delay to Spain, where seven legions strongly devoted
       to Pompeius were stationed. He overcame them in a single
       campaign, enlisted most of the veterans in his own service,
       and acquired a store of treasure. Before the year ended he was
       again in Rome, where the citizens had proclaimed him dictator. He
       held the dictatorship for eleven days, only, to legalize an
       election which made him consul, with a pliant associate. He
       reorganized the government, complete in all its branches,
       including a senate, partly composed of former members of the
       body who had remained or returned. Then (B. C. 48.--January) he
       took up the pursuit of Pompeius and the Optimates. Crossing to
       Epirus, after some months of changeful fortune, he fought and
       won the decisive battle of Pharsalia. Pompeius, flying to
       Egypt, was murdered there. Cæsar, following, with a small
       force, was placed in great peril by a rising at Alexandria,
       but held his ground until assistance came. He then garrisoned
       Egypt with Roman troops and made the princess Cleopatra, who
       had captivated him by her charms, joint occupant of the throne
       with her younger brother. During his absence, affairs at Rome
       were again disturbed, and he was once more appointed dictator,
       as well as tribune for life. His presence restored order at
       once, and he was soon in readiness to attack the party of his
       enemies who had taken refuge in Africa. The battle of Thapsus,
       followed by the suicide of Cato and the surrender of Utica,
       practically finished the contest, though one more campaign was
       fought in Spain the following year.

    Cæsar Supreme.

       Cæsar was now master of the dominions of Rome, and as entirely
       a monarch as anyone of his imperial successors, who took his
       name, with the power which he caused it to symbolize, and
       called themselves "Cæsars," and "Imperators," as though the
       two titles were equivalent. "Imperator" was the title under
       which he chose to exercise his sovereignty. Other Roman
       generals had been Imperators before, but he was the first to
       be named Imperator for life, and the word (changed in our
       tongue to Emperor) took a meaning from that day more regal
       than Rex or King. That Cæsar, the Imperator, first of all
       Emperors, ever coveted the crown and title of an
       older-fashioned royalty, is not an easy thing to believe.

       Having settled his authority firmly, he gave his attention to
       the organization of the Empire (still Republic in name) and to
       the reforming of the evils which afflicted it. That he did
       this work with consummate judgment and success is the opinion
       of all who study his time. He gratified no resentments,
       executed no revenges, proscribed no enemies. All who submitted
       to his rule were safe; and it seems to be clear that the
       people in general were glad to be rescued by his rule from the
       old oligarchical and anarchical state. But some of Cæsar's own
       partisans were dissatisfied with the autocracy which they
       helped to create, or with the slenderness of their own parts
       in it. They conspired with surviving leaders of the Optimates,
       and Cæsar was assassinated by them, in the Senate chamber, on
       the 15th of March, B. C. 44.

       Professor Mommsen has expressed the estimate of Cæsar which
       many thoughtful historians have formed, in the following
       strong words: "In the character of Cæsar the great contrasts
       of existence meet and balance each other. He was of the
       mightiest creative power, and yet of the most penetrating
       judgment; of the highest energy of will and the highest
       capacity of execution; filled with republican ideals, and at
       the same time born to be king. He was 'the entire perfect
       man'; and he was this because he was the entire and perfect
       Roman." This may be nearly true if we ignore the moral side of
       Cæsar's character. He was of too large a nature to do evil
       things unnecessarily, and so he shines even morally in
       comparison with many of his kind; but he had no scruples.

    {1004}

    After the Murder of Cæsar.

       The murderers of Cæsar were not accepted by the people as the
       patriots and "liberators" which they claimed to be, and they
       were soon in flight from the city. Marcus Antonius, who had
       been Cæsar's associate in the consulship, now naturally and
       skilfully assumed the direction of affairs, and aspired to
       gather the reins of imperial power into his own hands. But
       rivals were ready to dispute with him the great prize of
       ambition. Among them, it is probable that Antony gave little
       heed at first to the young man, Caius Octavius, or Octavianus,
       who was Cæsar's nephew, adopted son and heir; for Octavius was
       less than nineteen years old, he was absent in Apollonia, and
       he was little known. But the young Cæsar, coming boldly though
       quietly to Rome, began to push his hereditary claims with a
       patient craftiness and dexterity that were marvellous in one
       so young.

    The Second Triumvirate.

       The contestants soon resorted to arms. The result of their
       first indecisive encounter was a compromise and the formation
       of a triumvirate, like that of Cæsar, Pompeius and Crassus.
       This second triumvirate was made up of Antonius, Octavius, and
       Lepidus, lately master of the horse in Cæsar's army. Unlike
       the earlier coalition, it was vengeful and bloody-minded. Its
       first act was a proscription, in the terrible manner of Sulla,
       which filled Rome and Italy with murders, and with terror and
       mourning. Cicero, the patriot and great orator, was among the
       victims cut down.

       After this general slaughter of their enemies at home,
       Antonius and Octavius proceeded against Brutus and Cassius,
       two of the assassins of Cæsar, who had gathered a large force
       in Greece. They defeated them at Philippi, and both
       "liberators" perished by their own hands. The triumvirs now
       divided the empire between them, Antonius ruling the East,
       Octavius the West, and Lepidus taking Africa--that is, the
       Carthaginian province, which included neither Egypt nor
       Numidia. Unhappily for Antonius, the queen of Egypt was among
       his vassals, and she ensnared him. He gave himself up to
       voluptuous dalliance with Cleopatra at Alexandria, while the
       cool intriguer, Octavius, at Rome, worked unceasingly to
       solidify and increase his power. After six years had passed,
       the young Cæsar was ready to put Lepidus out of his way, which
       he did mercifully, by sending him into exile. After five years
       more, he launched his legions and his war galleys against
       Antonius, with the full sanction of the Roman senate and
       people. The sea-fight at Actium (B. C. 31) gave Octavius the
       whole empire, and both Antonius and Cleopatra committed
       suicide after flying to Egypt. The kingdom of the Ptolemies
       was now extinguished and became a Roman province in due form.

    Octavius (Augustus) Supreme.

       Octavius was now more securely absolute as the ruler of Rome
       and its great empire than Sulla or Julius Cæsar had been, and
       he maintained that sovereignty without challenge for
       forty-five years, until his death. He received from the Senate
       the honorary title of "Augustus," by which he is most commonly
       known. For official titles, he took none but those which had
       belonged to the institutions of the Republic, and were
       familiarly known. He was Imperator, as his uncle had been. He
       was Princeps, or head of the Senate; he was Censor; he was
       Tribune; he was Supreme Pontiff. All the great offices of the
       Republic he kept alive, and ingeniously constructed his
       sovereignty by uniting their powers in himself.

    Organization of the Empire.

       The historical position of Augustus, as the real founder of
       the Roman Empire, is unique in its grandeur; and yet History
       has dealt contemptuously, for the most part, with his name.
       His character has been looked upon, to use the language of De
       Quincey, as "positively repulsive, in the very highest
       degree." "A cool head," wrote Gibbon of him, "an unfeeling
       heart, and a cowardly disposition, prompted him, at the age of
       nineteen, to assume the mask of hypocrisy, which he never
       afterwards laid aside." And again: "His virtues, and even his
       vices, were artificial; and according to the various dictates
       of his interest, he was at first the enemy, and at last the
       father, of the Roman world." Yet, how can we deny surpassing
       high qualities of some description to a man who set the
       shattered Roman Republic, with all its democratic bases broken
       up, on a new--an imperial--foundation, so gently that it
       suffered no further shock, and so solidly that it endured, in
       whole or in part, for a millennium and a half?

       In the reign of Augustus the Empire was consolidated and
       organized; it was not much extended. The frontiers were
       carried to the Danube, throughout, and the subjugation of
       Spain was made complete. Augustus generally discouraged wars
       of conquest. His ambitious stepsons, Drusus and Tiberius,
       persuaded him into several expeditions beyond the Rhine,
       against the restless German nations, which perpetually menaced
       the borders of Gaul; but these gained no permanent footing in
       the Teutonic territory. They led, on the contrary, to a
       fearful disaster (A. D. 9), near the close of the reign of
       Augustus, when three legions, under Varus, were destroyed in
       the Teutoburg Forest by a great combination of the tribes,
       planned and conducted by a young chieftain named Hermann, or
       Arminius, who is the national hero of Germany to this day.

       The policy of Drusus in strongly fortifying the northern
       frontier against the Germans left marks which are
       conspicuously visible at the present day. From the fifty
       fortresses which he is said to have built along the line
       sprang many important modern cities,--Basel, Strasburg, Worms,
       Mainz, Bingen, Coblenz, Bonn, Cologne, and Leyden, among the
       number. From similar forts on the Danubian frontier rose
       Vienna, Regensburg and Passau.

    Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero.

       Augustus died A. D. 11, and was succeeded in his honors, his
       offices, and his powers, by his step-son, Tiberius Claudius
       Nero, whom he had adopted. Tiberius, during most of his reign,
       was a vigorous ruler, but a detestable man, unless his
       subjects belied him, which some historians suspect. Another
       attempt at the conquest of Germany was made by his nephew
       Germanicus, son of Drusus; but the jealousy of the emperor
       checked it, and Germanicus died soon after, believing that he
       had been poisoned. A son of Germanicus, Caius, better known by
       his nick-name of Caligula, succeeded to the throne on the
       death of Tiberius (A. D. 37), and was the first of many
       emperors to be crazed and made beast-like, in lust, cruelty
       and senselessness, by the awful, unbounded power which passed
       into their hands.
    {1005}
       The Empire bore his madness for three years, and then he was
       murdered by his own guards. The Senate had thoughts now of
       restoring the commonwealth, and debated the question for a
       day; but the soldiers of the prætorian guard took it out of
       their hands, and decided it, by proclaiming Tiberius Claudius
       (A. D. 41), a brother of Germanicus, and uncle of the emperor
       just slain. Claudius was weak of body and mind, but not
       vicious, and his reign was distinctly one of improvement and
       advance in the Empire. He began the conquest of Britain, which
       the Romans had neglected since Cæsar's time, and he opened the
       Senate to the provincials of Gaul. He had two wives of
       infamous character, and the later one of these, Agrippina,
       brought him a son, not his own, whom he adopted, and who
       succeeded him (A.D. 54). This was Nero, of foul memory, who
       was madman and monster in as sinister a combination as history
       can show. During the reign of Nero, the spread of
       Christianity, which had been silently making its way from
       Judæa into all parts of the Empire, began to attract the
       attention of men in public place, and the first persecution of
       its disciples took place (A. D. 64). A great fire occurred in
       Rome, which the hated emperor was believed to have caused; but
       he found it convenient to accuse the Christians of the deed,
       and large numbers of them were put to death in horrible ways.

    Vespasian and his Sons.

       Nero was tolerated for fourteen years, until the soldiers in
       the provinces rose against him, and he committed suicide (A.
       D. 68) to escape a worse death. Then followed a year of civil
       war between rival emperors--Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and
       Vespasian--proclaimed by different bodies of soldiers in
       various parts of the Empire. The struggle ended in favor of
       Vespasian, a rude, strong soldier, who purged the government,
       disciplined the army, and brought society back toward simpler
       and more decent ways. The great revolt of the Jews (A. D.
       66-70) had broken out before he received the purple, and he
       was commanding in Judæa when Nero fell. The siege, capture and
       destruction of Jerusalem was accomplished by his son Titus. A
       more formidable revolt in the West (A. D. 69) was begun the
       Batavians, a German tribe which occupied part of the
       Netherland territory, near the mouth of the Rhine. They were
       joined by neighboring Gauls and by disaffected Roman
       legionaries, and they received help from their German kindred
       on the northern side of the Rhine. The revolt, led by a
       chieftain named Civilis, who had served in the Roman army, was
       overcome with extreme difficulty.

       Vespasian was more than worthily succeeded (A. D. 79) by his
       elder son, Titus, whose subjects so admired his many virtues
       that he was called "the delight of the human race." His short
       reign, however, was one of calamities: fire at Rome, a great
       pestilence, and the frightful eruption of Vesuvius which
       destroyed Herculaneum and Pompeii. After Titus came his
       younger brother Domitian (A. D. 81), who proved to be another
       creature of the monstrous species that appeared so often in
       the series of Roman emperors. The conquest of southern Britain
       (modern England) was completed in his reign by an able
       soldier, Agricola, who fought the Caledonians of the North,
       but was recalled before subduing them. Domitian was murdered
       by his own servants (A. D. 96), after a reign of fifteen
       years.

    Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian.

       Rome and the Empire were happy at last in the choice that was
       made of a sovereign to succeed the hateful son of Vespasian.
       Not the soldiery, but the Senate, made the choice, and it fell
       on one of their number, Cocceius Nerva, who was already an
       aged man. He wore the purple but sixteen months, and his
       single great distinction in Roman history is, that he
       introduced to the imperial succession a line of the noblest
       men who ever sat in the seat of the Cæsars. The first of these
       was the soldier Trajan, whom Nerva adopted and associated with
       himself in authority. When Nerva died (A. D. 97), his son by
       adoption ascended the throne with no opposition. The new
       Emperor was simple and plain in his habits and manners of
       life; he was honest and open in all his dealings with men; he
       was void of suspicion, and of malice and jealousy no less. He
       gave careful attention to the business of state and was wise
       in his administration of affairs, improving roads, encouraging
       trade, helping agriculture, and developing the resources of the
       Empire in very prudent and practical ways. But he was a
       soldier, fond of war, and he unwisely reopened the career of
       conquest which had been almost closed for the Empire since
       Pompeius came back from the East. A threatening kingdom having
       risen among the Dacians, in the country north of the lower
       Danube--the Transylvania and Roumania of the present day--he
       attacked and crushed it, in a series of vigorous campaigns (A.
       D. 101-106), and annexed the whole territory to the dominion
       of Rome. He then garrisoned and colonized the country, and
       Romanized it so completely that it keeps the Roman name, and
       its language to this day is of the Latin stock, though Goths,
       Huns, Bulgarians and Slavs have swept it in successive
       invasions, and held it among their conquests for centuries at
       a time. In the East, he ravaged the territory of the Parthian
       king, entered his capital and added Mesopotamia, Armenia, and
       Arabia Petræa to the list of Roman provinces. But he died (A.
       D. 117) little satisfied with the results of his eastern
       campaigns.

       His successor abandoned them, and none have doubted that he
       did well; because the Empire was weakened by the new frontier
       in Asia which Trajan gave it to defend. His Dacian conquests
       were kept, but all beyond the Euphrates in the East were given
       up. The successor who did this was Hadrian, a kinsman, whom
       the Emperor adopted in his last hours. Until near the close of
       his life, Hadrian ranked among the best of the emperors. Rome
       saw little of him, and resented his incessant travels through
       every part of his great realm. His manifest preference for
       Athens, where he lingered longest, and which flourished anew
       under his patronage, was still more displeasing to the ancient
       capital. For the Emperor was a man of cultivation, fond of
       literature, philosophy and art, though busy with the cares of
       State. In his later years he was afflicted with a disease
       which poisoned his nature by its torments, filled his mind
       with dark suspicions, and made him fitfully tyrannical and
       cruel. The event most notable in his generally peaceful and
       prosperous reign was the renewed and final revolt of the Jews,
       under Barchochebas, which resulted in their total expulsion
       from Jerusalem, and its conversion into a heathen city, with a
       Roman name.

    {1006}

    The Antonines.

       Hadrian had adopted before his death (A. D. 138) a man of
       blameless character, Titus Aurelius Antoninus, who received
       from his subjects, when he became Emperor, the appellation
       "Pius," to signify the dutiful reverence and kindliness of his
       disposition. He justified the name of Antoninus Pius, by which
       he is historically known, and his reign, though disturbed by
       some troubles on the distant borders of the Empire, was happy
       for his subjects in nearly all respects. "No great deeds are
       told of him, save this, perhaps the greatest, that he secured
       the love and happiness of those he ruled" (Capes).

       Like so many of the emperors, Antoninus had no son of his own;
       but even before he came to the throne, and at the request of
       Hadrian, he had adopted a young lad who won the heart of the
       late Emperor while still a child. The family name of this son
       by adoption was Verus, and he was of Spanish descent; the name
       which he took, in his new relationship, was Marcus Aurelius
       Antoninus. It is unquestionably the most illustrious name in
       the whole imperial line, from Augustus to the last
       Constantine, and made so, not so much by deeds as by
       character. He gave the world the solitary example of a
       philosopher upon the throne. There have been a few--a very
       few--surpassingly good men in kingly places; but there has
       never been another whose soul was lifted to so serene a height
       above the sovereignty of his station. Unlimited power tempted
       no form of selfishness in him; he saw nothing in his imperial
       exaltation but the duties which it imposed. His mind was
       meditative, and inclined him to the studious life; but he
       compelled himself to be a man of vigor and activity in
       affairs. He disliked war; but he spent years of his life in
       camp on the frontiers; because it fell to his lot to encounter
       the first great onset of the barbarian nations of the north,
       which never ceased from that time to beat against the barriers
       of the Empire until they had broken them down. His struggle
       was on the line of the Danube, with the tribes of the
       Marcomanni, the Quadi, the Vandals, and others of less
       formidable power. He held them back, but the resources of the
       Empire were overstrained and weakened lastingly by the effort.
       For the first time, too, there were colonies of barbarians
       brought into the Empire, from beyond its lines, to be settled
       for the supply of soldiers to the armies of Rome: It was a
       dangerous sign of Roman decay and a fatal policy to begin. The
       decline of the great world-power was, in truth, already well
       advanced, and the century of good emperors which ended when
       Marcus Aurelius died (A. D. 180), only retarded, and did not
       arrest, the progress of mortal maladies in the state.

    From Commodus to Caracalla.

       The best of emperors was followed on the throne by a son,
       Commodus, who went mad, like Nero and Caligula, with the
       drunkenness of power, and who was killed (A. D. 192) by his
       own servants, after a reign of twelve years. The soldiers of
       the prætorian guard now took upon themselves the making of
       emperors, and placed two upon the throne--first, Pertinax, an
       aged senator, whom they murdered the next year, and then
       Didius Julianus, likewise a senator, to whom, as the highest
       bidder, they sold the purple. Again, as after Nero's death,
       the armies on the frontiers put forward, each, a rival
       claimant, and there was war between the competitors. The
       victor who became sovereign was Septimius Severus (A. D.
       194-211), who had been in command on the Danube. He was an
       able soldier, and waged war with success against the Parthians
       in the East, and with the Caledonians in Britain, which latter
       he could not subdue. Of his two sons, the elder, nicknamed
       Caracalla (A. D. 211-217), killed his brother with his own
       hands, and tortured the Roman world with his brutalities for
       six years, when he fell under the stroke of an assassin. The
       reign of this foul beast brought one striking change to the
       Empire. An imperial edict wiped away the last distinction
       between Romans and Provincials, giving citizenship to every
       free inhabitant of the Empire. "Rome from this date became
       constitutionally an empire, and ceased to be merely a
       municipality. The city had become the world, or, viewed from
       the other side, the world had become 'the City'" (Merivale).

    Anarchy and Decay.

       The period of sixty-seven years from the murder of Caracalla
       to the accession of Diocletian--when a great constitutional
       change occurred--demands little space in a sketch like this.
       The weakening of the Empire by causes inherent in its social
       and political structure,--the chief among which were the
       deadly influence of its system of slavery and the paralyzing
       effects of its autocracy,--went on at an increasing rate,
       while disorder grew nearly to the pitch of anarchy, complete.
       There were twenty-two emperors in the term, which scarcely
       exceeded that of two generations of men. Nineteen of these
       were taken from the throne by violent deaths, through mutiny
       or murder, while one fell in battle, and another was held
       captive in Persia till he died. Only five among these
       twenty-two ephemeral lords of the world,--namely Alexander
       Severus, Decius (who was a vigorous soldier and ruler, but who
       persecuted the Christians with exceptional cruelty), Claudius,
       Aurelian, and Probus,--can be credited with any personal
       weight or worth in the history of the time; and they held
       power too briefly to make any notable mark.

       The distractions of the time were made worse by a great number
       of local "tyrants," as they were called--military adventurers
       who rose in different parts of the Empire and established
       themselves for a time in authority over some district, large
       or small. In the reign of Gallienus (A. D. 260-268) there were
       nineteen of these petty "imperators," and they were spoken of
       as the "thirty tyrants." The more important of the "provincial
       empires" thus created were those of Postumus, in Gaul, and of
       Odenatus of Palmyra. The latter, under Zenobia; queen and
       successor of Odenatus, became a really imposing monarchy,
       until it was overthrown by Aurelian, A. D. 273.

    {1007}

    The Teutonic Nations.

       The Germanic nations beyond the Rhine and the Danube had, by
       this time, improved their organization, and many of the tribes
       formerly separated and independent were now gathered into
       powerful confederations. The most formidable of these leagues
       in the West was that which acquired the common name of the
       Franks, or Freemen, and which was made up of the peoples
       occupying territory along the course of the Lower Rhine.
       Another of nearly equal power, dominating the German side of
       the Upper Rhine and the headwaters of the Danube, is believed
       to have absorbed the tribes which had been known in the
       previous century as Boii, Marcomanni, Quadi, and others. The
       general name it received was that of the Alemanni. The
       Alemanni were in intimate association with the Suevi, and
       little is known of the distinction that existed between the
       two. They had now begun to make incursions across the Rhine,
       but were driven back in 238. Farther to the East, on the Lower
       Danube, a still more dangerous horde was now threatening the
       flanks of the Empire in its European domain. These were Goths,
       a people akin, without doubt, to the Swedes, Norsemen and
       Danes; but whence and when they made their way to the
       neighborhood of the Black Sea is a question in dispute. It was
       in the reign of Caracalla that the Romans became first aware
       of their presence in the country since known as the Ukraine. A
       few years later, when Alexander Severus was on the throne, they
       began to make incursions into Dacia. During the reign of
       Philip the Arabian (A. D. 244-249) they passed through Dacia,
       crossed the Danube, and invaded Mœsia (modern Bulgaria). In
       their next invasion (A. D. 251) they passed the Balkans,
       defeated the Romans in two terrible battles, the last of which
       cost the reigning Emperor, Decius, his life, and destroyed the
       city of Philippopolis, with 100,000 of its people. But when, a
       few years later, they attempted to take possession of even
       Thrace and Macedonia, they were crushingly defeated by the
       Emperor Claudius, whose successor Aurelian made peace by
       surrendering to them the whole province of Dacia (A. D. 270),
       where they settled, giving the Empire no disturbance for
       nearly a hundred years. Before this occurred, the Goths,
       having acquired the little kingdom of Bosporus (the modern
       Crimea) had begun to launch a piratical navy, which plundered
       the coast cities of Asia Minor and Greece, including Athens
       itself.

       On the Asiatic side of the Empire a new power, a revived and
       regenerated Persian monarchy, had risen out of the ruins of
       the Parthian kingdom, which it overthrew, and had begun
       without delay to contest the rule of Rome in the East.

    Diocletian.

       Briefly described, this was the state and situation of the
       Roman Empire when Diocletian, an able Illyrian soldier, came
       to the throne (A. D. 284). His accession marks a new epoch.
       "From this time," says Dean Merivale, "the old names of the
       Republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate itself,
       cease, even if still existing, to have any political
       significance." "The empire of Rome is henceforth an Oriental
       sovereignty." But the changes which Diocletian made in the
       organization and administration of the Empire, if they did
       weigh it down with a yet more crushing autocracy and
       contribute to its exhaustion in the end, did also, for the
       time, stop the wasting of its last energies, and gather them
       in hand for potent use. It can hardly be doubted that he
       lengthened the term of its career.

       Finding that one man in the exercise of supreme sovereignty,
       as absolute as he wished to make it, could not give sufficient
       care to every part of the vast realm, he first associated one
       Maximian with himself, on equal terms, as Emperor, or
       Augustus, and six years later (A. D. 292) he selected two
       others from among his generals and invested them with a
       subordinate sovereignty, giving them the title of "Cæsars."
       The arrangement appears to have worked satisfactorily while
       Diocletian remained at the head of his imperial college. But
       in 305 he wearied of the splendid burden that he bore, and
       abdicated the throne, unwillingly followed by his associate,
       Maximian. The two Cæsars, Constantius and Galerius, were then
       advanced to the imperial rank, and two new Cæsars were named.

       Jealousies, quarrels, and civil war were soon rending the
       Empire again. The details are unimportant.

    Constantine and Christianity.

       After nine years of struggle, two competitors emerged (A. D.
       314) alone, and divided the Empire between them. They were
       Constantine, son of Constantius, the Cæsar, and one Licinius.
       After nine years more, Licinius had disappeared, defeated and
       put to death, and Constantine (A. D. 323) shared the
       sovereignty of Rome with none. In its final stages, the
       contest had become, practically, a trial of strength between
       expiring Paganism in the Roman world and militant
       Christianity, now grown to great strength. The shrewd
       adventurer Constantine saw the political importance to which
       the Christian Church had risen, and identified himself with it
       by a "conversion" which has glorified his name most
       undeservedly. If to be a Christian with sincerity is to be a
       good man, then Constantine was none; for his life was full of
       evil deeds, after he professed the religion of Christ, even
       more than before. "He poured out the best and noblest blood in
       torrents, more especially of those nearly connected with
       himself. ... In a palace which he had made a desert, the
       murderer of his father-in-law, his brothers-in-law, his
       sister, his wife, his son, and his nephew, must have felt the
       stings of remorse, if hypocritical priests and courtier
       bishops had not lulled his conscience to rest" (Sismondi).

       But the so-called "conversion" of Constantine was an event of
       vast import in history. It changed immensely, and with
       suddenness, the position, the state, the influence, and very
       considerably the character and spirit of the Christian Church.
       The hierarchy of the Church became, almost at once, the
       greatest power in the Empire, next to the Emperor himself, and
       its political associations, which were dangerous from the
       beginning, soon proved nearly fatal to its spiritual
       integrity. "Both the purity and the freedom of the Church were
       in danger of being lost. State and Church were beginning an
       amalgamation fraught with peril. The State was becoming a kind
       of Church, and the Church a kind of State. The Emperor
       preached and summoned councils, called himself, though half in
       jest, a 'bishop,' and the bishops had become State officials,
       who, like the high dignitaries of the Empire, travelled by the
       imperial courier-service, and frequented the ante-chambers of
       the palaces in Constantinople." "The Emperor determined what
       doctrines were to prevail in the Church, and banished Arius
       to-day and Athanasius to-morrow." "The Church was surfeited
       with property and privileges. The Emperor, a poor financier,
       impoverished the Empire to enrich" it (Uhlhorn). That
       Christianity had shared the gain of the Christian Church from
       these great changes, is very questionable.

    {1008}

       By another event of his reign, Constantine marked it in
       history with lasting effect. He rebuilt with magnificence the
       Greek city of Byzantium on the Bosphorus, transferred to it
       his imperial residence, and raised it to a nominal equality
       with Rome, but to official find practical superiority, as the
       capital of the Empire. The old Rome dwindled in rank and
       prestige from that day; the new Rome--the city of Constantine,
       or Constantinople--rose to the supreme place in the eyes and
       the imaginations of men.

    Julian and the Pagan Revival.

       That Constantine added the abilities of a statesman to the
       unscrupulous cleverness of an adventurer is not to be
       disputed; but he failed to give proof of this when he divided
       the Empire between his three sons at his death (A. D. 337).
       The inevitable civil wars ensued, until, after sixteen years,
       one survivor gathered the whole realm under his scepter again.
       He (Constantius), who debased and disgraced the Church more
       than his father had done, was succeeded (A. D. 361) by his
       cousin, Julian, an honest, thoughtful, strong man, who, not
       unnaturally, preferred the old pagan Greek philosophy to the
       kind of Christianity which he had seen flourishing at the
       Byzantine court. He publicly restored the worship of the
       ancient gods of Greece and Rome; he excluded Christians from
       the schools, and bestowed his favor on those who scorned the
       Church; but he entered on no violent persecution. His reign
       was brief, lasting only two years. He perished in a hapless
       expedition against the Persians, by whom the Empire was now
       almost incessantly harassed.

    Valentinian and Valens.

       His successor, Jovian, whom the army elected, died in seven
       months; but Valentinian, another soldier, raised by his
       comrades to the throne, reigned vigorously for eleven years.
       He associated his brother, Valens, with him in the
       sovereignty, assigning the latter to the East, while he took
       the administration of the West.

       Until the death of Valentinian, in 375, the northern frontiers
       of the Empire, along the Rhine and the Danube, were well
       defended. Julian had commanded in Gaul, with Paris for his
       capital, six years before he became Emperor, and had organized
       its defence most effectively. Valentinian maintained the line
       with success against the Alemanni; while his lieutenant,
       Theodosius, delivered Roman Britain from the ruinous attacks
       of the Scots and Picts of its northern region. On the Danube,
       there continued to be peace with the Goths, who held back all
       other barbarians from that northeastern border.

    The Goths in the Empire.

       But the death of Valentinian was the beginning of fatal
       calamities. His brother, Valens, had none of his capability or
       his vigor, and was unequal to such a crisis as now occurred.
       The terrible nation of the Huns had entered Europe from the
       Asiatic steppes, and the Western Goths, or Visigoths, fled
       before them. These fugitives begged to be permitted to cross
       the Danube and settle on vacant lands in Mœsia and Thrace.
       Valens consented, and the whole Visigothic nation, 200,000
       warriors, with their women and children, passed the river (A.
       D. 376). It is possible that they might, by fair treatment,
       have been converted into loyal citizens, and useful defenders
       of the land. But the corrupt officials of the court took
       advantage of their dependent state, and wrung extortionate
       prices from them for disgusting food, until they rose in
       desperation and wasted Thrace with fire and sword. Fresh
       bodies of Ostrogoths (Eastern Goths) and other barbarians came
       over to join them (A. D. 378); the Roman armies were beaten in
       two great battles, and Valens, the Emperor, was slain. The
       victorious Goths swept on to the very walls of Constantinople,
       which they could not surmount, and the whole open country,
       from the Black Sea to the Adriatic, was ravaged by them at
       will.

    Theodosius.

       In the meantime, the western division of the Empire had
       passed, on the death of Valentinian, under the nominal rule of
       his two young sons, Gratian, aged sixteen, and Valentinian
       II., aged four. Gratian had made an attempt to bring help to
       his uncle Valens; but the latter fought his fatal battle while
       the boy emperor was on the way, and the latter, upon hearing
       of it, turned back. Then Gratian performed his one great act.
       He sought a colleague, and called to the throne the most
       promising young soldier of the day. This was Theodosius, whose
       father, Count Theodosius, the deliverer of Britain, had been
       put to death by Valens, on some jealous accusation, only three
       years before. The new Emperor took the East for his realm, having
       Gratian and Valentinian II. for colleagues in the West. He
       speedily checked the ravages of the Goths and restored the
       confidence of the Roman soldiers. Then he brought diplomacy to
       bear upon the dangerous situation, and succeeded in arranging
       a peace with the Gothic chieftains, which enlisted them in the
       imperial service with forty thousand of their men. But they
       retained their distinctive organization, under their own
       chiefs, and were called "fœderati," or allies. This concession
       of a semi-independence to so great a body of armed barbarians
       in the heart of the Empire was a fatal mistake, as was proved
       before many years.

       For the time being it secured peace, and gave Theodosius
       opportunity to attend to other things. The controversies of
       the Church were among the subjects of his consideration, and
       by taking the side of the Athanasians, whom his predecessor
       had persecuted, he gave a final victory to Trinitarianism, in
       the Roman world. His reign was signalized, moreover, by the
       formal, official abolition of paganism at Rome.

       The weak but amiable Gratian, reigning at Paris, lost his
       throne and his life, in 383, as the consequence of a revolt
       which began in Britain and spread to Gaul. The successful
       rebel and usurper, Maximus, seemed so strong that Theodosius
       made terms with him, and acknowledged his sovereignty for a
       number of years. But, not content with a dominion which
       embraced Britain, Gaul and Spain, Maximus sought, after a
       time, to add Italy, where the youth, Valentinian II., was
       still enthroned (at Milan, not Rome), under the tutelage of
       his mother. Valentinian fled to Theodosius; the Eastern
       Emperor adopted his cause, and restored him to his throne,
       defeating the usurper and putting him to death (A. D. 388).
       Four years later Valentinian II. died; another usurper arose,
       and again Theodosius (A. D. 394) recovered the throne.

    {1009}

    Final Division of the Empire.

       Theodosius was now alone in the sovereignty. The Empire was
       once more, and for the last time, in its full extent, united
       under a single lord. It remained so for but a few months. At
       the beginning of the year 395, Theodosius died, and his two
       weak sons, Arcadius and Honorius, divided the perishing Empire
       between them, only to augment, in its more venerable seat, the
       distress of the impending fall.

       Arcadius, at the age of eighteen, took the government of the
       East; Hononus, a child of eleven, gave his name to the
       administration of the West. Each emperor was under the
       guardianship of a minister chosen by Theodosius before he
       died. Rufinus, who held authority at Constantinople, was
       worthless in all ways; Stilicho, who held the reins at Milan,
       was a Vandal by birth, a soldier and a statesman of vigorous
       powers.

    Decay of the Western Empire.

       The West seemed more fortunate than the East, in this
       division; yet the evil days now fast coming near fell
       crushingly on the older Rome, while the New Rome lived through
       them, and endured for a thousand years. No doubt the Empire
       had weakened more on its elder side; had suffered more
       exhaustion of vital powers. It had little organic vitality now
       left in it. If no swarms of barbaric invaders had been waiting
       and watching at its doors, and pressing upon it from every
       point with increasing fierceness, it seems probable that it
       would have gone to pieces ere long through mere decay. And if,
       on the other hand, it could have kept the vigorous life of its
       best republican days, it might have defied Teuton and Slav
       forever. But all the diseases, political and social, which the
       Republic engendered in itself, had been steadily consuming the
       state, with their virulence even increased, since it took on the
       imperial constitution. All that imperialism did was to gather
       waning energies in hand, and make the most of them for
       external use. It stopped no decay. The industrial palsy,
       induced by an ever-widening system of slave-labor, continued
       to spread. Production decreased; the sum of wealth shrunk in
       the hands of each succeeding generation; and yet the great
       fortunes and great estates grew bigger from age to age. The
       gulf between rich and poor opened deeper and wider, and the
       bridges once built across it by middle-class thrift were
       fallen down. The burden of imperial government had become an
       unendurable weight; the provincial municipalities, which had
       once been healthy centers of a local political life, were
       strangled by the nets of taxation flung over them. Men sought
       refuge even in death from the magistracies which made them
       responsible to the imperial treasury for revenues which they
       could not collect. Population dwindled, year by year.
       Recruiting from the body of citizens for the common needs of
       the army became more impossible. The state was fully
       dependent, at last, on barbaric mercenaries of one tribe for
       its defence against barbaric invaders of another; and it was
       no longer able, as of old, to impress its savage servitors
       with awe of its majesty and its name.

    Stilicho and Alaric.

       Stilicho, for a time, stoutly breasted the rising flood of
       disaster. He checked the Picts and Scots of Northern Britain,
       and the Alemanni and their allies on the frontiers of Gaul.
       But now there arose again the more dreadful barbarian host
       which had footing in the Empire itself, and which Theodosius
       had taken into pay. The Visigoths elected a king (A. D. 395),
       and were persuaded with ease to carve a kingdom for him out of
       the domain which seemed waiting to be snatched from one or
       both of the feeble monarchs, who sat in mockery of state at
       Constantinople and Milan. Alaric, the new Gothic king, moved
       first against the capital on the Bosphorus; but Rufinus
       persuaded him to pass on into Greece, where he went pillaging
       and destroying for a year. Stilicho, the one manly defender of
       the Empire, came over from Italy with an army to oppose him;
       but he was stopped on the eve of battle by orders from the
       Eastern Court, which sent him back, as an officious meddler.
       This act of mischief and malice was the last that Rufinus
       could do. He was murdered, soon afterwards, and Arcadius,
       being free from his influence, then called upon Stilicho for
       help. The latter came once more to deliver Greece, and did so
       with success. But Alaric, though expelled from the peninsula,
       was neither crushed nor disarmed, and the Eastern Court had
       still to make terms with him. It did so for the moment by
       conferring on him the government of that part of Illyricum
       which the Servia and Bosnia of the present day coincide with,
       very nearly. He rested there in peace for four years, and then
       (A. D. 400) he called his people to arms again, and led the whole
       nation, men, women and children, into Italy. The Emperor,
       Honorius, fled from Milan to Ravenna, which, being a safe
       shelter behind marshes and streams, became the seat of the
       court for years thereafter. Stilicho, stripping Britain and
       Gaul of troops, gathered forces with which, at Eastertide in
       the year 402, and again in the following year, he defeated the
       Goths, and forced them to retreat.

       He had scarcely rested from these exertions, when the valiant
       Stilicho was called upon to confront a more savage leader,
       Radagaisus by name, who came from beyond the lines (A. D.
       405), with a vast swarm of mixed warriors from many tribes
       pouring after him across the Alps. Again Stilicho, by superior
       skill, worsted the invaders, entrapping them in the mountains
       near Fiesole (modern Florence), and starving them there till
       they yielded themselves to slavery and their chieftain to
       death.

       This was the last great service to the dying Roman state which
       Stilicho was permitted to do. Undermined by the jealousies of
       the cowardly court at Ravenna, he seems to have lost suddenly
       the power by which he held himself so high. He was accused of
       treasonable designs and was seized and instantly executed, by
       the Emperor's command.

    {1010}

    Alaric and his Goths in Rome.

       Stilicho dead, there was no one in Italy for Alaric to fear,
       and he promptly returned across the Alps, with the nation of
       the Visigoths behind him. There was no resistance to his
       march, and he advanced straight upon Rome. He did not assail
       the walls, but sat down before the gates (A. D. 408), until
       the starving citizens paid him a great ransom in silver and
       gold and precious spices and silken robes. With this booty he
       retired for the winter into Tuscany, where his army was
       swelled by thousands of fugitive barbarian slaves, and by
       reinforcements of Goths and Huns. From his camp he opened
       negotiations with Honorius, demanding the government of
       Dalmatia, Venetia and Noricum, with certain subsidies of money
       and corn. The contemptible court, skulking at Ravenna, could
       neither make war nor make concessions, and it soon exhausted
       the patience of the barbarian by its puerilities. He marched
       again to Rome (A. D. 409), seized the port of Ostia, with its
       supplies of grain, and forced the helpless capital to join him
       in proclaiming a rival emperor. The prefect of the city, one
       Attalus, accepted the purple at his hands, and played the
       puppet for a few months in imperial robes. But the scheme
       proved unprofitable, Attalus was deposed, and negotiations
       were reopened with Honorius. Their only result was a fresh
       provocation which sent Alaric once more against Rome, and this
       time with wrath and vengeance in his heart. Then the great,
       august capital of the world was entered, through treachery or
       by surprise, on the night of the 24th of August, 410, and
       suffered all that the lust, the ferocity and the greed of a
       barbarous army let loose could inflict on an unresisting city.
       It was her first experience of that supreme catastrophe of
       war, since Brennus and the Gauls came in; but it was not to be
       the last.

       From the sack of Rome, Alaric moved southward, intending to
       conquer Sicily; but a sudden illness brought his career to an
       end.

    The Barbarians Swarming in.

       The Empire was now like a dying quarry, pulled down by fierce
       hunting packs and torn on every side. The Goths were at its
       throat; the tribes of Germany--Sueves, Vandals, Burgundians,
       Alans--had leaped the Rhine (A. D. 406) and swarmed upon its
       flanks, throughout Gaul and Spain. The inrush began after
       Stilicho, to defend Italy against Alaric and Radagaisus, had
       stripped the frontiers of troops. Sueves, Vandals, and Alans
       passed slowly through the provinces, devouring their wealth
       and making havoc of their civilization as they went. After
       three years, they had reached and surmounted the Pyrenees, and
       were spreading the same destruction through Spain.

       The confederated tribes of the Franks had already been
       admitted as allies into northwestern Gaul, and were settled
       there in peace. At first, they stood faithful to the Roman
       alliance, and valiantly resisted the new invasion; but its
       numbers overpowered them, and their fidelity gave way when
       they saw the pillage of the doomed provinces going on. They
       presently joined the barbarous mob, and with an energy which
       secured the lion's share of plunder and domain.

       The Burgundians did not follow the Vandals and Sueves to the
       southwest, but took possession of the left bank of the middle
       Rhine, whence they gradually spread into western Switzerland
       and Savoy, and down the valleys of the Rhone and Saone,
       establishing in time an important kingdom, to which they gave
       their name.

       No help from Ravenna or Rome came to the perishing provincials
       of Gaul in the extremity of their distress; but a pretender
       arose in Britain, who assumed the imperial title and promised
       deliverance. He crossed over to Gaul in 407 and was welcomed
       with eagerness, both there and in Spain, to which he advanced.
       He gained some success, partly by enlisting and partly by
       resisting the invaders; but his career was brief. Other
       pretenders appeared in various provinces, of the West; but the
       anarchy of the time was too great for any authority,
       legitimate or revolutionary, to establish itself.

    The Visigoths in Gaul.

       And, now, into the tempting country of the afflicted Gauls,
       already crowded with rapacious freebooters, the Visigoths made
       their way. Their new king, Ataulph, or Adolphus, who succeeded
       Alaric, passed into Gaul, but not commissioned, as sometimes
       stated, to restore the imperial sovereignty there. He moved
       with his nation, as Alaric had moved, and Italy, by his
       departure, was relieved; but Narbonne, Toulouse, Bordeaux, and
       the Aquitainian country at large, was soon subject to his
       command (A. D. 412-419). He passed the Pyrenees and entered
       Spain, where an assassin took his life. His successor, Wallia,
       drove the Sueves into the mountains and the Vandals into the
       South; but did not take possession of the country until a
       later time. The Visigoths, returning to Aquitaine, found
       there, at last, the kingdom which Alaric set out from the
       Danube to seek, and they were established in it with the Roman
       Emperor's consent. It was known as the kingdom of Gothia, or
       Septimania, but is more commonly called, from its capital, the
       kingdom of Toulouse.

    The Eastern Empire.

       Affairs in the Eastern Empire had never arrived at so
       desperate a state as in the West. With the departure of
       Alaric, it had been relieved from its most dangerous immediate
       foe. There had been tumults, disorders, assassinations, court
       conspiracies, fierce religious strifes, and every evidence of
       a government with no settled authority and no title to
       respect; but yet the Empire stood and was not yet seriously
       shaken. In 408 Arcadius died. His death was no loss, though he
       left an infant son to take his place; for he also left a
       daughter, Pulcheria, who proved to be a woman of rare virtue
       and talents, and who reigned in her brother's name.

    Aetius and the Huns.

       The imbecile Honorius, with whose name the failing sovereignty
       of Rome had been so disastrously linked for eight and twenty
       rears, died in 423. An infant nephew was his heir, and
       Placidia, the mother, ruled at Ravenna for a fourth of a
       century, in the name of her child. Her reign was far stronger
       than her wretched brother's had been, because she gave loyal
       support to a valiant and able man, who stood at her side.
       Aetius, her minister, did all, perhaps, that man could do to
       hold some parts of Gaul, and to play barbarian against
       barbarian--Hun against Goth and Frank--in skilful diplomacy
       and courageous war. But nothing that he won was any lasting
       gain. In his youth, Aetius had been a hostage in the camps of
       both the Goths and the Huns, and had made acquaintances among
       the chieftains of both which served his policy many times.
    {1011}
       He had employed the terrible Huns in the early years of his
       ministry, and perhaps they had learned too much of the
       weakness of the Roman State. These most fearful of all the
       barbarian peoples then surging in Europe had been settled, for
       some years, in the region since called Hungary, under Attila,
       their most formidable king. He terrorized all the surrounding
       lands and exercised a lordship from the Caspian to the Baltic
       and the Rhine. The imperial court at the East stooped to pay
       him annual tribute for abstaining from the invasion of its
       domain. But in 450, when the regent Pulcheria became Empress
       of the East, by her brother's death, and married a brave old
       soldier, Marcian, in order to give him the governing power, a
       new tone was heard in the voice from Constantinople which
       answered Attila's demands.

    Defeat of Attila.

       The Hun then appears to have seen that the sinking Empire of
       the West offered a more certain victim to his terrors and his
       arms, and he turned them to that side. First forming an
       alliance with the Vandals (who had crossed from Spain to
       Africa in 429, had ravaged and subdued the Roman provinces,
       and had established a kingdom on the Carthaginian ground, with
       a naval power in the Carthaginian Sea), Attila led his huge
       army into suffering Gaul. There were Ostrogoths, and warriors
       from many German tribes, as well as Huns, in the terrific
       host; for Attila's arm stretched far, and his subjects were
       forced to follow when he led. His coming into Gaul affrighted
       Romans and barbarians alike, and united them in a common
       defense. Aetius formed an alliance with Theodoric, the
       Visigothic king, and their forces were joined by Burgundians
       and Franks. They met Attila near Chalons, and there, on a day
       in June, A. D. 451, upon the Catalaunian fields, was fought a
       battle that is always counted among the few which gave shape
       to all subsequent history. The Huns were beaten back, and
       Europe was saved from the hopeless night that must have
       followed a Tartar conquest in that age.

    Attila threatening Rome.

       Attila retreated to Germany, foiled but not daunted. The next
       year (A. D. 452) he invaded Italy and laid siege to Aquileia,
       an important city which stood in his path. It resisted for
       three months and was then utterly destroyed. The few
       inhabitants who escaped, with fugitives from neighboring
       ports, found a refuge in some islands of the Adriatic coast,
       and formed there a sheltered settlement which grew into the
       great city and republican state of Venice. Aetius made
       strenuous exertions to gather forces for another battle with
       the Huns; but the resources of the Empire had sunk very low.
       While he labored to collect troops, the effect of a pacific
       embassy was despairingly tried, and it went forth to the camp
       of Attila, led by the venerable bishop of Rome--the first
       powerful Pope--Leo I., called the Great. The impression which
       Leo made on the Hunnish king, by his venerable presence, and
       by the persuasiveness of his words, appears to have been
       extraordinary. At all events, Attila consented to postpone his
       designs on Rome; though he demanded and received promise of an
       annual tribute. The next winter he died, and Rome was troubled
       by him no more.

    Rome Sacked by the Vandals.

       But another enemy came, who rivalled Attila in ruthlessness,
       and who gave a name to barbarity which it has kept to this
       day. The Vandal king, Genseric, who now swept the
       Mediterranean with a piratical fleet, made his appearance in
       the Tiber (A. D. 455) and found the Roman capital powerless to
       resist his attack. The venerable Pope Leo again interceded for
       the city, and obtained a promise that captives should not be
       tortured nor buildings burned,--which was the utmost stretch
       of mercy that the Vandal could afford. Once more, then, was
       Rome given up, for fourteen days and nights, to pillage and
       the horrors of barbaric debauch. "Whatever had survived the
       former sack,--whatever the luxury of the Roman Patriciate,
       during the intervening forty-five years, had accumulated in
       reparation of their loss,--the treasures of the imperial
       palace, the gold and silver vessels employed in the churches,
       the statues of pagan divinities and men of Roman renown, the
       gilded roof of the temple of Capitolian Jove, the plate and
       ornaments of private individuals, were leisurely conveyed to
       the Vandal fleet and shipped off to Africa" (Sheppard).

       The Vandal invasion had been preceded, in the same year, by a
       palace revolution which brought the dynasty of Theodosius to
       an end. Placidia was dead, and her unworthy son, Valentinian
       III., provoked assassination by dishonoring the wife of a
       wealthy senator, Maximus, who mounted to his place. Maximus
       was slain by a mob at Rome, just before the Vandals entered
       the city. The Empire was now without a head, and the throne
       without an heir. In former times, the Senate or the army would
       have filled the vacant imperial seat; now, it was a barbarian
       monarch, Theodoric, the Visigothic king, who made choice of a
       successor to the Cæsars. He named a Gallic noble, Avitus by
       name, who had won his esteem, and the nomination was confirmed
       by Marcian, Emperor of the East.

    Ricimer and Majorian.

       But the influence of Theodoric in Roman affairs was soon
       rivalled by that of Count Ricimer, another Goth, or Sueve, who
       held high command in the imperial army, and who resented the
       elevation of Avitus. The latter was deposed, after reigning a
       single year; and Majorian, a soldier of really noble and
       heroic character, was promoted to the throne. He was too great
       and too sincere a man to be Ricimer's tool, and the same hand
       which raised him threw him down, after he had reigned four
       years (A. D. 457-461). He was in the midst of a powerful
       undertaking against the Vandals when he perished. Majorian was
       the last Emperor in the Western line who deserves to be named.

    The last Emperors in the West.

       Ricimer ruled Italy, with the rigor of a despot, under the
       modest title of Patrician, until 472. His death was soon
       followed by the rise of another general of the barbarian
       troops, Orestes, to like autocracy, and he, in turn, gave way
       to a third, Odoacer, who slew him and took his place. The
       creatures, half a dozen in number, who put on and put off the
       purple robe, at the command of these adventurers, who played
       with the majesty of Rome, need no further mention.
    {1012}
       The last of them was Romulus Augustulus, son of Orestes, who
       escaped his father's fate by formally resigning the throne. He
       was the last Roman Emperor in the West, until Charlemagne
       revived the title, three centuries and a quarter later. "The
       succession of the Western Emperors came to an end, and the way
       in which it came to an end marks the way in which the names
       and titles of Rome were kept on, while all power was passing
       into the hands of the barbarians. The Roman Senate voted that
       one Emperor was enough, and that the Eastern Emperor, Zeno,
       should reign over the whole Empire. But at the same time Zeno
       was made to entrust the government of Italy, with the title of
       Patrician, to Odoacer. ... Thus the Roman Empire went on at
       Constantinople, or New Rome, while Italy and the Old Rome
       itself passed into the power of the Barbarians. Still the
       Roman laws and names went on, and we may be sure that any man
       in Italy would have been much surprised if he had been told
       that the Roman Empire had come to an end" (Freeman).

    Odoacer.

       The government of Odoacer, who ruled with the authority of a
       king, though pretending to kingship only in his own nation,
       was firm and strong. Italy was better protected from its
       lawless neighbors than it had been for nearly a century
       before. But nothing could arrest the decay of its
       population--the blight that had fallen upon its prosperity.
       Nor could that turbulent age afford any term of peace that
       would be long enough for even the beginning of the cure of
       such maladies and such wounds as had brought Italy low. For
       fourteen years Odoacer ruled; and then he was overthrown by a
       new kingdom-seeking barbarian, who came, like Alaric, out of
       the Gothic swarm.

    Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

       The Ostrogoths had now escaped, since Attila died, from the
       yoke of the Huns, and were prepared, under an able and
       ambitious young king, Theodoric, who had been reared as a
       hostage at Constantinople, to imitate the career of their
       cousins, the Visigoths. Having troubled the Eastern Court
       until it stood in fear of him, Theodoric asked for a
       commission to overthrow Odoacer, in Italy, and received it
       from the Emperor's hand. Thus empowered by one still
       recognized as lawful lord on both sides of the Adriatic,
       Theodoric crossed the Julian Alps (A. D. 489) with the
       families of his nation and their household goods. Three
       battles made him master of the peninsula and decided the fate
       of his rival. Odoacer held out in Ravenna for two years and a
       half, and surrendered on a promise of equal sovereignty with
       the Ostrogothic king. But Theodoric did not scruple to kill
       him with his own sword, at the first opportunity which came.
       In that act, the native savagery in him broke loose; but
       through most of his life he kept his passions decently tamed,
       and acted the barbarian less frequently than the civilized
       statesman and king. He gave Italy peace, security, and
       substantial justice for thirty years. With little war, he
       extended his sovereignty over Illyrium, Pannonia, Noricum,
       Rhætia and Provence, in south-eastern Gaul. If the extensive
       kingdom which he formed--with more enlightenment than any
       other among those who divided the heritage of Rome--could have
       endured, the parts of Europe which it covered might have fared
       better in after times than they did. "Italy might have been
       spared six hundred years of gloom and degradation." But
       powerful influences were against it from the first, and they
       were influences which proceeded mischievously from the
       Christian Church. Had the Goths been pagans, the Church might
       have turned a kindly face to them, and wooed them to
       conversion as she wooed the Franks. But they were Christians,
       of a heretic stamp, and the orthodox Christianity of Rome held
       them in deadly loathing. While still beyond the Danube, they had
       received the faith from an Arian apostle, at the time of the
       great conflict of Athanasius against Arius, and were stubborn
       in the rejection of Trinitarian dogma. Hence the Church in the
       West was never reconciled to the monarchy of Theodoric in
       Italy, nor to that of the Visigoths at Toulouse; and its
       hostility was the ultimate cause of the failure of both.

    The Empire in the East.

       To understand the events which immediately caused the fall of
       the Ostrogothic power, we must turn back for a moment to the
       Empire in the East. Marcian, whom Pulcheria, the wise daughter
       of Arcadius, made Emperor by marrying him, died in 457, and
       Aspar, the barbarian who commanded the mercenaries, selected
       his successor. He chose his own steward, one Leo, who proved
       to have more independence than his patron expected, and who
       succeeded in destroying the latter. After Leo I. came (474)
       his infant grandson; Leo II., whose father, an Isaurian
       chieftain, took his place when he died, within the year. The
       Isaurian assumed a Greek name, Zeno, and occupied the
       throne--with one interval of flight and exile for twenty
       months--during seven years. When he died, his widow gave her
       hand in marriage to an excellent officer of the palace,
       Anastasius by name, and he was sovereign of the Empire for
       twenty-seven years.

    The reign of Justinian.

       After Anastasius, came Justin I., born a peasant in Dacia
       (modern Roumania), but advanced as a soldier to the command of
       the imperial guards, and thence to the throne. He had already
       adopted and educated his nephew, Justinian, and before dying,
       in 527, he invested him with sovereignty as a colleague. The
       reign of Justinian was the most remarkable in the whole
       history of the Empire in the East. Without breadth of
       understanding, or notable talents of any kind: without
       courage; without the least nobility of character; without even
       the virtue of fidelity to his ministers and friends,--this
       remarkable monarch contrived to be splendidly served by an
       extraordinary generation of great soldiers, great jurists,
       great statesmen, who gave a brilliance to his reign that was
       never rivalled while the Byzantine seat of Empire stood. It
       owes, in modern esteem, its greatest fame to the noble
       collection of Roman laws which was made, in the Pandects and
       the Code, under the direction of the wise and learned
       Tribonian. Transiently it was glorified by conquests that bore
       a likeness to the march of the resistless legions of ancient
       Rome; and the laurelled names of Belisarius and Narses claimed
       a place on the columns of victory with the names of Cæsar and
       Pompeius.
    {1013}
       But the splendors of the reign were much more than offset by
       miseries and calamities of the darkest kind. "The reign of
       Justinian, from its length, its glory and its disasters, may
       be compared to the reign of Louis XIV., which exceeded it in
       length, and equalled it in glory and disaster. ... He extended
       the limits of his empire; but he was unable to defend the
       territory he had received from his predecessors. Everyone of
       the thirty-eight years of his reign was marked by an invasion
       of the barbarians; and it has been said that, reckoning those
       who fell by the sword, who perished from want, or were led
       into captivity, each invasion cost 200,000 subjects to the
       empire. Calamities which human prudence is unable to resist
       seemed to combine against the Romans, as if to compel them to
       expiate their ancient glory. ... So that the very period which
       gave birth to so many monuments of greatness, may be looked
       back upon with horror, as that of the widest desolation and
       the most terrific mortality" (Sismondi). The first and longest
       of the wars of Justinian was the Persian war, which he inherited
       from his predecessors, and which scarcely ceased while the
       Persian monarchy endured. It was in these Asiatic campaigns
       that Belisarius began his career. But his first great
       achievement was the overthrow and extinction of the Vandal
       power in Africa, and the restoration of Roman authority (the
       empire of the new Rome) in the old Carthaginian province (A.
       D. 533-534). He accomplished this with a force of but 10,000
       foot and 5,000 horse, and was hastily recalled by his jealous
       lord on the instant of his success.

    Conquests of Belisarius in Italy.

       But the ambition of Justinian was whetted by this marvellous
       conquest, and he promptly projected an expedition against the
       kingdom of the Eastern Goths. The death of Theodoric had
       occurred in 526. His successor was a child of ten years, his
       grandson, whose mother exercised the regency. Amalsuentha, the
       queen-regent, was a woman of highly cultivated mind, and she
       offended her subjects by too marked a Romanization of her
       ideas. Her son died in his eighteenth year, and she associated
       with herself on the throne the next heir to it, a worthless
       nephew of Theodoric, who was able, in a few weeks, to strip
       all her power from her and consign her to a distant prison,
       where she was soon put to death (A. D. 535). She had
       previously opened negotiations with Justinian for the
       restoration of his supremacy in Italy, and the ambitious
       Emperor assumed with eagerness a right to avenge her
       deposition and death. The fate of Amalsuentha was his excuse,
       the discontent of Roman orthodoxy with the rule of the heretic
       Goths was his encouragement, to send an army into Italy with
       Belisarius at its head. First taking possession of Sicily,
       Belisarius landed in Italy in 536, took Naples and advanced on
       Rome. An able soldier, Vitiges, had been raised to the Gothic
       throne, and he evacuated Rome in December; but he returned the
       following March and laid siege to the ancient capital, which
       Belisarius had occupied with a moderate force. It was defended
       against him for an entire year, and the strength of the Gothic
       nation was consumed on the outer side of the walls, while the
       inhabitants within were wasted by famine and disease. The
       Goths invoked the aid of the Franks in Gaul, and those fierce
       warriors, crossing the Alps (A. D. 538), assailed both Goths
       and Greeks, with indiscriminate hostility, destroyed Milan and
       Genoa, and mostly perished of hunger themselves before they
       retreated from the wasted Cisalpine country.

       Released from Rome, Belisarius advanced in his turn against
       Ravenna, and took the Gothic capital, making Vitiges a
       prisoner (A. D. 539). His reward for these successes was a
       recall from command. The jealous Emperor could not afford his
       generals too much glory at a single winning. As a consequence
       of his folly, the Goths, under a new king, Totila, were
       allowed to recover so much ground in the next four years that,
       when, in 544, Belisarius was sent back, almost without an
       army, the work of conquest had to be done anew. Rome was still
       being held against Totila, who besieged it, and the great
       general went by sea to its relief. He forced the passage of
       the Tiber, but failed through the misconduct of the commander
       in the city to accomplish an entry, and once more the great
       capital was entered and yielded to angry Goths (A. D. 546).
       They spared the lives of the few people they found, and the
       chastity of the women; but they plundered without restraint.

    Rome a Solitude for Forty Days.

       Totila commanded the total destruction of the city; but his
       ruthless hand was stayed by the remonstrances of Belisarius.
       After demolishing a third of the walls, he withdrew towards
       the South, dragging the few inhabitants with him, and, during
       forty days, Rome is said to have been an unpeopled solitude.
       The scene which this offers to the imagination comes near to
       being the most impressive in history. At the end of that
       period it was entered by Belisarius, who hastily repaired the
       walls, collected his forces, and was prepared to defend
       himself when Totila came back by rapid marches from Apulia.
       The Goths made three assaults and were bloodily repulsed.

    End of the Ostrogothic Kingdom.

       But again Belisarius was recalled by a mean and jealous court,
       and again the Gothic cause was reanimated and restored. Rome
       was taken again from its feeble garrison (A. D. 549), and this
       time it was treated with respect. Most of Italy and Sicily,
       with Corsica and Sardinia, were subdued by Totila's arms, and
       that king, now successful, appealed to Justinian for peace. It
       was refused, and in 552 a vigorous prosecution of the war
       resumed, under a new commander--the remarkable eunuch Narses,
       who proved himself to be one of the great masters of war.
       Totila was defeated and slain in the first battle of the
       campaign; Rome was again beleaguered and taken; and the last
       blow needed to extinguish the Gothic kingdom in Italy was
       given the following year (A. D. 553), when Totila's successor,
       Teia, ended his life on another disastrous field of battle.

    The Exarchate.

       Italy was restored for the moment to the Empire, and was
       placed under the government of an imperial viceroy, called
       Exarch, which high office the valiant Narses was the first to
       fill. His successors, known in history as the Exarchs of
       Ravenna, resided in that capital for a long period, while the
       arm of their authority was steadily shortened by the conquests
       of new invaders, whose story is yet to be told.

    {1014}

    Events in the West.

       Leaving Italy and Rome, once more in the imperial fold, but
       mere provinces now of a distant and alienated sovereignty, it
       is necessary to turn back to the West, and glance over the
       regions in which, when we looked at them last, the
       institutions of Roman government and society were being
       dissolved and broken up by flood upon flood of barbaric
       invasion from the Teutonic North.

    Teutonic Conquest of Britain.

       If we begin at the farthest West which the Roman dominion
       reached, we shall find that the island of Britain was
       abandoned, practically, by the imperial government earlier
       than the year 410, when Rome was sinking under the blows of
       Alaric. From that time the inhabitants were left to their own
       government and their own defense. To the inroads of the savage
       Caledonian Picts and Irish Scots, there were added, now, the
       coast ravages of a swarm of ruthless pirates, which the tribes
       of northwestern Europe had begun to launch upon the German or
       North Sea. The most cruel and terrible of these ocean
       freebooters were the Saxons, of the Elbe, and they gave their
       name for a time to the whole. Their destructive raids upon the
       coasts of Britain and Gaul had commenced more than a century
       before the Romans withdrew their legions, and that part of the
       British coast most exposed to their ravages was known as the
       Saxon Shore. For about thirty years after the Roman and
       Romanized inhabitants of Britain had been left to defend
       themselves, they held their ground with good courage, as
       appears; but the incessant attacks of the Picts wore out, at
       last, their confidence in themselves, and they were fatally
       led to seek help from their other enemies, who scourged them
       from the sea. Their invitation was given, not to the Saxons,
       but to a band of Jutes--warriors from that Danish peninsula in
       which they have left their name. The Jutes landed at
       Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet (A. D. 449 or 450), with two
       chiefs, Hengest and Horsa, at their head. They came as allies,
       and fought by the side of the Britons against the Picts with
       excellent success. Then came quarrels, and presently, in 455,
       the arms of Hengest and Horsa were turned against their
       employers. Ten years later the Jutes had secure possession of
       the part of Britain now called Kent, and Hengest was their
       king, Horsa having fallen in the war. This was the beginning
       of the transformation of Roman-Celtic Britain into the
       Teutonic England of later history. The success of the Jutes
       drew their cousins and piratical comrades, the Saxons and the
       Angles, to seek kingdoms in the same rich island. The Saxons
       came first, landing near Selsey, in 477, and taking gradual
       possession of a district which became known as the kingdom of
       the South Saxons, or Sussex. The next invasion was by Saxons
       under Cerdic, and Jutes, who joined to form the kingdom of the
       West Saxons, or Wessex, covering about the territory of modern
       Hampshire. So much of their conquest was complete by the year
       519. At about the same time, other colonies were established
       and gave their names, as East Saxons and Middle Saxons, to the
       Essex and Middlesex of modern English geography. A third tribe
       from the German shore, the Angles, now came (A. D. 547) to
       take their part in the conquest of the island, and these laid
       their hands upon kingdoms in the East and North of England, so
       much larger than the modest Jute and Saxon realms in the south
       that their name fixed itself, at last, upon the whole country,
       when it lost the name of Britain. Northumberland, which
       stretched from the Humber to the Firth of Forth, Mercia, which
       covered at one time the whole middle region of England, and
       East Anglia, which became divided into the two English
       counties of Norfolk (North-folk) and Suffolk (South-folk),
       were the three great kingdoms of the Angles.

    The Making of England.

       Before the end of the sixth century, almost the whole of
       modern England, and part of Scotland, on its eastern side, as
       far to the north as Edinburgh, was in possession of the German
       invaders. They had not merely subdued the former
       possessors--Britons and Roman provincials (if Romans remained
       in the island after their domination ceased),--but, in the
       judgment of the best investigators of the subject, they had
       practically swept them from all the parts of the island in
       which their own settlements were established. That is to say,
       the prior population was either exterminated by the merciless
       swords of these Saxon and English pagans, or was driven into
       the mountains of Wales, into the peninsula of Cornwall and
       Devon, or into the Strathclyde corner of Scottish
       territory,--in all which regions the ancient British race has
       maintained itself to this day. Scarcely a vestige of its
       existence remains elsewhere in England,--neither in language,
       nor in local names, nor in institutions, nor in survivals of
       any other kind; which shows that the inhabitants were effaced
       by the conquest, as the inhabitants of Gaul, of Spain, and of
       Italy, for example, were not.

       The new society and the new states which now arose on the soil
       of Britain, and began to shape themselves into the England of
       the future, were as purely Germanic as if they had grown up in
       the Jutish peninsula or on the Elbe. The institutions,
       political and social, of the immigrant nations, had been
       modified by changed circumstances, but they had incorporated
       almost nothing from the institutions which they found existing
       in their new home and which they supplanted. Broadly speaking,
       nothing Roman and nothing Celtic entered into them. They were
       constructed on German lines throughout.

       The barbarism of the Saxons and their kin when they entered
       Britain was far more unmitigated than that of most of the
       Teutonic tribes which overwhelmed the continental provinces of
       Rome had been. The Goths had been influenced to some extent
       and for quite a period by Roman civilization, and had
       nominally accepted Christian precepts and beliefs, before they
       took arms against the Empire. The Franks had been allies of
       Rome and in contact with the refinements of Roman Gaul, for a
       century or two before they became masters in that province.
       Most of the other nations which transplanted themselves in the
       fifth century from beyond the Rhine to new homes in the
       provinces of Rome, had been living for generations on the
       borders of the Empire, or near; had acquired some
       acquaintance, at least, with the civilization which they did
       not share, and conceded to it a certain respect; while some of
       them had borne arms for the Emperor and taken his pay. But the
       Saxons, Angles and Jutes had thus far been remote from every
       influence or experience of the kind.
    {1015}
       They knew the Romans only as rich strangers to be plundered
       and foes to be fought. Christianity represented nothing to
       them but an insult to their gods. There seems to be little
       doubt, therefore, that the civilizing work which Rome had done
       in western Europe was obliterated nowhere else so ruthlessly
       and so wantonly as in Britain. Christianity, still sheltered
       and strong in Ireland, was wholly extinguished in England for
       a century and more, until the memorable mission of Augustine,
       sent by Pope Gregory the Great (A. D. 597), began the
       conversion of the savage islanders.

    The Kingdom of the Franks.

       In Gaul, meanwhile, and in southwestern Germany, the Franks
       had become the dominant power. They had moved tardily to the
       conquest, but when they moved it was with rapid strides. While
       they dwelt along the Lower Rhine, they were in two divisions:
       the Salian Franks, who occupied, first, the country near the
       mouth of the river, and then spread southwards, to the Somme,
       or beyond; and the Ripuarians, who lived farther up the Rhine,
       in the neighborhood of Cologne, advancing thence to the
       Moselle. In the later part of the fifth century a Roman
       Patrician, Syagrius, still exercised some kind of authority in
       northern Gaul; but in 486 he was defeated and overthrown by
       Chlodvig, or Clovis, the chief of the Salian Franks. Ten years
       later, Clovis, leading both the Salian and the Ripuarian
       Franks in an attack upon the German Alemanni, beyond the Upper
       Rhine, subdued that people completely, and took their country.
       Their name survived, and adhered to the whole people of
       Germany, whom the Franks and their successors the French have
       called Allemands to this day. After his conquest of the
       Alemanni, Clovis, who had married a Christian wife, accepted
       her faith and was baptized, with three thousand of his chief
       men. The professed conversion was as fortunate politically for
       him as it had been for Constantine. He adopted the
       Christianity which was that of the Roman Church--the Catholic
       Christianity of the Athanasian creed--and he stood forth at
       once as the champion of orthodoxy against the heretic Goths
       and Burgundians, whose religion had been poisoned by the
       condemned doctrines of Arius. The blessings, and the more
       substantial endeavors, of the Roman Church were, therefore, on
       his side, when he attacked the Burgundians and made them
       tributary, and when, a few years later, he expelled the Goths
       from Aquitaine and drove them into Spain (A.D. 500-508).
       Beginning, apparently, as one of several chiefs among the
       Salian Franks, he ended his career (510) as sole king of the
       whole Frank nation, and master of all Gaul except a Gothic
       corner of Provence, with a considerable dominion beyond the
       Rhine.

    The Merovingian Kings.

       But Clovis left his realm to four sons, who divided it into as
       many kingdoms, with capitals at Metz, Orleans, Paris, and
       Soissons. There was strife and war between them, until one of
       the brothers, Lothaire, united again the whole kingdom, which,
       meantime, had been enlarged by the conquest of Thuringia and
       Provence, and by the extinction of the tributary Burgundian
       kings. When he died, his sons rent the kingdom again, and
       warred with one another, and once more it was brought
       together. Says Hallam: "It is a weary and unprofitable task to
       follow these changes in detail, through scenes of tumult and
       bloodshed, in which the eye meets with no sunshine, nor can
       rest upon any interesting spot. It would be difficult, as
       Gibbon has justly observed, to find anywhere more vice or less
       virtue." But, as Dean Church has remarked, the Franks were
       maintained in their ascendancy by the favor of the clergy and
       the circumstances of their position, despite their divisions
       and the worthless and detestable character of their kings,
       after Clovis. "They occupied a land of great natural wealth,
       and great geographical advantages, which had been prepared for
       them by Latin culture; they inherited great cities which they
       had not built, and fields and vineyards which they had not
       planted; and they had the wisdom, not to destroy, but to use
       their conquest. They were able with singular ease and
       confidence to employ and trust the services, civil and
       military, of the Latin population. ... The bond between the
       Franks and the native races was the clergy. ... The forces of
       the whole nation were at the disposal of the ruling race; and
       under Frank chiefs, the Latins and Gauls learned once more to
       be warriors." This no doubt suggests a quite true explanation
       of the success of the Franks; but too much may easily be
       inferred from it. It will not be safe to conclude that the
       Franks were protectors of civilization in Gaul, and did not
       lay destroying hands upon it. We shall presently see that it
       sank to a very darkened state under their rule, though the
       eclipse may have been less complete than in some other of the
       barbarized provinces of Rome.

    Rise of the Carolingians.

       The division in the Frankish dominion which finally marked
       itself deeply and became permanent was that which separated
       the East Kingdom, or Austrasia, from the West Kingdom, or
       Neustria. In Austrasia, the Germanic element prevailed; in
       Neustria, the Roman and Gallic survivals entered most largely
       into the new society. Austrasia widened into the Germany of
       later history; Neustria into France. In both these kingdoms,
       the Frankish kings sank lower and lower in character, until
       their name (of Merwings or Merovingians, from an ancestor of
       Clovis) became a byword for sloth and worthlessness. In each
       kingdom there arose, beside the nominal monarch, a strong
       minister, called the Major Domus, or Mayor of the Palace, who
       exercised the real power and governed in the king's name.
       During the last half of the seventh century, the Austrasian
       Mayor, Pippin of Heristal, and the Neustrian Mayor, Ebroin,
       converted the old antagonism of the two kingdoms into a
       personal rivalry and struggle for supremacy. Ebroin was
       murdered, and Pippin was the final victor, in a decisive
       battle at Testry (687), which made him virtual master of the
       whole Frank realm, although the idle Merwings still sat on
       their thrones. Pippin's son, Charles Martel, strengthened and
       extended the domination which his father had acquired. He
       drove back the Saxons and subdued the Frisians in the North,
       and, in the great and famous battle of Tours (732) he
       repelled, once for all, the attempt of the Arab and Moorish
       followers of Mahomet, already lodged in Spain, to push their
       conquests beyond the Pyrenees.
    {1016}
       The next of the family, Pippin the Short, son of Charles
       Martel, put an end to the pretence of governing in the name of
       a puppet-king. The last of the Merovingians was quietly
       deposed--lacking even importance enough to be put to death--
       and Pippin received the crown at the hands of Pope Zachary (A.
       D. 751). He died in 768, and the reign of his son, who
       succeeded him--the Great Charles--the Charlemagne of mediæval
       history--is the introduction to so new an era, and so changed
       an order of circumstances in the European world, that it will
       be best to finish with all that lies behind it in our hasty
       survey before we take it up.

    The Conquests of Islam.

       Outside of Europe, a new and strange power had now risen, and
       had spread its forces with extraordinary rapidity around the
       southern and eastern circuit of the Mediterranean, until it
       troubled both extremities of the northern shore. This was the
       power of Islam--the proselyting, war-waging religion of
       Mahomet, the Arabian prophet. At the death of Mahomet, in 632,
       he was lord of Arabia, and his armies had just crossed the
       border, to attack the Syrian possessions of the Eastern Roman
       Empire. In seven years from that time, the whole of Palestine
       and Syria had been overrun, Jerusalem, Damascus, Antioch, and
       all the strong cities taken, and Roman authority expelled. In
       two years more, they had dealt the last blow to the Sassanian
       monarchy in Persia and shattered it forever. At the same time
       they were besieging Alexandria and adding Egypt to their
       conquests. In 668, only thirty-six years after the death of
       the Prophet, they were at the gates of Constantinople, making
       the first of their many attempts to gain possession of the New
       Rome. In 698 they had taken Carthage, had occupied all North
       Africa to the Atlantic coast, had converted the Mauretanians,
       or Moors, and absorbed them into their body politic as well as
       into their communion. In 711 the commingled Arabs and Moors
       crossed the Straits and entered Spain, and the overthrow of
       the Christian kingdom of the Visigoths was practically
       accomplished in a single battle that same year. Within two
       years more, the Moors (as they came to be most commonly
       called) were in possession of the whole southern, central, and
       eastern parts of the Spanish peninsula, treating the
       inhabitants who had not fled with a more generous toleration
       than differing Christians were wont to offer to one another.
       The Spaniards (a mixed population of Roman, Suevic, Gothic,
       and aboriginal descent) who did, not submit, took refuge in
       the mountainous region of the Asturias and Galicia, where they
       maintained their independence, and, in due time, became
       aggressive, until, after eight centuries, they recovered their
       whole land.

    The Eastern Empire.

       At the East, as we have seen, the struggle of the Empire with
       the Arabs began at the first moment of their career of foreign
       conquest. They came upon it when it was weak from many wounds,
       and exhausted by conflict with many foes. Before the death of
       Justinian (565), the transient glories of his reign had been
       waning fast. His immediate successor saw the work of
       Belisarius and Narses undone, for the most part, and the
       Italian peninsula overrun by a new horde of barbarians, more
       rapacious and more savage than the Goths. At the same time,
       the Persian war broke out again, and drained the imperial
       resources to pay for victories that had no fruit. Two better
       and stronger emperors--Tiberius and Maurice--who came after
       him, only made an honorable struggle, without leaving the
       Empire in a better state. Then a brutal creature--Phocas--held
       the throne for eight years (602-610) and sunk it very low by his
       crimes. The hero, Heraclius, who was now raised to power, came
       too late. Assailed suddenly, at the very beginning of his
       reign, by a fierce Persian onset, he was powerless to resist.
       Syria, Egypt and Asia Minor were successively ravaged and
       conquered by the Persian arms. They came even to the
       Bosphorus, and for ten years they held its eastern shore and
       maintained a camp within sight of Constantinople itself; while
       the wild Tartar nation of the Avars raged, at the same time,
       through the northern and western provinces of the Empire, and
       threatened the capital on its landward sides. The Roman Empire
       was reduced, for a time, to "the walls of Constantinople, with
       the remnant of Greece, Italy, and Africa, and some maritime
       cities, from Tyre to Trebizond, of the Asiatic coast." But in
       622 Heraclius turned the tide of disaster and rolled it back
       upon his enemies. Despite an alliance of the Persians with the
       Avars, and their combined assault upon Constantinople in 626,
       he repelled the latter, and wrested from the former, in a
       series of remarkable campaigns, all the territory they had
       seized. He had but just accomplished this great deliverance of
       his dominions, when the Arabs came upon him, as stated above.
       There was no strength left in the Empire to resist the
       terrible prowess of these warriors of the desert. They
       extinguished its authority in Syria and Egypt, as we have
       seen, in the first years of their career; but then turned
       their arms to the East and the West, and were slow in
       disputing Asia Minor with its Christian lords. "From the time
       of Heraclius the Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened:
       the line of empire which had been defined by the laws of
       Justinian and the arms of Belisarius recedes on all sides from
       our view" (Gibbon). There was neither vigor nor virtue in the
       descendants of Heraclius; and when the last of them was
       destroyed by a popular rising against his vicious tyranny
       (711), revolution followed revolution so quickly that three
       reigns were begun and ended in six years.

    The so-called Byzantine Empire.

       Then came to the throne a man of strong character, who
       redeemed it at least from contempt; who introduced a dynasty
       which endured for a century, and whose reign is the beginning
       of a new era in the history of the Eastern Empire, so marked
       that the Empire has taken from that time, in the common usage,
       a changed name, and is known thenceforth as the Byzantine,
       rather than the Eastern or the Greek. This was Leo the
       Isaurian, who saved Constantinople from a second desperate
       Moslem siege; who checked for a considerable period the
       Mahometan advance in the East; who reorganized the imperial
       administration on lasting lines; and whose suppression of
       image-worship in the Christian churches of his empire led to a
       rupture with the Roman Church in the West,--to the breaking of
       all relations of dependence in Rome and Italy upon the Empire
       in the East, and to the creating of a new imperial sovereignty
       in Western Europe which claimed succession to that of Rome.

    {1017}

    Lombard Conquest of Italy.

       On the conquest of Italy by Belisarius and Narses, for
       Justinian, the eunuch Narses, as related before, was made
       governor, residing at Ravenna, and bearing the title of
       Exarch. In a few years he was displaced, through the influence
       of a palace intrigue at Constantinople. To be revenged, it is
       said that he persuaded the Lombards, a German tribe lately
       become threatening on the Upper Danube, to enter Italy. They
       came, under their leader Alboin, and almost the whole northern
       and middle parts of the peninsula submitted to them with no
       resistance. Pavia stood a siege for three years before it
       surrendered to become the Lombard capital; Venice received an
       added population of fugitives, and was safe in her
       lagoons--like Ravenna, where the new Exarch watched the march
       of Lombard conquest, and scarcely opposed it. Rome was
       preserved, with part of southern Italy and with Sicily; but no
       more than a shadow of the sovereignty of the Empire now
       stretched westward beyond the Adriatic.

    Temporal Power of the Popes.

       The city of Rome, and the territory surrounding it, still
       owned a nominal allegiance to the Emperor at Constantinople;
       but their immediate and real ruler was the Bishop of Rome, who
       had already acquired, in a special way, the fatherly name of
       "Papa" or Pope. Many circumstances had combined to place both
       spiritual and temporal power in the hands of these Christian
       pontiffs of Rome. They may have been originally, in the
       constitution of the Church, on an equal footing of
       ecclesiastical authority with the four other chiefs of the
       hierarchy--the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria,
       Antioch and Jerusalem; but the great name of Rome gave them
       prestige and weight of superior influence to begin with. Then,
       they stood, geographically and sympathetically, in nearest
       relations with that massive Latin side of Christendom, in
       western Europe, which was never much disturbed by the raging
       dogmatic controversies that tore and divided the Church on its
       Eastern, Greek side. It was inevitable that the Western Church
       should yield homage to one head--to one bishopric above all
       other bishoprics; and it was more inevitable that the See of
       Rome should be that one. So the spiritual supremacy to which
       the Popes arrived is easily enough explained. The temporal
       authority which they acquired is accounted for as obviously.
       Even before the interruption of the line of emperors in the
       West, the removal of the imperial residence for long periods
       from Rome, to Constantinople, to Milan, to Ravenna, left the
       Pope the most impressive and influential personage in the
       ancient capital. Political functions were forced on him,
       whether he desired to exercise them or not. It was Pope Leo
       who headed the embassy to Attila, and saved the city from the
       Huns. It was the same Pope who pleaded for it with the Vandal
       king, Genseric. And still more and more, after the imperial
       voice which uttered occasional commands to his Roman subjects
       was heard from a distant palace in Constantinople, and in
       accents that had become wholly Greek, the chair of St. Peter
       grew throne-like,--the respect paid to the Pope in civil
       matters took on the spirit of obedience, and his aspect before
       the people became that of a temporal prince.

       This process of the political elevation of the Papacy was
       completed by the Lombard conquest of Italy. The Lombard kings
       were bent upon the acquisition of Rome; the Popes were
       resolute and successful in holding it against them. At last
       the Papacy made its memorable and momentous alliance with the
       Carolingian chiefs of the Franks. It assumed the tremendous
       super-imperial right and power to dispose of crowns, by taking
       that of the kingdom of the Franks from Childeric and giving it
       to Pippin (751); and this was the first assumption of that
       right by the chief priest of Western Christendom. In return,
       Pippin led an army twice to Italy (754-755), humbled the
       Lombards, took from them the exarchate of Ravenna and the
       Pentapolis (a district east of the Appenines, between Ancona
       and Ferrara), and transferred this whole territory as a
       conqueror's "donation" to the Apostolic See. The temporal
       sovereignty of the Popes now rested on a base as political and
       as substantial as that of the most worldly and vulgar
       potentates around them.

    Charlemagne's restored Roman Empire.

       Pippin's greater son, Charlemagne, renewed the alliance of his
       house with the Papacy, and strengthened it by completing the
       conquest of the Lombards, extinguishing their kingdom (774),
       and confirming his father's donation of the States of the
       Church. Charlemagne was now supreme in Italy, and the Pope
       became the representative of his sovereignty at Rome,--a
       position which lastingly enhanced the political importance of
       the Roman See in the peninsula. But while Pope and King stood
       related, in one view, as agent and principal, or subject and
       sovereign, another very different relationship slowly shaped
       itself in the thoughts of one, if not of both. The Western
       Church had broken entirely with the Eastern, on the question
       of image-worship; the titular sovereignty of the Eastern
       Emperor in the ancient Roman capital was a worn-out fiction;
       the reign of a female usurper, Irene, at Constantinople
       afforded a good occasion for renouncing and discarding it. But
       a Roman Emperor there must be, somewhere, for lesser princes
       and sovereigns to do homage to; the political habit and
       feeling of the European world, shaped and fixed by the long
       domination of Rome, still called for it. "Nor could the
       spiritual head of Christendom dispense with the temporal;
       without the Roman Empire there could not be," according to the
       feeling of the ninth century, "a Roman, nor by necessary
       consequence a Catholic and Apostolic Church." For "men could
       not separate in fact what was indissoluble in thought:
       Christianity must stand or fall along with the great Christian
       state: they were but two names for one and the same thing"
       (Bryce). Therefore the head of the Church, boldly enlarging
       the assumption of his predecessor who bestowed the crown of
       the Merovingians upon Pippin, now took it upon himself to set
       the diadem of the Cæsars on the head of Charlemagne. On the
       Christmas Day, in the year 800, in the basilica of St. Peter,
       at Rome, the solemn act of coronation was performed by Pope
       Leo III.; the Roman Empire lived again, in the estimation of
       that age, and Charles the Great reopened the interrupted line
       of successors to Augustus.

    {1018}

       Before this imperial coronation of Charlemagne occurred, he
       had already made his dominion imperial in extent, by the
       magnitude of his conquests. North, south, east, and west, his
       armies had been everywhere victorious. In eighteen campaigns
       against the fierce and troublesome Saxons, he subdued those
       stubborn pagans and forced them to submit to a Christian
       baptism--with how much of immediate religious effect may be
       easily surmised. But by opening a way for the more Christ-like
       missionaries of the cross, who followed him, this missionary
       of the battle-ax did, no doubt, a very real apostolic work. He
       checked the ravages of the piratical Danes. He crushed the
       Avars and took their country, which comprised parts of the
       Austria and Hungary of the present day. He occupied Bavaria,
       on the one hand, and Brittany on the other. He crossed the
       Pyrenees to measure swords with the Saracens, and drove them
       from the north of Spain, as far as the Ebro. His lordship in
       Italy has been noticed already. He was unquestionably one of
       the greatest monarchs of any age, and deserves the title
       Magnus, affixed to his name, if that title ever has been
       deserved by the kings who were flattered with it. There was
       much more in his character than the mere aggressive energy
       which subjugated so wide a realm. He was a man of
       enlightenment far beyond his time; a man who strove after
       order, in that disorderly age, and who felt oppressed by the
       ignorance into which the world had sunk. He was a seeker after
       learning, and the friend and patron of all in his day who
       groped in the darkness and felt their way towards the light.
       He organized his Empire with a sense of political system which
       was new among the Teutonic masters of Western Europe (except
       as shown by Theodoric in Italy); but there were not years
       enough in his own life for the organism to mature, and his
       sons brought back chaos again.

    Appearance of the Northmen.

       Before Charlemagne died (814) he saw the western coasts and
       river valleys of his Empire harried by a fresh outpouring of
       sea-rovers from the far North, and it is said that he had sad
       forebodings of the affliction they would become to his people
       thereafter. These new pirates of the North Sea, who took up,
       after several centuries, the abandoned trade of their kinsmen,
       the Saxons (now retired from their wild courses and
       respectably settled on one side of the water, while subdued
       and kept in order on the other), were of the bold and rugged
       Scandinavian race, which inhabited the countries since known
       as Denmark, Sweden and Norway. They are more or less confused
       under the general name of Northmen, or Norsemen--men of the
       North; but that term appears to have been applied more
       especially to the freebooters from the Norwegian coast, as
       distinguished from the "Danes" of the lesser peninsula. It is
       convenient, in so general a sketch as this, to ignore the
       distinction, and to speak of the Northmen as inclusive, for
       that age, of the whole Scandinavian race.

       Their visitations began to terrify the coasts of England,
       France and Germany, and the lower valleys of the rivers which
       they found it possible to ascend, some time in the later half
       of the eighth century. It is probable that their appearance on
       the sea at this time, and not before, was due to a revolution
       which united Norway under a single king and a stronger
       government, and which, by suppressing independence and
       disorder among the petty chiefs, drove many of them to their
       ships and sent them abroad, to lead a life of lawlessness more
       agreeable to their tastes. It is also probable that the
       northern countries had become populated beyond their
       resources, as seemed to have happened before, when the Goths
       swarmed out, and that the outlet by sea was necessarily and
       deliberately opened. Whatever the cause, these Norse
       adventurers, in fleets of long boats, issued with some
       suddenness from their "vics," or fiords (whence the name
       "viking"), and began an extraordinary career. For more than
       half a century their raids had no object but plunder, and what
       they took they carried home to enjoy. First to the Frisian
       coast, then to the Rhine--the Seine--the Loire,--they came
       again and again to pillage and destroy; crossing at the same
       time to the shores of their nearest kinsmen--but heeding no
       kinship in their savage and relentless forays along the
       English coasts--and around to Ireland and the Scottish
       islands, where their earliest lodgments were made.

    The Danes in England.

       About the middle of the ninth century they began to seize
       tracts of land in England and to settle themselves there in
       permanent homes. The Angles in the northern and eastern parts
       and the Saxons in the southern part of England had weakened
       themselves and one another by rivalry and war between their
       divided kingdoms. There had been for three centuries an
       unceasing struggle among them for supremacy. At the time of
       the coming of the Danes (who were prominent in the English
       invasion and gave their name to it), the West Saxon kings had
       won a decided ascendancy. The Danes, by degrees, stripped them
       of what they had gained. Northumberland, Mercia and East
       Anglia were occupied in succession, and Wessex itself was
       attacked. King Alfred, the great and admirable hero of early
       English history, who came to the throne in 871, spent the
       first eight years of his reign in a deadly struggle with the
       invaders. He was obliged in the end to concede to them the
       whole northeastern part of England, from the Thames to the
       Tyne, which was known thereafter as "the Danelaw"; but they
       became his vassals, and submitted to Christian baptism. A
       century later, the Norse rovers resumed their attacks upon
       England, and a cowardly English king, distrusting the now
       settled and peaceful Danes, ordered an extensive massacre of
       them (1002). The rage which this provoked in Denmark led to a
       great invasion of the country. England was completely
       conquered, and remained subject to the Danish kings until
       1042, when its throne was recovered for a brief space of time
       by the English line.

    {1019}

    The Normans in Normandy.

       Meanwhile the Northmen had gained a much firmer and more
       important footing in the territory of the Western
       Franks--which had not yet acquired the name of France. The
       Seine and its valley attracted them again and again, and after
       repeated expeditions up the river, even to the city of Paris,
       which they besieged several times, one of their chiefs, Rolf
       or Rollo, got possession of Rouen and began a permanent
       settlement in the country. The Frank King, Charles the Simple,
       now made terms with Rollo and granted him a district at the
       mouth of the Seine, (912), the latter acknowledging the
       suzerainty or feudal superiority of Charles, and accepting at
       the same time the doubly new character of a baptised Christian
       and a Frankish Duke. The Northmen on the Seine were known
       thenceforth as Normans, their dukedom as Normandy, and they
       played a great part in European history during the next two
       centuries.

    The Northmen in the West.

       The northern sea-rovers who had settled neither in Ireland,
       England, nor Frankland, went farther afield into the West and
       North and had wonderful adventures there. They took possession
       of the Orkneys, the Shetlands, the Hebrides, and other islands
       in those seas, including Man, and founded a powerful
       island-kingdom, which they held for a long period. Thence they
       passed on to Faroë and Iceland, and in Iceland, where they
       lived peaceful and quiet lives of necessity, they founded an
       interesting republic, and developed a very remarkable
       civilization, adorned by a literature which the world is
       learning more and more to admire. From Iceland, it was a
       natural step to the discovery of Greenland, and from
       Greenland, there is now little doubt that they sailed
       southwards and saw and touched the continent of America, five
       centuries before Columbus made his voyage.

    The Northmen in the East.

       While the Northmen of the ninth and tenth centuries were
       exciting and disturbing all Western Europe by their naval
       exploits, other adventurers from the Swedish side of the
       Scandinavian country were sallying eastwards under different
       names. Both as warriors and as merchants, they made their way
       from the Baltic to the Black Sea and the Bosphorus, and bands
       of them entered the service of the Eastern Emperor, at
       Constantinople, where they received the name of Varangians,
       from the oath by which they bound themselves. One of the
       Swedish chiefs, Rurik by name, was chosen by certain tribes of
       the country now called Russia, to be their prince. Rurik's
       capital was Novgorod, where he formed the nucleus of a kingdom
       which grew, through many vicissitudes, into the modern empire
       of Russia. His successors transferred their capital to Kief,
       and ultimately it was shifted again to Moscow, where the
       Muscovite princes acquired the title, the power, and the great
       dominion of the Czars of all the Russias.

    The Slavonic Race.

       The Russian sovereigns were thus of Swedish origin; but their
       subjects were of another race. They belonged to a branch of
       the great Aryan stock, called the Slavic or Slavonic, which
       was the last to become historically known. The Slavonians bore
       no important part in events that we have knowledge of until
       several centuries of the Christian era had passed. They were
       the obscure inhabitants in that period of a wide region in
       Eastern Europe, between the Vistula and the Caspian. In the
       sixth century, pressed by the Avars, they crossed the Vistula,
       moving westwards, along the Baltic; and, about the same time
       they moved southwards, across the Danube, and established the
       settlements which formed the existing Slavonic states in
       South-eastern Europe--Servia, Croatia and their lesser
       neighbors. But the principal seat of the Slavonic race within
       historic times has always been in the region still occupied by
       its principal representatives, the Russians and the Poles.

    Mediæval Society.--The Feudal System.

       We have now come to a period in European history--the middle
       period of the Middle Ages--when it is appropriate to consider
       the peculiar state of society which had resulted from the
       transplanting of the Germanic nations of the North to the
       provinces of the Roman Empire, and from placing the well
       civilized surviving inhabitants of the latter in subjection to
       and in association with masters so vigorous, so capable and so
       barbarous. In Gaul, the conquerors, unused to town-life, not
       attracted to town pursuits, and eager for the possession of
       land, had generally spread themselves over the country and
       left the cities more undisturbed, except as they pillaged them
       or extorted ransom from them. The Roman-Gallic population of
       the country had sought refuge, no doubt, to a large extent, in
       the cities; the agricultural laborers were already, for the
       most part, slaves or half-slaves--the coloni of the Roman
       system--and remained in their servitude; while some of the
       poorer class of freemen may have sunk to the same condition.

       How far the new masters of the country had taken possession of
       its land by actual seizure, ousting the former owners, and
       under what rules, if any, it was divided among them, are
       questions involved in great obscurity. In the time of
       Charlemagne, there seems to have been a large number of small
       landowners who cultivated their own holdings, which they
       owned, not conditionally, but absolutely, by the tenure called
       allodial. But alongside of these peasant proprietors there was
       another landed class whose estates were held on very different
       terms, and this latter class, at the time now spoken of, was
       rapidly absorbing the former. It was a class which had not
       existed before, neither among the Germans nor among the
       Romans, and the system of land tenure on which it rested was
       equally new to both, although both seem to have contributed
       something to the origin of it. This was the Feudal System,
       which may be described, in the words of Bishop Stubbs, as
       being "a complete organization of society through the medium
       of land tenure, in which, from the king down to the landowner,
       all are bound together by obligation of service and defence:
       the lord to protect his vassal, the vassal to do service to
       his lord; the defence and service being based on, and
       regulated by, the nature and extent of the land held by the
       one of the other." Of course, the service exacted was, in the
       main, military, and the system grew up as a military system,
       expanding into a general governing system, during a time of
       loose and ineffective administration. That it was a thing of
       gradual growth is now fairly well settled, although little is
       clearly known of the process of growth. It came to its
       perfection in the tenth century, by which time most other
       tenures of land had disappeared. The allodial tenure gave way
       before it, because, in those disorderly times, men of small or
       moderate property in land were in need of the protection which
       a powerful lord, who had many retainers at his back, or a strong
       monastery, could give, and were induced to surrender, to one
       or the other, their free ownership of the land they held,
       receiving it back as tenants, in order to establish the
       relation which secured a protector.

    {1020}

       In its final organization, the feudal system, as stated
       before, embraced the whole society of the kingdom.
       Theoretically, the king was the pinnacle of the system. In the
       political view of the time--so far as a political view
       existed--he was the over-lord of the realm rather by reason of
       being its ultimate land-lord, than by being the center of
       authority and the guardian of law. The greater subordinate
       lordships of the kingdom--the dukedoms and counties--were
       held as huge estates, called fiefs, derived originally by
       grant from the king, subject to the obligation of military
       service, and to certain acts of homage, acknowledging the
       dependent relationship. The greater feudatories, or vassals,
       holding immediately from the king, were lords in their turn of
       a second order of feudatories, who held lands under them; and
       they again might divide their territories among vassals of a
       third degree; for the process of sub-infeudation went on until
       it reached the cultivator of the soil, who bore the whole
       social structure of society on his bent back.

       But the feudal system would have wrought few of the effects
       which it did if it had involved nothing but land tenure and
       military service. It became, however, as before intimated, a
       system of government, and one which inevitably produced a
       disintegration of society and a destruction of national bonds.
       A grant of territory generally carried with it almost a grant
       of sovereignty over the inhabitants of the territory, limited
       only by certain rights and powers reserved to the king, which
       he found extreme difficulty in exercising. The system was one
       "in which every lord judged, taxed, and commanded the class
       next below him, in which abject slavery formed the lowest and
       irresponsible tyranny the highest grade, in which private war,
       private coinage, private prisons, took the place of the
       imperial institutions of government" (Stubbs). This was the
       singular system which had its original and special growth
       among the Franks, in the Middle Ages, and which spread from
       them, under the generally similar conditions of the age, to
       other countries, with various degrees of modification and
       limitation. Its influence was obviously opposed to political
       unity and social order, and to the development of institutions
       favorable to the people.

       But an opposing influence had kept life in one part of society
       which feudalism was not able to envelope. That was in cities.
       The cities, as before stated, had been the refuge of a large
       and perhaps a better part of the Roman-Gallic free population
       which survived the barbarian conquest. They, in conjunction
       with the Church, preserved, without doubt, so much of the
       plant of Roman civilization as escaped destruction. They
       certainly suffered heavily, and languished for several
       centuries; but a slow revival of industries and arts went on
       in them,--trade crept again into its old channels, or found
       new ones,--and wealth began to be accumulated anew. With the
       consciousness of wealth came feelings of independence; and
       such towns were now beginning to acquire the spirit which made
       them, a little later, important instruments in the weakening
       and breaking of the feudal system.

    Rise of the Kingdom of France.

       During the period between the death of Charlemagne and the
       settlement of the Normans in the Carlovingian Empire, that
       Empire had become permanently divided. The final separation
       had taken place (887) between the kingdom of the East Franks,
       or Germany, and the kingdom of the West Franks, which
       presently became France. Between them stretched a region in
       dispute called Lotharingia, out of which came the duchy of
       Lorraine. The kingdom of Burgundy (sometimes cut into two) and
       the kingdom of Italy, had regained a separate existence; and
       the Empire which Charlemagne had revived was nothing but a
       name. The last of the Carlovingian emperors was Arnulf, who
       died in 899. The imperial title was borne afterwards by a
       number of petty Italian potentates, but lost all imperial
       significance for two-thirds of a century, until it was
       restored to some grandeur again and to a lasting influence in
       history, by another German king.

       Before this occurred, the Carlovingian race of kings had
       disappeared from both the Frank kingdoms. During the last
       hundred years of their reign in the West kingdom, the throne
       had been disputed with them two or three times by members of a
       rising family, the Counts of Paris and Orleans, who were also
       called Dukes of the French, and whose duchy gave its name to
       the kingdom which they finally made their own. The kings of
       the old race held their capital at Laon, with little power and
       a small dominion, until 987, when the last one died. The then
       Count of Paris and Duke of the French, Hugh, called Capet,
       became king of the French, by election; Paris became the
       capital of the kingdom, and the France of modern times had its
       birth, though very far from its full growth.

       The royal power had now declined to extreme weakness. The
       development of feudalism had undermined all central authority,
       and Hugh Capet as king had scarcely more power than he drew
       from his own large fief. "At first he was by no means
       acknowledged in the kingdom; but ... the chief vassals
       ultimately gave at least a tacit consent to the usurpation,
       and permitted the royal name to descend undisputed upon his
       posterity. But this was almost the sole attribute of
       sovereignty which the first kings of the third dynasty
       enjoyed. For a long period before and after the accession of
       that family France has, properly speaking, no national
       history" (Hallam).

    The Communes.

       When the royal power began to gain ascendancy, it seems to
       have been largely in consequence of a tacitly formed alliance
       between the kings and the commons or burghers of the towns.
       The latter, as noted before, were acquiring a spirit of
       independence, born of increased prosperity, and were
       converting their guilds or trades unions into crude forms of
       municipal organization, as "communes" or commons. Sometimes by
       purchase and sometimes by force, they were ridding themselves
       of the feudal pretensions which neighboring lords held over
       them, and were obtaining charters which defined and guaranteed
       municipal freedom to them. One or two kings of the time
       happened to be wise enough to give encouragement to this
       movement towards the enfranchisement of the communes, and it
       proved to have an important influence in weakening feudalism
       and strengthening royalty.

    {1021}

    Germany.

       In the German kingdom, much the same processes of
       disintegration had produced much the same results as in
       France. The great fiefs into which it was divided--the duchies
       of Saxony, Franconia, Swabia and Bavaria--were even more
       powerful than the great fiefs of France. When the Carlovingian
       dynasty came to an end, in 911, the nobles made choice of a
       king, electing Conrad of Franconia, and, after him (919),
       Henry the Fowler, Duke of Saxony. The monarchy continued
       thereafter to be elective, actually as well as in theory, for
       a long period. Three times the crown was kept in the same
       family during several successive generations: in the House of
       Saxony from 919 to 1024; in the House of Franconia from 1024
       to 1137; in the House of the Hohenstaufens, of Swabia, from
       1137 to 1254: but it never became an acknowledged heritage
       until long after the Hapsburgs won possession of it; and even
       to the end the forms of election were preserved.

    The Holy Roman Empire.

       The second king of the Saxon dynasty, Otho I., called the
       Great, recovered the imperial title, which had become extinct
       again in the West, added the crown of Lombardy to the crown of
       Germany, and founded anew the Germanic Roman Empire, which
       Charlemagne had failed to establish enduringly, but which now
       became one of the conspicuous facts of European history for
       more than eight hundred years, although seldom more than a
       shadow and a name. But the shadow and the name were those of
       the great Rome of antiquity, and the mighty memory it had left
       in the world gave a superior dignity and rank to these German
       emperors, even while it diminished their actual power as kings
       of Germany. It conferred upon them, indeed, more than rank and
       dignity; it bestowed an "office" which the ideas and feelings
       of that age could not suffer to remain vacant. The Imperial
       office seemed to be required, in matters temporal, to balance
       and to be the complement of the Papal office in matters
       spiritual. "In nature and compass the government of these two
       potentates is the same, differing only in the sphere of its
       working; and it matters not whether we call the Pope a
       spiritual Emperor, or the Emperor a secular Pope." "Thus the
       Holy Roman Church and the Holy Roman Empire are one and the
       same thing, in two aspects; and Catholicism, the principle of
       the universal Christian society, is also Romanism; that is,
       rests upon Rome as the origin and type of its universality"
       (Bryce). These mediæval ideas of the "Holy Roman Empire," as
       it came to be called (not immediately, but after a time), gave
       importance to the imperial coronation thenceforth claimed by
       the German kings. It was a factitious importance, so far as
       concerned the immediate realm of those kings. In Germany,
       while it brought no increase to their material power, it
       tended to alarm feudal jealousies; it tended to draw the kings
       away from their natural identification with their own country; it
       tended to distract them from an effective royal policy at
       home, by foreign ambitions and aims; and altogether it
       interfered seriously with the nationalization of Germany, and
       gave a longer play to the disrupting influences of feudalism
       in that country than in any other.

    Italy, the Empire and the Papacy.

       Otto I. had won Italy and the Imperial crown (962) very
       easily. For more than half a century the peninsula had been in
       a deplorable state. The elective Lombard crown, quarreled over
       by the ducal houses of Friuli, Spoleto, Ivrea, Provence, and
       others, settled nowhere with any sureness, and lost all
       dignity and strength, though several of the petty kings who
       wore it had been crowned emperors by the Pope. At Rome, all
       legitimate government, civil or ecclesiastical, had
       disappeared. The city and the Church had been for years under
       the rule of a family of courtesans, who made popes of their
       lovers and their sons. Southern Italy was being ravaged by the
       Saracens, who occupied Sicily, and Northern Italy was
       desolated by the Hungarians. Under these circumstances, Otto
       I., the German king, listened to an appeal from an oppressed
       queen, Adelaide, widow of a murdered king, and crossed, the
       Alps (951), like a gallant knight, to her relief. He chastised
       and humbled the oppressor, rescued the queen, and married her. A
       few years later, on further provocation, he entered Italy
       again, deposed the troublesome King Berengar, caused himself
       to be crowned King of Italy, and received the imperial crown
       at Rome (962) from one of the vilest of a vile brood of popes,
       John XII. Soon afterwards, he was impelled to convoke a synod
       which deposed this disgraceful pope and elected in his place
       Leo VIII., who had been Otto's chief secretary. The citizens
       now conceded to the Emperor an absolute veto on papal
       elections, and the new pope confirmed their act. The German
       sovereigns, from that time, for many years, asserted their
       right to control the filling of the chair of St. Peter, and
       exercised the right on many occasions, though always with
       difficulty.

       Nominally they were sovereigns of Rome and Italy; but during
       their long absences from the country they scarcely made a show
       of administrative government in it, and their visits were
       generally of the nature of expeditions for a reconquest of the
       land. Their claims of sovereignty were resisted more and more,
       politically throughout Italy and ecclesiastically at Rome. The
       Papacy emancipated itself from their control and acquired a
       natural leadership of Italian opposition to German imperial
       pretensions. The conflict between these two forces became, as
       will be seen later on, one of the dominating facts of European
       history for four centuries--from the eleventh to the
       fourteenth.

    {1022}

    The Italian City-republics.

       The disorder that had been scarcely checked in Italy since the
       Goths came into it,--the practical extinction of central
       authority after Charlemagne dropped his sceptre, and the
       increasing conflicts of the nobles among themselves,--had one
       consequence of remarkable importance in Italian history. It
       opened opportunities to many cities in the northern parts of
       the peninsula for acquiring municipal freedom, which they did
       not lack spirit to improve. They led the movement and set the
       example which created, a little later, so many vigorous
       communes in Flanders and France, and imperial free cities in
       Germany at a still later day. They were earlier in winning
       their liberties, and they pushed them farther,--to the point
       in many cases of creating, as at Pisa, Genoa, Florence, and
       Venice, a republican city state. Venice, growing up in the
       security of her lagoons, from a cluster of fishing villages to
       a great city of palaces, had been independent from the
       beginning, except as she acknowledged for a time the nominal
       supremacy of the Eastern Emperor. Others won their way to
       independence through struggles that are now obscure, and
       developed, before these dark centuries reached their close, an
       energy of life and a splendor of genius that come near to
       comparison with the power and the genius of the Greeks. But,
       like the city-republics of Greece, they were perpetually at
       strife with one another, and sacrificed to their mutual
       jealousies, in the end, the precious liberty which made them
       great, and which they might, by a well settled union, have
       preserved.

    The Saxon line of Emperors.

       Such were the conditions existing or taking shape in Italy
       when the Empire of the West--the Holy Roman Empire of later
       times--was founded anew by Otho the Great. Territorially, the
       Empire as he left it covered Germany to its full extent, and
       two-thirds of Italy, with the Emperor's superiority
       acknowledged by the subject states of Burgundy, Bohemia,
       Moravia, Poland, Denmark, and Hungary--the last named with
       more dispute.

       Otho the Great died in 972. His two immediate successors, Otho
       II. (973-983) and Otho III. (983-1002) accomplished little,
       though the latter had great ambitions, planning to raise Rome
       to her old place as the capital of the world; but he died in
       his youth in Italy, and was succeeded by a cousin, Henry II.,
       whose election was contested by rivals in Germany, and
       repudiated in Italy. In the latter country the great nobles
       placed Ardoin, marquis of Ivrea, on the Lombard throne; but
       the factions among them soon caused his overthrow, and, Henry,
       crossing the Alps, reclaimed the crown.

    The Franconian Emperors.

       Henry II. was the last of the Saxon line, and upon his death,
       in 1024, the House of Franconia came to the throne, by the
       election of Conrad II., called "the Salic." Under Conrad, the
       kingdom of Burgundy, afterwards called the kingdom of Arles
       (which is to be distinguished from the French Duchy of
       Burgundy--the northwestern part of the old kingdom), was
       reunited to the Empire, by the bequest of its last king,
       Rudolph III. Conrad's son, grandson, and great grandson
       succeeded him in due order; Henry III. from 1039 to 1056;
       Henry IV. from 1056 to 1106; Henry V. from 1106 to 1125. Under
       Henry III. the Empire was at the summit of its power. Henry
       II., exercising the imperial prerogative, had raised the Duke
       of Hungary to royal rank, giving him the title of king. Henry
       III. now forced the Hungarian king to acknowledge the imperial
       supremacy and pay tribute. The German kingdom was ruled with a
       strong hand and peace among its members compelled. "In Rome,
       no German sovereign had ever been so absolute. A disgraceful
       contest between three claimants of the papal chair had shocked
       even the reckless apathy of Italy. Henry deposed them all and
       appointed their successor." "The synod passed a decree
       granting to Henry the right of nominating the supreme pontiff;
       and the Roman priesthood, who had forfeited the respect of the
       world even more by habitual simony than by the flagrant
       corruption of their manners, were forced to receive German
       after German as their bishop, at the bidding of a ruler so
       powerful, so severe, and so pious. But Henry's encroachments
       alarmed his own nobles no less than the Italians, and the
       reaction, which might have been dangerous to himself, was
       fatal to his successor. A mere chance, as some might call it,
       determined the course of history. The great Emperor died
       suddenly in A. D. 1056, and a child was left at the helm,
       while storms were gathering that might have demanded the
       wisest hand" (Bryce).

    Hildebrand and Henry IV.

       The child was Henry IV., of unfortunate memory; the storms
       which beset him blew from Rome. The Papacy, lifted from its
       degradation by Henry's father and grandfather, had recovered
       its boldness of tone and enlarged its pretensions and claims.
       It had come under the influence of an extraordinary man, the
       monk Hildebrand, who swayed the councils of four popes before
       he became pope himself (1073), and whose pontifical reign as
       Gregory VII. is the epoch of greatest importance in the
       history of the Roman Church. The overmastering ascendancy of
       the popes, in the Church and over all who acknowledge its
       communion, really began when this invincible monk was raised
       to the papal throne. He broke the priesthood and the whole
       hierarchy of the West to blind obedience by his relentless
       discipline. He isolated them, as an order apart, by enforcing
       celibacy upon them; and he extinguished the corrupting
       practices of simony. Then, when he had marshalled the forces
       of the Church, he proclaimed its independence and its
       supremacy in absolute terms. In the growth of feudalism
       throughout Europe, the Church had become compromised in many
       ways with the civil powers. Its bishoprics and abbeys had
       acquired extensively the nature of fiefs, and bishops and
       abbots were required to do homage to a secular lord before
       they could receive an "investiture" of the rich estates which
       had become attached by a feudal tenure to their sees. The
       ceremony of investiture, moreover, included delivery of the
       crozier and the pastoral ring, which were the very symbols of
       their spiritual office. Against this dependence of the Church
       upon temporal powers, Gregory now arrayed it in revolt, and
       began the "War of Investitures," which lasted for half a
       century. The great battle ground was Germany; the Emperor, of
       necessity, was the chief opponent; and Henry IV., whose youth
       had been badly trained, and whose authority had been weakened
       by a long, ill-guardianed minority, was at a disadvantage in
       the contest. His humiliation at Canossa (1077), when he stood
       through three winter days, a suppliant before the door of the
       castle which lodged his haughty enemy, praying to be released
       from the dread penalties of excommunication, is one of the
       familiar tableaux of history. He had a poor revenge seven
       years later, when he took Rome, drove Gregory into the castle
       St. Angelo, and seated an anti-pope in the Vatican. But his
       triumph was brief. There came to the rescue of the
       beleaguered Pope certain new actors in Italian history, whom
       it is now necessary to introduce.

    {1023}

    The Normans in Italy and Sicily.

       The settlement of predatory Northmen on the Seine, which took
       the name of Normandy and the constitution of a ducal fief of
       France, had long since grown into an important
       half-independent state. Its people--now called Normans in the
       smoother speech of the South--had lost something of their
       early rudeness, and had fallen a little under the spell of the
       rising chivalry of the age; but the goad of a warlike temper
       which drove their fathers out of Norway still pricked the sons
       and sent them abroad, in restless search of adventures and
       gain. Some found their way into the south of Italy, where
       Greeks, Lombards and Saracens were fighting merrily, and where
       a good sword and a tough lance were tools of the only industry
       well-paid. Presently there was banded among them there a
       little army, which found itself a match for any force that
       Greek or Lombard, or other opponent, could bring against it,
       and which proceeded accordingly to work its own will in the
       land. It seized Apulia (1042) and divided it into twelve
       countships, as an aristocratic republic. Pope Leo IX. led an
       army against it and was beaten and taken prisoner (1053). To
       release himself he was compelled to grant the duchy they had
       taken to them, as a fief of the Church, and to extend his
       grant to whatever they might succeed in taking, beyond it. The
       chiefs of the Normans thus far had been, in succession, three
       sons of a poor gentleman in the Cotentin, Tancred by name, who
       now sent a fourth son to the scene. This new comer was Robert,
       having the surname of Guiscard, who became the fourth leader
       of the Norman troop (1057), and who, in a few years, assumed
       the title of Duke of Calabria and Apulia. His duchies
       comprised, substantially, the territory of the later kingdom
       of Naples. A fifth brother, Roger, had meantime crossed to
       Sicily, with a small following of his countrymen; and, between
       1060 and 1090, had expelled the Saracens from that island, and
       possessed it as a fief of his brother's duchy. But in the next
       generation these relations between the two conquests were
       practically reversed. The son of Roger received the title of
       King of Sicily from the Pope, and Calabria and Apulia were
       annexed to his kingdom, through the extinction of Robert's
       family.

       These Normans of Southern Italy were the allies who came to
       the rescue of Pope Gregory, when the Emperor, Henry IV.,
       besieged him in Castle St. Angelo. He summoned Robert Guiscard
       as a vassal of the Church, and the response was prompt. Henry
       and his Germans retreated when the Normans came near, and the
       latter entered Rome (1084). Accustomed to pillage, they began,
       soon, to treat the city as a captured place, and the Romans
       rose against them. They retaliated with torch and sword, and
       once more Rome suffered from the destroying rage of a
       barbarous soldiery let loose. "Neither Goth nor Vandal,
       neither Greek nor German, brought such desolation on the city
       as this capture by the Normans" (Milman). Duke Robert made no
       attempt to hold the ruined capital, but withdrew to his own
       dominions. The Pope went with him, and died soon afterwards
       (1085), unable to return to Rome. But the imperious temper he
       had imparted to the Church was lastingly fixed in it, and his
       lofty pretensions were even surpassed by the pontiffs who
       succeeded him. He spoke for the Papacy the first syllables of
       that awful proclamation that was sounded in its finality,
       after eight hundred years, when the dogma of infallibility was
       put forth.

    Norman Conquest of England.

       The Normans in Italy established no durable power. In another
       quarter they were more fortunate. Their kinsmen, the Danes,
       who subjugated England and annexed it to their own kingdom in
       1016, had lost it again in 1042, when the old line of kings
       was restored, in the person of Edward, called the Confessor.
       But William, Duke of Normandy, had acquired, in the course of
       these shiftings of the English crown, certain claims which he
       put forth when Edward died, and when Harold, son of the great
       Earl Godwine, was elected king to succeed him, in 1066. To
       enforce his claim, Duke William, commissioned by the Pope,
       invaded England, in the early autumn of that year, and won the
       kingdom in the great and decisive battle of Senlac, or
       Hastings, where Harold was slain. On Christmas Day he was
       crowned, and a few years sufficed to end all resistance to his
       authority. He established on the English throne a dynasty
       which, though shifting sometimes to collateral lines, has held
       it to the present day.

       The Norman Conquest, as estimated by its greatest historian,
       Professor Freeman, wrought more good effects than ill to the
       English people. It did not sweep away their laws, customs or
       language, but it modified them all, and not unfavorably; while
       "it aroused the old national spirit to fresh life, and gave
       the conquered people fellow-workers in their conquerors." The
       monarchy was strengthened by William's advantages as a
       conqueror, used with the wisdom and moderation of a statesman.
       Feudalism came into England stripped of its disrupting forces;
       and the possible alternative of absolutism was hindered by
       potent checks. At the same time, the Conquest brought England
       into relations with the Continent which might otherwise have
       arisen very slowly, and thus gave an early importance to the
       nation in European history.

    The Crusades.

       At the period now reached in our survey, all Europe was on the
       eve of a profounder excitement and commotion than it had ever
       before known--one which stirred it for the first time with a
       common feeling and with common thoughts. A great cry ran
       through it, for help to deliver the holy places of the
       Christian faith from the infidels who possessed them. The
       pious and the adventurous, the fanatical and the vagrant, rose
       up in one motley and tumultuous response to the appeal, and
       mobs and armies (hardly distinguishable) of Crusaders--
       warriors of the Cross--began to whiten the highways into Asia
       with their bones. The first movement, in 1096, swept 300,000
       men, women and children, under Peter the Hermit, to their
       death, with no other result; but nearly at the same time there
       went an army, French and Norman for the most part, which made its
       way to Jerusalem, took the city by assault (1099) and founded
       a kingdom there, which defended itself for almost a hundred
       years. Long before it fell, it was pressed sorely by the
       surrounding Moslems and cried to Europe for help.
    {1024}
       A Second Crusade, in 1147, accomplished nothing for its
       relief, but spent vast multitudes of lives; and when the
       feeble kingdom disappeared, in 1187, and the Sepulchre of the
       Saviour was defiled again by unbelievers, Christendom grew
       wild, once more, with passion, and a Third Crusade was led by
       the redoubtable Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, of Germany, King
       Richard Cœur de Lion, of England, and King Philip Augustus of
       France. The Emperor perished miserably on the way and his army
       was wasted in its march; the French and English exhausted
       themselves in sieges which won nothing of durable advantage to
       the Christian world; the Sultan Saladin gathered most of the
       laurels of the war.

    The Turks on the Scene.

       The armies of Islam which the Crusaders encountered in Asia
       Minor and the Holy Land were no longer, in their leadership,
       of the race of Mahomet. The religion of the Prophet was still
       triumphant in the East, but his nation had lost its lordship,
       and Western Asia had submitted to new masters. These were the
       Turks--Turks of the House of Seljuk--first comers of their
       swarm from the great Aral basin. First they had been
       disciples, won by the early armed missionaries of the
       Crescent; then servants and mercenaries, hired to fight its
       battles and guard its princes, when the vigor of the Arab
       conquerors began to be sapped, and their character to be
       corrupted by luxury and pride; then, at last, they were
       masters. About the middle of the ninth century, the Caliph at
       Bagdad became a puppet in their hands, and the Moslem Empire
       in Asia (Africa and Spain being divided between rival Caliphs)
       soon passed under their control.

       These were the possessors of Jerusalem and its sacred shrines,
       whose grievous and insulting treatment of Christian pilgrims,
       in the last years of the eleventh century, had stirred Europe
       to wrath and provoked the great movement of the Crusades. The
       movement had important consequences, both immediate and
       remote; but its first effects were small in moment compared
       with those which lagged after. To understand either, it will
       be necessary to glance back at the later course of events in
       the Eastern or Byzantine Empire.

    The Byzantine Empire.

       The fortunes of the Empire, since it gave up Syria and Egypt
       to the Saracens, had been, on the whole, less unhappy than the
       dark prospect at that time. It had checked the onrush of Arabs
       at the Taurus mountain range, and retained Asia Minor; it had
       held Constantinople against them through two terrible sieges;
       it had fought for three centuries, and finally subdued, a new
       Turanian enemy, the Bulgarians, who had established a kingdom
       south of the Danube, where their name remains to the present
       day. The history of its court, during much of the period, had
       been a black and disgusting record of conspiracies,
       treacheries, murders, mutilations, usurpations and foul vices
       of every description; with now and then a manly figure
       climbing to the throne and doing heroic things, for the most
       part uselessly; but the system of governmental administration
       seems to have been so well constructed that it worked with a
       certain independence of its vile or imbecile heads, and the
       country was probably better and better governed than its
       court.

       At Constantinople, notwithstanding frequent tumults and
       revolutions, there had been material prosperity and a great
       gathering of wealth. The Saracen conquests, by closing other
       avenues of trade between the East and the West, had
       concentrated that most profitable commerce in the Byzantine
       capital. The rising commercial cities of Italy--Amalphi,
       Venice, Genoa, Pisa--seated their enterprises there. Art and
       literature, which had decayed, began then to revive, and
       Byzantine culture, on its surface, took more of superiority to
       that of Teutonic Europe.

       The conquests of the Seljuk Turks gave a serious check to this
       improvement of the circumstances of the Empire. Momentarily,
       by dividing the Moslem power in Asia, they had opened an
       opportunity to an energetic Emperor, Nicephorus Phocas, to
       recover northern Syria and Cilicia (961-969). But when, in the
       next century, they had won a complete mastery of the dominions
       of the Caliphate of Bagdad, they speedily swept back the
       Byzantines, and overran and occupied the most of Asia Minor
       and Armenia. A decisive victory at Manzikert, in 1071, when
       the emperor of the moment was taken prisoner and his army
       annihilated, gave them well nigh the whole territory to the
       Hellespont. The Empire was nearly reduced to its European
       domain, and suffered ten years of civil war between rivals for
       the throne.

       At the end of that time it acquired a ruler, in the person of
       Alexius Comnenus, who is the generally best known of all the
       Byzantine line, because he figures notably in the stories of
       the First Crusade. He was a man of crafty abilities and
       complete unscrupulousness. He took the Empire at its lowest
       state of abasement and demoralization. In the first year of
       his reign he had to face a new enemy. Robert Guiscard, the
       Norman, who had conquered a dukedom in Southern Italy, thought
       the situation favorable for an attack on the Eastern Empire,
       and for winning the imperial crown. Twice he invaded the Greek
       peninsula (1081-1084) and defeated the forces brought against
       him by Alexius; but troubles in Italy recalled him on the
       first occasion, and his death brought the second expedition to
       naught.

       Such was the situation of the Byzantines when the waves of the
       First Crusade, rolling Asia-ward, surged up to the gates of
       Constantinople. It was a visitation that might well appall
       them,--these hosts of knights and vagabonds, fanatics and
       freebooters, who claimed and proffered help in a common
       Christian war with the infidels, and who, nevertheless, had no
       Christian communion with them--schismatics as they were,
       outside the fold of the Roman shepherd. There is not a doubt
       that they feared the crusading Franks more than they feared
       the Turks. They knew them less, and the little hearsay
       knowledge they had was of a lawless, barbarous, fighting
       feudalism in the countries of the West,--more rough and
       uncouth, at least, than their own defter methods of murdering
       and mutilating one another. They received their dangerous
       visitors with nervousness and suspicion; but Alexius Comnenus
       proved equal to the delicate position in which he found
       himself placed. He burdened his soul with lies and perfidies;
       but he managed affairs so wonderfully that the Empire plucked
       the best fruits of the first Crusades, by recovering a great
       part of Asia Minor, with all the coasts of the Euxine and the
       Ægean, from the weakened Turks. The latter were so far shaken
       and depressed by the hard blows of the Crusaders that they
       troubled the Byzantines very little in the century to come.

    {1025}

       But against this immediate gain to the Eastern Empire from the
       early Crusades, there were serious later offsets. The commerce
       of Constantinople declined rapidly, as soon as the Moslem
       blockade of the Syrian coast line was broken. It lost its
       monopoly. Trade ran back again into other reopened channels.
       The Venetians and Genoese became more independent. Formerly,
       they had received privileges in the Empire as a gracious
       concession. Now they dictated the terms of their commercial
       treaties and their naval alliances. Their rivalries with one
       another involved the Empire in quarrels with both, and a state
       of things was brought about which had much to do with the
       catastrophe of 1204, when the fourth Crusade was diverted to
       the conquest of Constantinople, and a Latin Empire supplanted
       the Empire of the Roman-Greeks.

    Effects of the Crusades.

       Briefly noted, these were the consequences of the early
       Crusades in the East. In western Europe they had slower, but
       deeper and more lasting effects. They weakened feudalism, by
       sending abroad so many of the feudal lords, and by
       impoverishing so many more; whereby the towns gained more
       opportunity for enfranchisement, and the crown, in France
       particularly, acquired more power. They checked smaller wars
       and private quarrels for a time, and gave in many countries
       unwonted seasons of peace, during which the thoughts and
       feelings of men were acted on by more civilizing influences.
       They brought men into fellowship who were only accustomed to
       fight one another, and thus softened their provincial and
       national antipathies. They expanded the knowledge--the
       experience--the ideas--of the whole body of those who visited
       the East and who survived the adventurous expedition; made
       them acquainted with civilizations at least more polished than
       their own; taught them many things which they could only learn in
       those days by actual sight, and sent them back to their homes
       throughout Europe, to be instructors and missionaries, who did
       much to prepare Western Christendom for the Renaissance or new
       birth of a later time. The twelfth century--the century of the
       great Crusades--saw the gray day-break in Europe after the
       long night of darkness which settled down upon it in the
       fifth. In the thirteenth it reached the brightening dawn, and
       in the fifteenth it stood in the full morning of the modern
       day. Among all the movements by which it was pushed out of
       darkness into light, that of the Crusades would appear to have
       been the most important; important in itself, as a social and
       political movement of great change, and important in the seeds
       that it scattered for a future harvest of effects.

       In both the Byzantine and Arabian civilizations of the East
       there was much for western Europe to learn. Perhaps there was
       more in the last named than in the first; for the Arabs, when
       they came out from behind their deserts, and exchanged the
       nomadic life for the life of cities, had shown an amazing
       avidity for the lingering science of old Greece, which they
       encountered in Egypt and Syria. They had preserved far more of
       it, and more of the old fineness of feeling that went with it,
       than had survived in Greece itself, or in any part of the
       Teutonized empire of Rome. The Crusaders got glimpses of its
       influence, at least, and a curiosity was wakened, which sent
       students into Moorish Spain, and opened scholarly interchanges
       which greatly advanced learning in Europe.

    Rising Power of the Church.

       Not the least important effect of the Crusades was the
       atmosphere of religion which they caused to envelope the great
       affairs of the time, and which they made common in politics
       and society. The influence of the Church was increased by
       this; and its organization was powerfully strengthened by the
       great monastic revival that followed presently: the rise of
       purer and more strictly disciplined orders of the "regular"
       (that is the secluded or monastic) clergy--Cistercians,
       Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.; as well as the
       creation of the great military-religious orders--Knights
       Templars, Knights of the Hospital of St. John, Teutonic
       Knights, and others, which were immediately connected with the
       Crusades.

       To say that the Church gained influence is to say that the
       clergy gained it, and that the chief of the clergy, the Pope,
       concentrated the gain in himself. The whole clerical body was
       making encroachments in every field of politics upon the
       domain of the civil authority, using shrewdly the advantages
       of superior learning, and busying itself more and more in
       temporal affairs. The popes after Gregory VII. maintained his
       high pretensions and pursued his audacious course. In most
       countries they encountered resistance from the Crown; but the
       brunt of the conflict still fell upon the emperors, who, in
       some respects, were the most poorly armed for it.

    Guelfs and Ghibellines.

       Henry IV., who outlived his struggle with Gregory, was beaten
       down at last--dethroned by a graceless son, excommunicated by
       a relentless Church and denied burial when he died (1106) by
       its clergy. The rebellious son, Henry V., in his turn fought
       the same battle over for ten years, and forced a compromise
       which saved about half the rights of investiture that his
       father had claimed. His death (1125) ended the Franconian
       line, and the imperial crown returned for a few years to the
       House of Saxony, by the election of the Duke Lothaire. But the
       estates of the Franconian family had passed, by his mother, to
       Frederick of Hohenstaufen, duke of Swabia; and now a bitter
       feud arose between the House of Saxony and the House of
       Hohenstaufen or Swabia,--a feud that was the most memorable
       and, the longest lasting in history, if measured by the
       duration of party strifes which began in it and which took
       their names from it. For the raging factions of Guelfs and
       Ghibellines which divided Italy for two centuries had their
       beginning in this Swabian-Saxon feud, among the Germans. The
       Guelfs were the partisans of the House of Saxony; the
       Ghibellines were the party of the Hohenstaufens. The
       Hohenstaufens triumphed when Lothaire died (1138), and made
       Conrad of their House Emperor. They held the crown, moreover,
       in their family for four generations, extending through more
       than a century; and so it happened that the German name of the
       German party of the Hohenstaufens came to be identified in
       Italy with the party or faction in that country which
       supported imperial interests and claims in the free cities and
       against the popes. Whereupon the opposed party name was
       borrowed from Germany likewise and applied to the Italian
       faction which took ground against the Emperors--although these
       Italian Guelfs had no objects in common with the partisans of
       Saxony.

    {1026}

    The Hohenstaufens in Italy.

       The first Hohenstaufen emperor was succeeded (1152) by his
       nephew Frederick I., called Barbarossa, because of his red
       beard. The long reign of Frederick, until 1190, was mainly
       filled with wars and contentions in Italy, where he pushed the
       old quarrel of the Empire with the Papacy, and where,
       furthermore, he resolutely undertook to check the growing
       independence of the Lombard cities. Five times during his
       reign he led a great army into the peninsula, like a hostile
       invader, and his destroying marches through the country, of
       which he claimed to be sovereign, were like those of the
       barbarians who came out of the North seven centuries before.
       The more powerful cities, like Milan, were undoubtedly
       oppressing their weaker neighbors, and Barbarossa assumed to
       be the champion of the latter. But he smote impartially the
       weak and the strong, the village and the town, which provoked
       his arrogant temper in the slightest degree. Milan escaped his
       wrath on the first visitation, but went down before it when he
       came again (1158), and was totally destroyed, the inhabitants
       being scattered in other towns. Even the enemies of Milan were
       moved to compassion by the savageness of this punishment, and
       joined, a few years later, in rebuilding the prostrate walls
       and founding Milan anew. A great "League of Lombardy" was
       formed by all the northern towns, to defend their freedom
       against the hated Emperor, and the party of the Ghibellines
       was reduced for the time to a feeble minority. Meantime
       Barbarossa had forced his way into Rome, stormed the very
       Church of St. Peter, and seated an anti-pope on the throne.
       But a sudden pestilence fell upon his army, and he fled before
       it, out of Italy, almost alone. Yet he never relaxed his
       determination to bend both the Papacy and the Lombard
       republics to his will. After seven years he returned, for the
       fifth time, and it proved to be the last. The League met him
       at Legnano (1176) and administered to him an overwhelming
       defeat. Even his obstinacy was then overcome, and after a
       truce of six years he made peace with the League and the Pope,
       on terms which conceded most of the liberties that the cities
       claimed. It was in the reign of Frederick that the name "Holy
       Roman Empire" began, it seems, to be used.

       Frederick died while on a crusade and was succeeded (1190) by
       his son, Henry VI., who had married the daughter and heiress
       of the King of Sicily and who acquired that kingdom in her
       right. His short reign was occupied mostly in subduing the
       Sicilian possession. When he died (1197) his son Frederick was
       a child. Frederick succeeded to the crown of Sicily, but his
       rights in Germany (where his father had already caused him to
       be crowned "King of the Romans"--the step preliminary to an
       imperial election) were entirely ignored. The German crown was
       disputed between a Swabian and a Saxon claimant, and the
       Saxon, Otho, was King and Emperor in name, until 1218, when he
       died. But he, too, quarreled with a pope, about the lands of
       the Countess Matilda, which she gave to the Church; and his
       quarrel was with Innocent III., a pope who realized the
       autocracy which Hildebrand had looked forward to, and who
       lifted the Papacy to the greatest height of power it ever
       attained. To cast down Otho, Innocent took up the cause of
       Frederick, who received the royal crown a second time, at
       Aix-la-Chapelle (1215) and the imperial crown at Rome (1220).
       Frederick II. (his designation) was one of the few men of
       actual genius who have ever sprung from the sovereign families
       of the world; a man so far in advance of his time that he
       appears like a modern among his mediæval contemporaries. He
       was superior to the superstitions of his age,--superior to its
       bigotries and its provincialisms. His large sympathies and
       cosmopolitan frame of mind were acted upon by all the new
       impulses of the epoch of the crusades, and made him reflect,
       in his brilliant character, as in a mirror, the civilizing
       processes that were working on his generation.

       Between such an emperor as Frederick II. and such popes as
       Innocent III. and his immediate successors, there could not
       fail to be collision and strife. The man who might, perhaps,
       under other circumstances, have given some quicker movement to
       the hands which measure human, progress on the dial of time,
       spent his life in barely proving his ability to live and reign
       under the anathemas and proscriptions of the Church. But he
       fought a losing fight, even when he seemed to be winning
       victories in northern Italy, over the Guelf cities of
       Lombardy, and when the party of the Ghibellines appeared to be
       ascendant throughout the peninsula. His death (1250) was the
       end of the Hohenstaufens as an imperial family. His son,
       Conrad, who survived him four years, was king of Sicily and
       had been crowned king of Germany; but he never wore the crown
       imperial. Conrad's illegitimate brother, Manfred, succeeded on
       the Sicilian throne; but the implacable Papacy gave his
       kingdom to Charles of Anjou, brother of King Louis IX. of
       France, and invited a crusade for the conquest of it. Manfred
       was slain in battle, Conrad's young son, Conradin, perished on
       the scaffold, and the Hohenstaufens disappeared from history.
       Their rights, or claims, in Sicily and Naples, passed to the
       Spanish House of Aragon, by the marriage of Manfred's daughter
       to the Aragonese king; whence long strife between the House of
       Anjou and the House of Aragon, and a troubled history for the
       Neapolitans and the Sicilians during some centuries. In the
       end, Anjou kept Naples, while Aragon won Sicily; the kings in
       both lines called themselves Kings of Sicily, and a subsequent
       re-union of the two crowns created a very queerly named
       "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies."

    {1027}

    Germany and the Empire.

       After the death of Frederick II., the German kings, while
       maintaining the imperial title, practically abandoned their
       serious attempts to enforce an actual sovereignty in Italy.
       The Holy Roman Empire, as a political factor comprehending
       more than Germany, now ceased in reality to exist. The name
       lived on, but only to represent a flattering fiction for
       magnifying the rank and importance of the German kings. In
       Italy, the conflict, as between Papacy and Empire, or between
       Lombard republican cities and Empire, was at an end. No
       further occasion existed for an imperial party, or an
       anti-imperial party. The Guelf and Ghibelline names and
       divisions had no more the little meaning that first belonged
       to them. But Guelfs and Ghibellines raged against one another,
       more furiously than before, and generations passed before
       their feud died out.

       While the long, profitless Italian conflict of the Emperors
       went on, their kingship in Germany suffered sorely. As they
       grasped at a shadowy imperial title, the substance of royal
       authority slipped from them. Their frequent prolonged absence
       in Italy gave opportunities for enlarged independence to the
       German princes and feudal lords; their difficulties beyond the
       Alps forced them to buy support from their vassals at home by
       fatal concessions and grants; their neglect of German affairs
       weakened the ties of loyalty, and provoked revolts. The result
       might have been a dissolution of Germany so complete as to
       give rise to two or three strong states, if another potent
       influence had not worked injury in a different way. This came
       from the custom of equalized inheritance which prevailed among
       the Germans. The law of primogeniture, which already governed
       hereditary transmissions of territorial sovereignty in many
       countries, even where it did not give an undivided private
       estate, as in England, to the eldest son of a family, got
       footing in Germany very late and very slowly. At the time now
       described, it was the quite common practice to divide
       principalities between all the sons surviving a deceased duke
       or margrave. It was this practice which gave rise to the
       astonishing number of petty states into which Germany came to
       be divided, and the forms of which are still intact. It was
       this, in the main, which prevented the growth of any states to
       a power that would absorb the rest. On the other hand, the
       flimsy, half fictitious general constitution which the Empire
       substituted for such an one as the Kingdom of Germany would
       naturally have grown into, made an effective centralization of
       sovereignty--easy as the conditions seemed to be prepared for
       it--quite impossible.

    Free Cities in Germany and their Leagues.

       One happy consequence of this state of things was the
       enfranchisement, either wholly or nearly so, of many thriving
       cities. The growth of cities, as centers of industry and
       commerce, and the development of municipal freedom among them,
       was considerably later in Germany than in Italy, France and
       the Netherlands; but the independence gained by some among
       them was more entire than in the Low Countries or in France,
       and more lasting than in Italy.

       Most of the free cities of Germany were directly or
       immediately subject to the Emperor, and wholly independent of
       the princes whose territories surrounded them; whence they
       were called "imperial cities." This relationship bound them to
       the Empire by strong ties; they had less to fear from it than
       from the nearer small potentates of their country; and it
       probably drew a considerable part of such strength as it
       possessed, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, from their
       support. Their own power was being augmented at this period by
       the formation of extensive Leagues among them, for common
       defense, and for the protection, regulation and extension of
       their trade. In that age of lawless violence, there was so
       little force in government, everywhere, and so entire a want
       of co-operation between governments, that the operations of
       trade were exposed to piracy, robbery, and black-mail, on
       every sea and in every land. By the organization of their
       Leagues, the energetic merchants of north-western Europe did
       for themselves what their half-civilized governments failed to
       do for them. They not only created effective agencies for the
       protection of their trade, but they legislated, nationally and
       internationally, for themselves, establishing codes and
       regulations, negotiating commercial treaties, making war, and
       exercising many functions and powers that seem strange to
       modern times. The great Hansa, or Hanseatic League, which rose
       to importance in the thirteenth century among the cities in
       the north of Germany, was the most extensive, the longest
       lasting and the most formidable of these confederations. It
       controlled the trade between Germany, England, Russia, the
       Scandinavian countries, and the Netherlands, and through the
       latter it made exchanges with southern Europe and the East. It
       waged successful war with Denmark, Sweden and Norway combined,
       in defiance of the opposition of the Emperor and the Pope. But
       the growth of its power engendered an arrogance which provoked
       enmity in all countries, while the slow crystalizing of
       nationalities in Europe, with national sentiments and
       ambitions, worked in all directions against the commercial
       monopoly of the Hansa towns. By the end of the fifteenth
       century their league had begun to break up and its power to
       decline. The lesser associations of similar character--such as
       the Rhenish and the Swabian--had been shorter-lived.

    The Great Interregnum.

       These city-confederations represented in their time the only
       movement of concentration that appeared in Germany. Every
       other activity seemed tending toward dissolution. Headship
       there was none for a quarter of a century after Frederick II.
       died. The election of the Kings, who took rank and title as
       Emperors when crowned by the Pope, had now become the
       exclusive privilege of three prince-bishops and four temporal
       princes, who acquired the title of Electors. Jealous of one
       another, and of all the greater lords outside their electoral
       college, it was against their policy to confer the scepter on
       any man who seemed likely to wield it with a strong hand. For
       twenty years--a period in German history known as the Great
       Interregnum--they kept the throne practically vacant. Part of
       the Electors were bribed to choose Richard, Earl of Cornwall,
       brother of the English King Henry III., and the other part
       gave their votes to Alfonso, King of Castile. Alfonso never
       came to be crowned, either as King or Emperor; Richard was
       crowned King, but exercised no power and lived mostly in his
       own country. The Empire was virtually extinct; the Kingdom
       hardly less so. Burgundy fell away from the imperial
       jurisdiction even more than Italy did. Considerable parts of
       it passed to France.

    {1028}

    Rise of the House of Austria.

       At last, in 1273, the interregnum was ended by the election of
       a German noble to be King of Germany. This was Rodolph, Count
       of Hapsburg,--lord of a small domain and of little importance
       from his own possessions, which explains, without doubt, his
       selection. But Rodolph proved to be a vigorous king, and he
       founded a family of such lasting stamina and such self-seeking
       capability that it secured in time permanent possession of the
       German crown, and acquired, outside of Germany, a great
       dominion of its own. He began the aggrandizement of his House
       by taking the fine duchy of Austria from the kingdom of
       Bohemia and bestowing it upon his sons. He was energetic in
       improving opportunities like this, and energetic, too, in
       destroying the castles of robber-knights and hanging the
       robbers on their own battlements; but of substantial authority
       or power he had little enough. He never went to Rome for the
       imperial crown; nor troubled himself much with Italian
       affairs.

       On Rodolph's death (1291), his son Albert of Austria was a
       candidate for the crown. The Electors rejected him and ejected
       another poor noble, Adolphus of Nassau; but Adolphus
       displeased them after a few years, and they decreed his
       deposition, electing Albert in his place. War followed and
       Adolphus was killed. Albert's reign was one of vigor, but he
       accomplished little of permanent effect. He planted one of his
       sons on the throne of Bohemia, where the reigning family had
       become extinct; but the new king died in a few months, much
       hated, and the Bohemians resisted an Austrian successor. In
       1308, Albert was assassinated, and the electors raised Count
       Henry of Luxemburg to the throne, as Henry VII. Henry VII. was
       the first king of Germany since the Hohenstaufens who went to
       Italy (1310) for the crown of Lombardy and the crown of the
       Cæsars, both of which he received. The Ghibelline party was
       still strong among the Italians. In the distracted state of
       that country there were many patriots--the poet Dante
       prominent among them--who hoped great things from the
       reappearance of an emperor; but the enthusiastic welcome he
       received was mainly from those furious partisans who looked
       for a party triumph to be won under the new emperor's lead.
       When they found that he would not let himself be made an
       instrument of faction in the unhappy country, they turned
       against him. His undertakings in Italy promised nothing but
       failure, when he died suddenly (1313), from poison, as the
       Germans believed. His successor in Germany, chosen by the
       majority of the electors, was Lewis of Bavaria; but Frederick
       the Fair of Austria, supported by a minority, disputed the
       election, and there was civil war for twelve years, until
       Frederick, a prisoner, so won the heart of Lewis that the
       latter divided the throne with him and the two reigned
       together.

    France under the Capetians.

       While Germany and the fictitious Empire linked with it were
       thus dropping from the foremost place in western Europe into
       the background, several kingdoms were slowly emerging out of
       the anarchy of feudalism, and acquiring the organization of
       authority and law which creates stable and substantial power.
       France for two centuries, under the first three Capetian
       kings, had made little progress to that end. At the accession
       (1103) of the fourth of those kings, namely, Louis VI., it is
       estimated that the actual possessions of the Crown, over which
       it exercised sovereignty direct, equalled no more than about
       five of the modern departments of France; while twenty-nine
       were in the great fiefs of Flanders, Burgundy, Champagne,
       Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, Vermandois, and Boulogne, where the
       royal authority was but nominal; thirty-three, south of the
       Loire, were hardly connected with the Crown, and twenty-one
       were then dependent on the Empire. The actual "France," as a
       kingdom, at that time, was very small. "The real domain of
       Louis VI. was almost confined to the five towns of Paris,
       Orleans, Estampes, Melun, and Compiegne, and to estates in
       their neighbourhood." But the strengthening of the Crown was
       slightly begun in the reign of this king, by his wise policy
       of encouraging the enfranchisement of the communes, as noted
       before, which introduced a helpful alliance between the
       monarchy and the burgher-class, or third estate, as it came to
       be called, of the cities, against the feudal aristocracy.

       But progress in that direction was slight at first and slowly
       made. Louis VII., who came to the throne in 1137, acquired
       momentarily the great duchy of Aquitaine, or Guienne, by his
       marriage with Eleanor, who inherited it; but he divorced her,
       and she married Henry Plantagenet, who became Henry II., King
       of England, being at the same time Duke of Normandy, by
       inheritance from his mother, and succeeding his father in
       Anjou, Maine and Touraine. Eleanor having carried to him the
       great Aquitanian domain of her family, he was sovereign of a
       larger part of modern France than owned allegiance to the
       French king.

    French recovery of Normandy and Anjou,

       But the next king in France, Philip, called Augustus (1180),
       who was the son of Louis VII., wrought a change of these
       circumstances. He was a prince of remarkable vigor, and he
       rallied with rare ability all the forces that the Crown could
       command. He wrested Vermandois from the Count of Flanders, and
       extorted submission from the rebellious Duke of Burgundy.
       Suspending his projects at home for a time, to go crusading to
       the Holy Land in company with King Richard of England, he
       resumed them with fresh energy after Richard's death. The
       latter was succeeded by his mean brother John, who seems to
       have been hated with unanimity. John was accused of the murder
       of his young nephew, Arthur of Brittany, who disputed the
       inheritance from Richard. As Duke of Normandy and Anjou, John,
       though King of England, was nevertheless a vassal of the King
       of France. Philip summoned him, on charges, to be tried by his
       peers. John failed to answer the summons, and the forfeiture
       of his fiefs was promptly declared. The French king stood well
       prepared to make the confiscation effective, while John, in
       serious trouble with his English subjects, could offer little
       resistance. Thus the Norman realm of the English kings--their
       original dominion--was lost beyond recovery, and with it Anjou
       and Maine. They held Guienne and Poitou for some years; but
       the bases of the French monarchy were broadened immensely from
       the day when the great Norman and Angevin fiefs became royal
       domain.

    {1029}

    The Albigenses.

       Events in the south of France, during Philip's reign, prepared
       the way for a further aggrandisement of the Crown. Ancient
       Latin civilization had lingered longer there, in spirit, at
       least, than in the central and northern districts of the
       kingdom, and the state of society intellectually was both
       livelier and more refined. It was the region of Europe where
       thought first showed signs of independence, and where the
       spiritual despotism of Rome was disputed first. A sect arose
       in Languedoc which took its name from the district of Albi,
       and which offended the Church perhaps more by the freedom of
       opinion that it claimed than by the heresy of the opinions
       themselves. These Albigeois, or Albigenses, had been at issue
       with the clergy of their country and with the Papacy for some
       years before Innocent III., the pontifical autocrat of his
       age, proclaimed a crusade against them (1208), and launched
       his sentence of excommunication against Raymond, Count of
       Toulouse, who gave them countenance if not sympathy. The
       fanatical Simon de Montfort, father of the great noble of like
       name who figures more grandly in English history, took the
       lead of the Crusade, to which bigots and brutal adventurers
       flocked together. Languedoc was wasted with fire and sword,
       and after twenty years of intermittent war, in which Peter of
       Aragon took part, assisting the Albigeois, the Count of
       Toulouse purchased peace for his ruined land by ceding part of
       it to the king of France, and giving his daughter in marriage
       to the king's brother Alphonso,--by which marriage the
       remainder of the country was transferred, a few years later,
       to the French crown.

    The Battle of Bouvines.

       Philip Augustus, in whose reign this brutal crushing of
       Provençal France began, took little part in it, but he saw
       with no unwillingness another too powerful vassal brought low.
       The next blow of like kind he struck with his own hand. John
       of England had quarreled with the mighty Pope Innocent III.;
       his kingdom had been placed under interdict and his subjects
       absolved from their allegiance. Philip of France eagerly
       offered to become the executor of the papal decree, and
       gathered an army for the invasion of England, to oust John
       from his throne. But John hastened now to make peace with the
       Church, submitting himself, surrendering his kingdom to the
       Pope, and receiving it back as a papal fief. This
       accomplished, the all-powerful pontiff persuaded the French
       king to turn his army against the Count of Flanders, who had
       never been reduced to a proper degree of submission to his
       feudal sovereign. He seems to have become the recognized head
       of a body of nobles who showed alarm and resentment at the
       growing power of the Crown, and the war which ensued was quite
       extraordinary in its political importance. King John of
       England came personally to the assistance of the Flemish
       Count, because of the hatred he felt towards Philip of France.
       Otho, Emperor of Germany, who had been excommunicated and
       deposed by the Pope, and who was struggling for his crown with
       the young Hohenstaufen, Frederick II., took part in the melee,
       because John was his uncle, and because the Pope was for
       Philip, and because Germany dreaded the rising power of
       France. So the war, which seemed at first to be a trifling
       affair in a corner, became in fact a grand clearing storm, for
       the settlement of many large issues, important to all Europe.
       The settlement was accomplished by a single decisive battle,
       fought at Bouvines (1214), not far from Tournay. It
       established effectively in France the feudal superiority and
       actual sovereignty of the king. It evoked a national spirit
       among the French people, having been their first national
       victory, won under the banners of a definite kingdom, over
       foreign foes. It was a triumph for the Papacy and the Church
       and a crushing blow to those who dared resist the mandates of
       Rome. It sent King John back to England so humbled and
       weakened that he had little stomach for the contest which
       awaited him there, and the grand event of the signing of Magna
       Charta next year was more easily brought about. It settled the
       fate of Otho of Germany, and cleared the bright opening of the
       stormy career of Frederick II., his successor. Thus the battle
       of Bouvines, which is not a famous field in common knowledge,
       must really be numbered among the great and important battles
       of the world.

       When Philip Augustus died in 1223, the regality which he
       bequeathed to his son, Louis VIII., was something vastly
       greater than that which came to him from his predecessors. He
       had enhanced both the dignity and the power, both the
       authority and the prestige, of the Crown, and made a
       substantial kingdom of France. Louis VIII. enlarged his
       dominions by the conquest of Lower Poitou and the taking of
       Rochelle from the English; but he sowed the seeds of future
       weakness in the monarchy by creating great duchies for his
       children, which became as troublesome to later kings as
       Normandy and Anjou had been to those before him.

    Saint Louis.

       Louis IX.--Saint Louis in the calendar of the Catholic
       Church--who came to the throne in 1226, while a child of
       eleven years, was a king of so noble a type that he stands
       nearly alone in history. Marcus Aurelius, the Emperor, and
       King Alfred of England, are the only sovereigns who seem
       worthy to be compared with him; and even the purity of those
       rare souls is not quite so simple and so selfless, perhaps, as
       that which shines in the beautiful character of this most
       Christian king. His goodness was of that quality which rises
       to greatness--above all other measures of greatness in the
       distinction of men. It was of that quality which even a wicked
       world is compelled to feel and to bend to as a power, much
       exceeding the power of state-craft or of the sword. Of all the
       kings of his line, this Saint Louis was probably the one who
       had least thought of a royal interest in France distinct from
       the interest of the people of France; and the one who
       consciously did least to aggrandize the monarchy and enlarge
       its powers; but no king before him or after him was so much
       the true architect of the foundations of the absolute French
       monarchy of later times. His constant purpose was to give
       peace to his kingdom and justice to his people; to end
       violence and wrong-doing.
    {1030}
       In pursuing this purpose, he gave a new character and a new
       influence to the royal courts,--established them in public
       confidence,--accustomed his subjects to appeal to them; he
       denounced the brutal senselessness of trials by combat, and
       commanded their abolition; he gave encouragement to the study
       and the introduction of Roman law, and so helped to dispel the
       crude political as well as legal ideas that feudalism rested
       on. His measures in these directions all tended to the
       undermining of the feudal system and to the breaking down of
       the independence of the great vassals who divided sovereignty
       with the king. At the same time the upright soul of King
       Louis, devotedly pious son of the Church as he was, yielded
       his conscience to it, and the just ordinances of his kingdom,
       no more than he yielded to the haughty turbulence of the great
       vassals of the crown.

       The great misfortunes of the reign of Saint Louis were the two
       calamitous Crusades in which he engaged (1248-1254, and 1270),
       and in the last of which he died. They were futile in every
       way--as unwisely conducted as they were unwisely conceived;
       but they count among the few errors of a noble, great life.
       Regarded altogether, in the light which after-history throws
       back upon it, the reign of Louis IX. is more loftily
       distinguished than any other in the annals of France.

    Philip the Fair and Pope Boniface.

       There is little to distinguish the reign of St. Louis' son,
       Philip III., "le Hardi," "the Rash" (1270-1285), though the
       remains of the great fief of Toulouse were added in his time
       to the royal domain; but under the grandson of St. Louis, the
       fourth Philip, surnamed "le Bel," there was a season of storms
       in France. This Philip was unquestionably a man of clear, cold
       intellect, and of powerful, unbending will. There was nothing
       of the soldier in him, much of the lawyer-like mind and
       disposition. The men of the gown were his counsellors; he
       advanced their influence, and promoted the acceptance in
       France of the principles of the Roman or civil law, which were
       antagonistic to feudal ideas. In his attitude towards the
       Papacy--which had declined greatly in character and power
       within the century past--he was extraordinarily bold. His
       famous quarrel with Pope Boniface VIII. resulted in
       humiliations to the head of the Church from which, in some
       respects, there was no recovery. The quarrel arose on
       questions connected chiefly with the taxing of the clergy. The
       Pope launched one angry Bull after another against the
       audacious king, and the latter retorted with Ordinances which
       were as effective as the Bulls. Excommunication was defied;
       the Inquisition was suppressed in France; appeal taken to a
       General Council of the Church. At last Boniface suffered
       personal violence at the hands of a party of hired ruffians,
       in French pay, who attacked him at his country residence, and
       received such indignities that he expired soon after of shame
       and rage. The pope immediately succeeding died a few months
       later, and dark suspicions as to the cause of his death were
       entertained; for he gave place (1305) to one, Clement V., who
       was the tool of the French king, bound to him by pledges and
       guarantees before his election. This Pope Clement removed the
       papal residence from Rome to Avignon, and for a long
       period--the period known as "the Babylonish Captivity"--the
       Holy See was subservient to the monarchy of France.

       In this contest with the Papacy, Philip threw himself on the
       support of the whole body of his people, convoking (1302) the
       first meeting of the Three Estates--the first of the few
       general Parliaments--ever assembled in France.

    Destruction of the Templars.

       A more sinister event in the reign of Philip IV. was his
       prosecution and destruction of the famous Order of the Knights
       Templars. The dark, dramatic story has been told many times,
       and its incidents are familiar. Perhaps there will never be
       agreement as to the bottom of truth that might exist in the
       charges brought against the Order; but few question the fact
       that its blackest guilt in the eyes of the French King was its
       wealth, which he coveted and which he was resolved to find
       reasons for taking to himself. The knights were accused of
       infidelity, blasphemy, and abominable vices. They were tried,
       tortured, tempted to confessions, burned at the stake, and
       their lands and goods were divided between the Crown and the
       Knights of St. John.

    Flemish Wealth and Independence.

       The wilful king had little mercy in his cold heart and few
       scruples in his calculating brain. His character was not
       admirable; but the ends which he compassed were mostly good
       for the strength and independence of the monarchy of France,
       and, on the whole, for the welfare of the people subject to
       it. Even the disasters of his reign had sometimes their good
       effect: as in the case of his failure to subjugate the great
       county of Flanders. Originally a fief of the Kings of France,
       it had been growing apart from the French monarchy, through
       the independent interests and feelings that rose in it with
       the increase of wealth among its singularly industrious and
       thrifty people. The Low Countries, or Netherlands, on both
       sides of the Rhine, had been the first in western Europe to
       develop industrial arts and the trade that goes with them in a
       thoroughly intelligent and systematic way. The Flemings were
       leaders in this industrial development. Their country was full
       of busy cities,--communes, with large liberties in
       possession,--where prosperous artisans, pursuing many crafts,
       were organized in gilds and felt strong for the defense of
       their chartered rights. Ghent exceeded Paris in riches and
       population at the end of the thirteenth century. Bruges was
       nearly its equal; and there were many of less note. The
       country was already a prize to be coveted by kings; and the
       kings of France, who claimed the rights of feudal superiority
       over its count, had long been seeking to make their
       sovereignty direct, while the spirit of the Flemings carried
       them more and more toward independence.

       In 1294, Philip IV. became involved in war with Edward I. of
       England over Guienne. Flanders, which traded largely with
       England and was in close friendship with the English king and
       people, took sides with the latter, and was basely abandoned
       when Philip and Edward made peace, in 1302. The French king
       then seized his opportunity to subjugate the Flemings, which
       he practically accomplished for a time, mastering all of their
       cities except Ghent. His need and his greed made the burden of
       taxes which he now laid on these new subjects very heavy and
       they were soon in revolt. By accident, and the folly of the
       French, they won a fearfully decisive victory at Courtray,
       where some thousands of the nobles and knights of France
       charged blindly into a canal, and were drowned, suffocated and
       slaughtered in heaps. The carnage was so great that it broke
       the strength of the feudal chivalry of France, and the French
       crown, while it lost Flanders, yet gained power from the very
       disaster.

    {1031}

       In 1314, Philip IV. died, leaving three sons, who occupied the
       throne for brief terms in succession: Louis X, surnamed Hutin
       (disorder), who survived his father little more than a year;
       Philip V., called "the Long" (1316-1322), and Charles IV.,
       known as "the Fair" (1322-1328). With the death of Charles the
       Fair, the direct line of the Capetian Kings came to an end,
       and Philip, Count of Valois, first cousin of the late kings,
       and grandson of Philip III., came to the throne, as Philip
       VI.--introducing the Valois line of kings.

    Claims of Edward III. of England.

       The so-called Salic law, excluding females, in France, from
       the throne, had now, in the arrangement of these recent
       successions, been affirmed and enforced. It was promptly
       disputed by King Edward III. of England, who claimed the
       French crown by right of his mother, daughter of Philip IV.
       and sister of the last three kings. His attempt to enforce
       this claim was the beginning of the wicked, desolating
       "Hundred Years War" between England and France, which
       well-nigh ruined the latter, while it contributed in the
       former to the advancement of the commons in political power.

    England after the Norman Conquest.

       The England of the reign of Edward III., when the Hundred
       Years War began, was a country quite different in condition
       from that which our narrative left, at the time it had yielded
       (about 1071) to William the Norman conqueror. The English
       people were brought low by that subjugation, and the yoke
       which the Normans laid upon them was heavy indeed. They were
       stripped of their lands by confiscation; they were disarmed
       and disorganized; every attempt at rebellion failed miserably,
       and every failure brought wider confiscations. The old
       nobility suffered most and its ranks were thinned. England
       became Norman in its aristocracy and remained English in its
       commons and its villeinage.

    Modified Feudalism in England.

       Before the Conquest, feudalism had crept into its southern
       parts and was working a slow change of its old free Germanic
       institutions. But the Normans quickened the change and widened
       it. At the same time they controlled it in certain ways,
       favorably both to the monarchy and the people. They
       established a feudal system, but it was a system different
       from that which broke up the unity of both kingdoms of the
       Franks. William, shrewd statesman that he was, took care that
       no dangerous great fiefs should be created; and he took care,
       too, that every landlord in England should swear fealty direct
       to the king,--thus placing the Crown in immediate relations
       with all its subjects, permitting no intermediary lord to take
       their first allegiance to himself and pass it on at second
       hand to a mere crowned overlord.

       The effect of this diluted organization of feudalism in
       England was to make the monarchy so strong, from the
       beginning, that both aristocracy and commons were naturally
       put on their defence against it, and acquired a feeling of
       association, a sense of common interest, a habit of alliance,
       which became very important influences in the political
       history of the nation. In France, as we have seen, there had
       been nothing of this. There, at the beginning, the feudal
       aristocracy was dominant, and held itself so haughtily above
       the commons, or Third Estate, that no political cooperation
       between the two orders could be thought of when circumstances
       called for it. The kings slowly undermined the aristocratic
       power, using the communes in the process; and when, at last,
       the power of the monarchy had become threatening to both
       orders in the state, they were separated by too great an
       alienation of feeling and habit to act well together.

       It was the great good fortune of England that feudalism was
       curbed by a strong monarchy. It was the greater good fortune
       of the English people that their primitive Germanic
       institutions--their folk-moots, and their whole simple popular
       system of local government--should have had so long and sturdy
       a growth before the feudal scheme of society began seriously
       to intrude upon them. The Norman conqueror did no violence to
       those institutions. He claimed to be a lawful English king,
       respecting English laws. The laws, the customs, the
       organization of government, were, indeed, greatly modified in
       time; but the modification was slow, and the base of the whole
       political structure that rose in the Anglo-Norman kingdom
       remained wholly English.

    Norman Influences in England.

       The Normans brought with them into England a more active,
       enterprising, enquiring spirit than had animated the land
       before. They brought an increase of learning and of the
       appetite for knowledge. They brought a more educated taste in
       art, to improve the building of the country and its
       workmanship in general. They brought a wider acquaintance with
       the affairs of the outside world, and drew England into
       political relations with her continental neighbors, which were
       not happy for her in the end, but which may have contributed
       for a time to her development. They brought, also, a more
       powerful organization of the Church, which gave England
       trouble in later days.

    The Conqueror's Sons.

       When the Conqueror died (1087), his eldest son Robert
       succeeded him in Normandy, but he wished the crown of England
       to go to his son William, called Rufus, or "the Red." He could
       not settle the succession by his will, because in theory the
       succession was subject to the choice or assent of the nobles
       of the realm. But, in fact, William Rufus became king through
       mere tardiness of opposition; and when, a few months after his
       coronation, a formidable rebellion broke out among the Normans
       in England, who preferred his wayward brother Robert, it was
       the native English who sustained him and established him on
       the throne. The same thing occurred again after William Rufus
       died (1100). The Norman English tried again to bring in Duke
       Robert, while the native English preferred the younger
       brother, Henry, who was born among them. They won the day.
       Henry I., called Beauclerc, the Scholar, was seated on the
       throne. Unlike William Rufus, who had no gratitude for the
       support the English gave him, and ruled them harshly, Henry
       showed favor to his English subjects, and, during his reign of
       thirty-five years, the two races were so effectually
       reconciled and drawn together that little distinction between
       them appears thereafter.

    {1032}

       Henry acquired Normandy, as well as England, uniting again the
       two sovereignties of his father. His thriftless brother,
       Robert, had pledged the dukedom to William Rufus, who lent him
       money for a crusading expedition. Returning penniless, Robert
       tried to recover his heritage; but Henry claimed it and made
       good the claim.

    Anarchy in Stephen's Reign.

       At Henry's death, the succession fell into dispute. He had
       lost his only son. His daughter, Matilda, first married to the
       Emperor Henry V., had subsequently wedded Count Geoffrey of
       Anjou, by whom she had a son. Henry strove, during his life,
       to bind his nobles by oath to accept Matilda and her son as
       his successors. But on his death (1135) their promises were
       broken. They gave the crown to Stephen of Blois, whose mother
       was Henry's sister; whereupon there ensued the most dreadful
       period of civil war and anarchy that England ever knew.
       Stephen, at his coronation, swore to promises which he did not
       keep, losing many of his supporters for that reason; the
       Empress Matilda and her young son Henry had numerous
       partisans; and each side was able to destroy effectually the
       authority of the other. "The price of the support given to
       both was the same--absolute licence to build castles, to
       practise private war, to hang their private enemies, to
       plunder their neighbours, to coin their money, to exercise
       their petty tyrannies as they pleased." "Castles innumerable
       sprang up, and as fast as they were built they were filled
       with devils; each lord judged and taxed and coined. The feudal
       spirit of disintegration had for once its full play. Even
       party union was at an end, and every baron fought on his own
       behalf. Feudalism had its day, and the completeness of its
       triumph ensured its fall" (Stubbs).

    Angevin Kings of England.

       At length, in 1153, peace was made by a treaty which left
       Stephen in possession of the throne during his life, but made
       Henry, already recognized as Duke of Normandy, his heir.
       Stephen died the following year, and Henry II., now twenty-one
       years old, came quietly into his kingdom, beginning a new
       royal line, called the Angevin kings, because of their descent
       from Geoffrey of Anjou; also taking the name Plantagenets from
       Geoffrey's fashion of wearing a bit of broom, Planta Genista,
       in his hat.

       Henry II. proved, happily, to be a king of the strong
       character that was needed in the England of that wretched
       time. He was bold and energetic, yet sagacious, prudent,
       politic. He loved power and he used it with an unsparing hand;
       but he used it with wise judgment, and England was the better
       for it. He struck hard and persistently at the lawlessness of
       feudalism, and practically ended it forever as a menace to
       order and unity of government in England. He destroyed
       hundreds of the castles which had sprung up throughout the
       land in Stephen's time, to be nests of robbers and strongholds
       of rebellion. He humbled the turbulent barons. He did in
       England, for the promotion of justice, and for the enforcement
       of the royal authority, what Louis IX. did a little later in
       France: that is, he reorganized and strengthened the king's
       courts, creating a judicial system which, in its most
       essential features, has existed to the present time. His
       organizing hand brought system and efficiency into every
       department of the government. He demanded of the Church that
       its clergy should be subject to the common laws of the
       kingdom, in matters of crime, and to trial before the ordinary
       courts; and it was this most just reform of a crying
       abuse--the exemption of clerics from the jurisdiction of
       secular courts--which brought about the memorable collision
       of King Henry with Thomas Becket, the inflexible archbishop of
       Canterbury. Becket's tragical death made a martyr of him, and
       placed Henry in a penitential position which checked his great
       works of reform; but, on the whole, his reign was one of
       splendid success, and shines among the epochs that throw light
       on the great after-career of the English nation.

       Aside from his importance as an English statesman, Henry II.
       figured largely, in his time, among the most powerful of the
       monarchs of Europe. His dominions on the continent embraced
       much more of the territory of modern France than was ruled
       directly by the contemporary French king, though nominally he
       held them as a vassal of the latter. Normandy came to him from
       his grandfather; from his father he inherited the large
       possessions of the House of Anjou; by his marriage with
       Eleanor of Aquitaine (divorced by Louis VII. of France, as
       mentioned already) he acquired her wide and rich domain. On
       the continent, therefore, he ruled Normandy, Maine, Touraine,
       Anjou, Guienne, Poitou and Gascony. He may be said to have
       added Ireland to his English kingdom, for he began the
       conquest. He held a great place, in his century, and
       historically he is a notable figure in the time.

       His rebellious, undutiful son Richard, Cœur de Lion, the
       Crusader, the hard fighter, the knight of many rude
       adventures, who succeeded Henry II. in 1189, is popularly
       better known than he; but Richard's noisy brief career shows
       poorly when compared with his father's life of thoughtful
       statesmanship. It does not show meanly, however, like that of
       the younger son, John, who came to the throne in 1199. The
       story of John's probable murder of his young nephew, Arthur,
       of Brittany, and of his consequent loss of all the Angevin
       lands, and of Normandy (excepting only the Norman islands, the
       Jerseys, which have remained English to our own day) has been
       briefly told heretofore, when the reign of Philip Augustus of
       France was under review.

    {1033}

       The whole reign of John was ignominious. He quarreled with the
       Pope--with the inflexible Innocent III., who humbled many
       kings--over a nomination to the Archbishopric of Canterbury
       (1205); his kingdom was put under interdict (1208); he was
       threatened with deposition; and when, in affright, he
       surrendered, it was so abjectly done that he swore fealty to
       the Pope, as a vassal to his suzerain, consenting to hold his
       kingdom as a fief of the Apostolic See. The triumph of the
       Papacy in this dispute brought one great good to England. It
       made Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury, and thereby
       gave a wise and righteous leader to the opponents of the
       king's oppressive rule. Lords and commons, laity and clergy,
       were all alike sufferers from John's greed, his perfidy, his
       mean devices and his contempt of law. Langton rallied them to
       a sober, stern, united demonstration, which awed King John,
       and compelled him to put his seal to Magna Charta--the grand
       Charter of English liberties (1215). A few weeks later he
       tried to annul what he had done, with encouragement from the
       Pope, who anathematized the Charter and all who had to do with
       it. Then certain of the barons, in their rage, offered the
       English crown to the heir of France, afterwards Louis VIII.;
       and the French prince actually came to England (1216) with an
       army to secure it. But before the forces gathered on each side
       were brought to any decisive battle, John died. Louis'
       partisans then dropped away from him and the next year, after
       a defeat at sea, he returned to France.

    Henry III. and the Barons' War.

       John left a son, a lad of nine years, who grew to be a better
       man than himself, though not a good king, for he was weak and
       untruthful in character, though amiable and probably
       well-meaning. He held the throne for fifty-six years, during
       which long time, after his minority was passed, no minister of
       ability and honorable character could get and keep office in
       the royal service. He was jealous of ministers, preferring
       mere administrative clerks; while he was docile to favorites,
       and picked them for the most part from a swarm of foreign
       adventurers whom the nation detested. The Great Charter of his
       father had been reaffirmed in his name soon after he received
       the crown, and in 1225 he was required to issue it a third
       time, as the condition of a grant of money; but he would not
       rule honestly in compliance with its provisions, and sought
       continually to lay and collect heavy taxes in unlawful ways.
       He spent money extravagantly, and was foolish and reckless in
       foreign undertakings, accepting, for example, the Kingdom of
       Sicily, offered to his son Edmund by the Pope, whose gift
       could only be made good by force of arms. At the same time he
       was servile to the popes, whose increasing demands for money
       from England were rousing even the clergy to resistance. So
       the causes of discontent grew abundantly until they brought it
       to a serious head. All classes of the people were drawn
       together again, as they had been to resist the aggressions of
       John. The great councils of the kingdom, or assemblies of
       barons and bishops (which had taken the place of the
       witenagemot of the old English time, and which now began to be
       called Parliaments), became more and more united against the
       king. At last the discontent found a leader of high capacity
       and of heroic if not blameless character, in Simon de
       Montfort, Earl of Leicester. Simon de Montfort was of foreign
       birth,--son of that fanatical crusader of the same name, who
       spread ruin over the fair country of the Albigeois. The
       English earldom of Leicester had passed to his family, and the
       younger Simon, receiving it, came to England and became an
       Englishman. After some years he threw himself into the
       struggle with the Crown, and his leadership was soon
       recognized. In 1258, a parliament held at London compelled the
       king to consent to the appointment of an extraordinary
       commission of twenty-four barons, clothed with full power to
       reform the government. The commission was named at a
       subsequent meeting of parliament, the same year, at Oxford,
       where the grievances to be redressed were set forth in a paper
       known as the Provisions of Oxford. From the twenty-four
       commissioners there were chosen fifteen to be the King's
       Council. This was really the creation of a new constitution
       for the kingdom, and Henry swore to observe it. But ere long
       he procured a bull from the Pope, absolving him from his oath,
       and he began to prepare for throwing off the restraints that
       had been put upon him. The other side took up arms, under
       Simon's lead; but peace was preserved for a time by referring
       all questions in dispute to the arbitration of Louis IX. of
       France. The arbiter decided against the barons (1264) and
       Montfort's party refused to abide by the award. Then followed
       the civil conflict known as the Barons' War. The king was
       defeated and taken prisoner, and was obliged to submit to
       conditions which practically transferred the administration of
       the government to three counsellors, of whom Simon de Montfort
       was the chief.

    Development of the English Parliament;

       In January, 1265, a memorable parliament was called together.
       It was the first national assembly in which the larger element
       of the English Commons made its appearance; for Montfort had
       summoned to it certain representatives of borough towns, along
       with the barons, the bishops and the abbots, and along,
       moreover, with representative knights, who had been gaining
       admittance of late years to what now became a convocation of
       the Three Estates. The parliamentary model thus roughly shaped
       by the great Earl of Leicester was not continuously followed
       until another generation came; but it is his glory,
       nevertheless, to have given to England the norm and principle
       on which its unexampled parliament was framed. By dissensions
       among themselves, Simon de Montfort and his party soon lost
       the great advantage they had won, and on another appeal to
       arms they were defeated (1265) by the king's valiant and able
       son, afterwards King Edward I., and Montfort was slain. It was
       seven years after this before Edward succeeded his father, and
       nine before he came to the throne, because he was absent on a
       Crusade; but when he did, it was to prove himself, not merely
       one of the few statesmen-kings of England, but one large
       enough in mind to take lessons from the vanquished enemies of
       the Crown. He, in reality, took up the half-planned
       constitutional work of Simon de Montfort, in the development
       of the English Parliament as a body representative of all
       orders in the nation, and carried it forward to substantial
       completion. He did it because he had wit to see that the
       people he ruled could be led more easily than they could be
       driven, and that their free-giving of supplies to the Crown
       would be more open-handed than their giving under compulsion.
       The year 1295 "witnessed the first summons of a perfect and
       model parliament; the clergy represented by their bishops,
       deans, archdeacons, and elected proctors; the barons summoned
       severally in person by the king's special writ, and the
       commons summoned by writs addressed to the sheriffs, directing
       them to send up two elected knights from each shire, two
       elected citizens from each city, and two elected burghers from
       each borough" (Stubbs).
    {1034}
       Two years later, the very fundamental principle of the English
       Constitution was established, by a Confirmation of the
       Charters, conceded in Edward's absence by his son, but
       afterwards assented to by him, which definitely renounced the
       right of the king to tax the nation without its consent. Thus
       the reign of Edward I. was really the most important in the
       constitutional history of England. It was scarcely less
       important in the history of English jurisprudence; for Edward
       was in full sympathy with the spirit of an age in which the
       study and reform of the law were wonderfully awakened
       throughout Europe. The great statutes of his reign are among
       the monuments of Edward's statesmanship, and not the least
       important of them are those by which he checked the
       encroachments of the Church and its dangerous acquisition of
       wealth.

       At the same time, the temper of this vigorous king was warlike
       and aggressive. He subdued the Welsh and annexed Wales as a
       principality to England. He enforced the feudal supremacy
       which the English kings claimed over Scotland, and, upon the
       Scottish throne becoming vacant, in 1290, seated John Baliol,
       as a vassal who did homage to him. The war of Scottish
       Independence then ensued, of which William Wallace and Robert
       Bruce were the heroes. Wallace perished on an English scaffold
       in 1305; Bruce, the next year, secured the Scottish crown, and
       eventually broke the bonds in which his country was held.

       Edward I. died in 1307, and his kingly capability died with
       him. He transmitted neither spirit nor wisdom to his son, the
       second Edward, who gave himself and his kingdom up to foreign
       favorites, as his grandfather had done. His angry subjects
       practically took the government out of his hands (1310), and
       confided it to a body of twenty-one members, called Ordainers.
       His reign of twenty years was one of protracted strife and
       disorder; but the constitutional power of Parliament made
       gains. In outward appearance, however, there was nothing to
       redeem the wretchedness of the time. The struggle of factions
       was pushed to civil war; while Scotland, by the great blow
       struck at Bannockburn (1314), made her independence complete.
       In 1322, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, whose descent was as royal
       as the king's, but who headed the opponents of Edward and
       Edward's unworthy favorites, was defeated in battle, taken
       prisoner, and brought to the block. This martyrdom, as it was
       called, embalmed Lancaster's memory in the hearts of the
       people.

    Edward III. and his French Claims.

       The queen of Edward II., Isabella of France, daughter of
       Philip the Fair, made, at last, common cause with his enemies.
       In January, 1327, he was forced to formally resign the crown,
       and in September of the same year he was murdered, the queen,
       with little doubt, assenting to the deed. His son, Edward
       III., who now came to the throne, founded claims to the crown
       of France upon the rights of his mother, whose three brothers,
       as we have seen, had been crowned in succession and had died,
       bringing the direct line of royalty in France to an end. By
       this claim the two countries were plunged into the miseries of
       the dreadful Hundred Years War, and the progress of
       civilization in Europe was seriously checked.

    Recovery of Christian Spain.

       Before entering that dark century of war, it will be necessary
       to go back a little in time, and carry our survey farther
       afield, in the countries of Europe more remote from the center
       of the events we have already scanned. In Spain, for example,
       there should be noticed, very briefly, the turning movement of
       the tide of Mahometan conquest which drove the Spanish
       Christians into the mountains of the North. In the eighth
       century, their little principality of Asturia had widened into
       the small kingdom of Leon, and the eastern county of Leon had
       taken the name of Castella (Castile) from the number of forts
       or castles with which it bristled, on the Moorish border. East
       of Leon, in the Pyrenees, there grew up about the same time the
       kingdom of Navarre, which became important in the eleventh
       century, under an enterprising king, Sancho the Great, who
       seized Castile and made a separate kingdom of it, which he
       bequeathed to his son. The same Navarrese king extended his
       dominion over a considerable part of the Spanish March, which
       Charlemagne had wrested from the Moors in the ninth century,
       and out of this territory the kingdom of Aragon was presently
       formed. These four kingdoms, of Leon, Navarre, Castile, and
       Aragon, were shuffled together and divided again, in changing
       combinations, many times during the next century or two; but
       Castile and Leon were permanently united in 1230. Meantime
       Portugal, wrested from the Moors, became a distinct kingdom;
       while Navarre was reduced in size and importance. Castile,
       Aragon, and Portugal are from that time the Christian Powers
       in the Peninsula which carried on the unending war with their
       Moslem neighbors. By the end of the thirteenth century they
       had driven the Moors into the extreme south of the peninsula,
       where the latter, thenceforth, held little beyond the small
       kingdom of Granada, which defended itself for two centuries
       more.

    Moorish Civilization and its Decay.

       The Christians were winners and the Moslems were losers in
       this long battle, because adversity had disciplined the one
       and prosperity had relaxed and vitiated the other. Success
       bred disunion, and the spoils of victory engendered
       corruption, among the followers of Mahomet, very quickly in
       their career. The middle of the eighth century was hardly
       passed when the huge empire they had conquered broke in twain,
       and two Caliphates on one side of the Mediterranean, imitated the
       two Roman Empires on the other. We have seen how the Caliphate
       of the East, with its seat at Bagdad, went steadily to wreck;
       but fresh converts of Islam, out of deserts at the North, were
       in readiness, there, to gather the fragments and construct a
       new Mahometan power. In the West, where the Caliphs held their
       court at Cordova, the same crumbling of their power befell
       them, through feuds and jealousies and the decay of a sensuous
       race; but there were none to rebuild it in the Prophet's name.
       The Moor gave way to the Castilian in Spain for reasons not
       differing very much from the reasons which explain the
       supplanting of the Arab by the Turk in the East.

    {1035}

       While its grandeur lasted in Spain,--from the eighth to the
       eleventh centuries--the empire of the Saracens, or Moors, was
       the most splendid of its age. It developed a civilization
       which must have been far finer, in the superficial showing,
       and in much of its spirit as well, than anything found in
       Christian Europe at that time. Its religious temper was less
       fierce and intolerant. Its intellectual disposition was
       towards broader thinking and freer inquiry. Its artistic
       feeling was truer and more instinctive. It took lessons from
       classic learning and philosophy before Germanized Europe had
       become aware of the existence of either, and it gave the
       lessons at second hand to its Christian neighbors. Its
       industries were conducted with a knowledge and a skill that
       could be found among no other people. Says Dr. Draper: "Europe
       at the present day does not offer more taste, more refinement,
       more elegance, than might have been seen, at the epoch of
       which we are speaking, in the capitals of the Spanish Arabs.
       Their streets were lighted and solidly paved. Their houses
       were frescoed and carpeted; they were warmed in winter by
       furnaces, and cooled in summer with perfumed air brought by
       underground pipes from flower beds. They had baths, and
       libraries, and dining halls, fountains of quicksilver and
       water. City and country were full of conviviality, and of
       dancing to lute and mandolin. Instead of the drunken and
       gluttonous wassail orgies of their northern neighbors, the
       feasts of the Saracens were marked with sobriety."

       The brilliancy of the Moorish civilization seems like that of
       some short-lived flower, which may spring from a thin soil of
       no lasting fertility. The qualities which yielded it had their
       season of ascendancy over the deeper-lying forces that worked
       in the Gothic mind of Christian Spain; but time exhausted the
       one, while it matured the other.

    Mediæval Spanish Character.

       There seems to be no doubt that the long conflict of races and
       religions in the peninsula affected the character of the
       Spanish Christians more profoundly, both for good and for ill,
       than it affected the people with whom they strove. It hardened
       and energized them, preparing them for the bold adventures
       they were soon to pursue in a new-found world, and for a
       lordly career in all parts of the rounded globe. It embittered
       and gave fierceness to a sentiment among them which bore some
       likeness to religion, but which was, in reality, the
       partisanship of a church, and not the devotion of a faith. It
       tended to put bigotry in the place of piety--religious rancor
       in the place of charity--priests and images in the place of
       Christ--much more among the Spaniards than among other
       peoples; for they, alone, were Crusaders against the Moslem
       for eight hundred years.

    Early Free Institutions in Spain.

       The political effects of those centuries of struggle in the
       peninsula were also remarkable and strangely mixed. In all the
       earlier stages of the national development, until the close of
       the mediæval period, there seems to have been as promising a
       growth of popular institutions, in most directions, as can be
       found in England itself. Apparently, there was more good
       feeling between classes than elsewhere in Europe. Nobles,
       knights and commons fought side by side in so continuous a
       battle that they were more friendly and familiar in
       acquaintance with one another. Moreover, the ennobled and the
       knighted were greatly more numerous in Spain than in the
       neighboring countries. The kings were lavish of such honors in
       rewarding valor, on every battlefield and after every campaign.
       It was impossible, therefore, for so great a distance to widen
       between the grandee and the peasant or the burgher as that
       which separated the lord and the citizen in Germany or France.
       The division of Christian Spain into several petty kingdoms,
       and the circumstances under which they were placed, retarded
       the growth of monarchical power, and yet did not tend to a
       feudal disintegration of society; because the pressure of its
       perpetual war with the infidels forced the preservation of a
       certain degree of unity, sufficient to be a saving influence.
       At the same time, the Spanish cities became prosperous, and
       naturally, in the circumstances of the country, acquired much
       freedom and many privileges. The inhabitants of some cities in
       Aragon enjoyed the privileges of nobility as a body; the
       magistrates of other cities were ennobled. Both in Aragon and
       Castile, the towns had deputies in the Cortes before any
       representatives of boroughs sat in the English Parliament; and
       the Cortes seems to have been, in the twelfth and thirteenth
       centuries, a more potent factor in government than any
       assembly of estates in any other part of Europe.

       But something was wanting in Spain that was not wanting in
       England and in the Netherlands, for example, to complete the
       evolution of a popular government from this hopeful beginning.
       And the primary want, it would seem, was a political sense or
       faculty in the people. To illustrate this in one particular:
       the Castilian Commons did not grasp the strings of the
       national purse when they had it in their hands, as the
       practical Englishmen did. They allowed the election of
       deputies from the towns to slip out of their hands and to
       become an official function of the municipalities, where it
       was corrupted and controlled by the Crown. In Aragon, the
       popular rights were more efficiently maintained, perhaps; but
       even there the political faculty of the people must have been
       defective, as compared with that of the nations in the North
       which developed free government from less promising germs.
       And, yet, it is possible that the whole subsequent failure of
       Spain may be fully explained by the ruinous prosperity of her
       career in the sixteenth century,--by the fatal gold it gave
       her from America, and the independent power it put into the
       hands of her kings.

    Northern and North-eastern Europe.

       While the Spaniards in their southern peninsula were wrestling
       with the infidel Moor, their Gothic kindred of Sweden, and the
       other Norse nations of that opposite extremity of Europe, had
       been casting off paganism and emerging from the barbarism of
       their piratical age, very slowly. It was not until the tenth
       and eleventh centuries that Christianity got footing among
       them. It was not until the thirteenth century that unity and
       order, the fruits of firm government, began to be really fixed
       in any part of the Scandinavian peninsulas.

    {1036}

       The same is substantially true of the greater Slavic states on
       the eastern side of Europe. The Poles had accepted
       Christianity in the tenth century, and their dukes, in the
       same century, had assumed the title of kings. In the twelfth
       century they had acquired a large dominion and exercised great
       power; but the kingdom was divided, was brought into collision
       with the Teutonic Knights, who conquered Prussia, and it fell
       into a disordered state. The Russians had been Christianized
       in the same missionary century--the tenth; but civilization
       made slow progress among them, and their nation was being
       divided and re-divided in shifting principalities by
       contending families and lords. In the thirteenth century they
       were overwhelmed by the fearful calamity of a conquest by
       Mongol or Tartar hordes, and fell under the brutal domination
       of the successors of Genghis Khan.

    Latin Conquest of Constantinople.

       At Constantinople, the old Greek-Roman Empire of the East had
       been passing through singular changes since we noticed it
       last. The dread with which Alexius Comnenius saw the coming of
       the Crusaders in 1097 was justified by the experience of his
       successors, after little more than a hundred years. In 1204, a
       crusade, which is sometimes numbered as the fourth and
       sometimes as the fifth in the crusading series, was diverted
       by Venetian influence from the rescue of Jerusalem to the
       conquest of Constantinople, ostensibly in the interest of a
       claimant of the Imperial throne. The city was taken and
       pillaged, and the Greek line of Emperors was supplanted by a
       Frank or Latin line, of which Baldwin, Count of Flanders, was
       the first. But this Latin Empire was reduced to a fraction of
       the conquered dominion, the remainder being divided among
       several partners in the conquest; while two Greek princes of
       the fallen house saved fragments of the ancient realm in Asia,
       and throned themselves as emperors at Trebizond and Nicæa. The
       Latin Empire was maintained, feebly and without dignity, a
       little more than half a century; and then (1261) it was
       extinguished by the sovereign of its Nicæan rival, Michael
       Palæologus, who took Constantinople by a night surprise,
       helped by treachery within. Thus the Greek or Byzantine Empire
       was restored, but much shorn of its former European
       possessions, and much weakened by loss of commerce and wealth.
       It was soon involved in a fresh struggle for life with the
       Turks.

    The Thirteenth Century.

       We have now, in our general survey of European history, just
       passed beyond the thirteenth century, and it will be
       instructive to pause here a moment and glance back over the
       movements and events which distinguish that remarkable age.
       For the thirteenth century, while it belongs chronologically
       to mediæval times, seems nearer in spirit to the
       Renaissance--shows more of the travail of the birth of our
       modern mind and life--than the fourteenth, and even more than
       the greater part of the years of the fifteenth century.

       For England, it was the century in which the enduring bases of
       constitutional government were laid down; within which Magna
       Charta and its Confirmations were signed; within which the
       Parliament of Simon de Montfort and the Parliaments of Edward
       I. gave a representative form and a controlling power to the
       wonderful legislature of the English nation. In France, it was
       the century of the Albigenses; of Saint Louis and his judicial
       reforms; and it stretched within two years of the first
       meeting of the States-General of the kingdom. In Switzerland,
       it was the century which began the union of the three forest
       cantons. In Spain, it was the century which gave Aragon the
       "General Privilege" of Peter III.; in Hungary, it was the
       century of its Golden Bull. In Italy it was the century of
       Frederick II.,--the man of modern spirit set in mediæval
       circumstances; and it was the century, too, which moulded the
       city-republics that resisted and defeated his despotic
       pretensions. Everywhere, it was an age of impulses toward
       freedom, and of mighty upward strivings out of the chaos and
       darkness of the feudal state. It was an age of vast energies,
       directed with practical judgment and power. It organized the
       great league of the Hansa Towns, which surpassed, as an
       enterprise of combination in commercial affairs, the most
       stupendous undertakings of the present time. It put the
       weavers and traders of Flanders on a footing with knights and
       princes. In Venice and Genoa it crowned the merchant like a
       king. It sent Marco Polo to Cathay, and inoculated men with
       the itch of exploration from which they find no ease to this
       day. It was the century which saw painting revived as a living
       art in the world by Cimabue and Giotto, and sculpture restored
       by Niccola Pisano. It was the age of great church-building in
       Italy, in Germany and in France. It was the century of St.
       Francis of Assisi, and of the creation of the mendicant orders
       in the Church,--a true religious reformation in its spirit,
       however unhappy in effect it may have been. It was the time of
       the high tide of mediæval learning; the epoch of Aquinas, of
       Duns Scotus, of Roger Bacon; the true birth-time of the
       Universities of Paris and Oxford. It was the century which
       educated Dante for his immortal work.

    The Fourteenth Century.

       The century which followed was a period of many wars--of
       ruinous and deadly wars, and miserable demoralizations and
       disorders, which depressed all Europe by their effects. In the
       front of them all was the wicked Hundred Years War, forced on
       France by the ambition of an English king to wear two crowns;
       while with it came the bloody insurrection of the Jacquerie,
       the ravages of the free companies, and ruinous anarchy
       everywhere. Then, in Italy, there was a duel to the death
       between Venice and Genoa; and a long, wasting contest of
       rivals for the possession of Naples. In Germany, a contested
       imperial election, and the struggle of the Swiss against the
       Austrian Dukes. In Flanders, repeated revolts under the two
       Artevelds. In the East, the terrible fight of Christendom with
       the advancing Turk. And while men were everywhere so busily
       slaying one another, there came the great pestilence which
       they called the Black Death, to help them in the grim work,
       and Europe was half depopulated by it. At the same time, the
       Church, which might have kindled some beacon lights of faith
       and hope in the midst of all this darkness and terror, was
       sinking to its lowest state, and Rome had become an unruled
       robbers' den.

       There were a few voices heard, above the wailing and the
       battle-din of the afflicted age, which charmed and comforted
       it; voices which preached the pure gospel of Wycliffe and
       Huss,--which recited the great epic of Dante,--which syllabled
       the melodious verse of Petrarch and Chaucer,--which told the
       gay tales of Boccaccio; but the pauses of peace in which men
       might listen to such messages and give themselves to such
       delights were neither many nor long.

    {1037}

    The Hundred Years War.

       The conflict between England and France began in Flanders,
       then connected with the English very closely in trade. Philip
       VI. of France forced the Count of Flanders to expel English
       merchants from his territory. Edward III. retaliated (1336) by
       forbidding the exportation of wool to Flanders, and this
       speedily reduced the Flemish weavers to idleness. They rose in
       revolt, drove out their count, and formed an alliance with
       England, under the lead of Jacob van Arteveld, a brewer, of
       Ghent. The next year (1337) Edward joined the Flemings with an
       army and entered France; but made no successful advance,
       although his fleet won a victory, in a sea-fight off Sluys,
       and hostilities were soon suspended by a truce. In 1341 they
       were renewed in Brittany, over a disputed succession to the
       dukedom, and the scattered sieges and chivalric combats which
       made up the war in that region for two years are described
       with minuteness by Froissart, the gossipy chronicler of the
       time. After a second truce, the grimly serious stage of the
       war was reached in 1346. It was in that year that the English
       won the victory at Crécy, which was the pride and boast of
       their nation for centuries; and the next season they took
       Calais, which they held for more than two hundred years.

       Philip died in 1350 and was succeeded by his son John. In
       1355, Edward of England repeated his invasion, ravaging
       Artois, while his son, the Black Prince, from Guienne (which
       the English had held since the Angevin time), devastated
       Languedoc. The next year, this last named prince made another
       sally from Bordeaux, northwards, towards the Loire, and was
       encountered by the French king, with a splendid army, at
       Poitiers. The victory of the English in this case was more
       overwhelming than at Crécy, although they were greatly
       outnumbered. King John was taken prisoner and conveyed to
       London. His kingdom was in confusion. The dauphin called
       together the States-General of France, and that body, in which
       the commons, or third estate, attained to a majority in numbers,
       assumed powers and compelled assent to reforms which seemed
       likely to place it on a footing of equal importance with the
       Parliament of England. The leader of the third estate in these
       measures was Etienne or Stephen Marcel, provost of Paris, a
       man of commanding energy and courage. The dauphin, under
       orders from his captive father, attempted to nullify the
       ordinances of the States-General. Paris rose at the call of
       Marcel and the frightened prince became submissive; but the
       nobles of the provinces resented these high-handed proceedings
       of the Parisians and civil war ensued. The peasants, who were
       in great misery, took advantage of the situation to rise in
       support of the Paris burgesses, and for the redressing of
       their own wrongs. This insurrection of the Jacquerie, as it is
       known, produced horrible deeds of outrage and massacre on both
       sides, and seems to have had no other result. Paris, meantime
       (1358), was besieged and hard pressed; Marcel, suspected of an
       intended treachery, was killed, and with his death the whole
       attempt to assert popular rights fell to the ground.

       The state of France at this time was one of measureless
       misery. It was overrun with freebooters--discharged soldiers,
       desperate homeless and idle men, and the ruffians who always
       bestir themselves when authority disappears. They roamed the
       country in bands, large and small, stripped it of what war had
       spared, and left famine behind them.

       At length, in 1360, terms of peace were agreed upon, in a
       treaty signed at Bretigny, and fighting ceased, except in
       Brittany, where the war went on for four years more. By the
       treaty, all French claims upon Aquitaine and the dependencies
       were given up, and Edward acquired full sovereignty there, no
       longer owing homage, as a vassal, to the king of France.
       Calais, too, was ceded to England, and so heavy a ransom was
       exacted from the captive King John that he failed to collect
       money for the payment of it and died in London (1364).

    Charles the Wise.

       Charles V., who now ruled independently, as he had ruled for
       some years in his father's name, proved to be a more prudent
       and capable prince, and his counsellors and captains were
       wisely chosen. He was a man of studious tastes and of
       considerable learning for that age, with intelligence to see
       and understand the greater sources of evil in his kingdom.
       Above all, he had patience enough to plant better things in
       the seed and wait for them to grow, which is one of the
       grander secrets of statesmanship. By careful, judicious
       measures, he and those who shared the task of government with
       him slowly improved the discipline and condition of their
       armies. The "great companies" of freebooters, too strong to be
       put down, were lured out of the kingdom by an expedition into
       Spain, which the famous warrior Du Guesclin commanded, and
       which was sent against the detestable Pedro, called the Cruel,
       of Castile, whom the English supported. A stringent economy in
       public expenditure was introduced, and the management of the
       finances was improved. The towns were encouraged to strengthen
       their fortifications, and the state and feeling of the whole
       country were slowly lifted from the gloomy depth to which the
       war had depressed them.

       At length, in 1369, Charles felt prepared to challenge another
       encounter with the English, by repudiating the ignominious
       terms of the treaty of Bretigny. Before the year closed,
       Edward's armies were in the country again, but accomplished
       nothing beyond the havoc which they wrought as they marched.
       The French avoided battles, and their cities were well
       defended. Next year the English returned, and the Black Prince
       earned infamy by a ferocious massacre of three thousand men,
       women, and children, in the city of Limoges, when he had taken
       it by storm. It was his last campaign. Already suffering from
       a mortal disease, he returned to England, and died a few years
       later. The war went on, with no decisive results, until 1375,
       when it was suspended by a truce. In 1377, Edward III. died,
       and the French king began war again with great success. Within
       three years he expelled the English from every part of France
       except Bayonne, Bordeaux, Brest, Cherbourg and Calais.

       If he had lived a little longer, there might soon have been an
       end of the war. But he died in 1380, and fresh calamities fell
       upon unhappy France.

    {1038}

    Rising Power of Burgundy.

       The son who succeeded him, Charles VI., was an epileptic boy
       of twelve years, who had three greedy and selfish uncles to
       quarrel over the control of him, and to plunder the Crown of
       territory and treasures. One of these was the Duke of
       Burgundy, the first prince of a new great house which King
       John had foolishly created. Just before that fatuous king
       died, the old line of Burgundian dukes came to an end, and he
       had the opportunity, which wise kings before him would have
       improved very eagerly, to annex that fief to the crown.
       Instead of doing so, he gave it as an appanage to his son
       Philip, called "the Bold," and thus rooted a new plant of
       feudalism in France which was destined to cause much trouble.
       Another of the uncles was Louis, Duke of Anjou, heir to the
       crown of Naples under a will of the lately murdered Queen
       Joanna, and who was preparing for an expedition to enforce his
       claim. The third was Duke of Berry, upon whom his father, King
       John, had conferred another great appanage, including Berry,
       Poitou and Auvergne.

       The pillage and misgovernment of the realm under these
       rapacious guardians of the young king was so great that
       desperate risings were provoked, the most formidable of which
       broke out in Paris. They were all suppressed, and with
       merciless severity. At the same time, the Flemings, who had
       again submitted to their count, revolted once more, under the
       lead of Philip van Arteveld, son of their former leader. The
       French moved an army to the assistance of the Count of
       Flanders, and the sturdy men of Ghent, who confronted it
       almost alone, suffered a crushing defeat at Roosebeke (1382).
       Philip van Arteveld fell in the battle, with twenty-six
       thousand of his men. Two years later, the Count of Flanders
       died, and the Duke of Burgundy, who had married his daughter,
       acquired that rich and noble possession. This beginning of the
       union of Burgundy and the Netherlands, creating a power by the
       side of the throne of France which threatened to overshadow
       it, and having for its ultimate consequence the casting of the
       wealth of the Low Countries into the lap of the House of
       Austria and into the coffers of Spain, is an event of large
       importance in European history.

    Burgundians and Armagnacs.

       When Charles VI. came of age, he took the government into his
       own hands, and for some years it was administered by capable
       men. But in 1392 the king's mind gave way, and his uncles
       regained control of affairs. Philip of Burgundy maintained the
       ascendancy until his death, in 1404. Then the controlling
       influence passed to the king's brother, the Duke of Orleans,
       between whom and the new Duke of Burgundy, John, called the
       Fearless, a bitter feud arose. John, who was unscrupulous,
       employed assassins to waylay and murder the Duke of Orleans,
       which they did in November, 1407. This foul deed gave rise to
       two parties in France. Those who sought vengeance ranged
       themselves under the leadership of the Count of Armagnac, and
       were called by his name. The Burgundians, who sustained Duke
       John, were in the main a party of the people; for the Duke had
       cultivated popularity, especially in Paris, by advocating
       liberal measures and extending the rights and privileges of
       the citizens.

       The kingdom was kept in turmoil and terror for years by the
       war of these factions, especially in and about Paris, where
       the guild of the butchers took a prominent part in affairs, on
       the Burgundian side, arming a riotous body of men who were
       called Cabochiens, from their leader's name. In 1413 the
       Armagnacs succeeded in recovering possession of the capital
       and the Cabochiens were suppressed.

    Second Stage of the Hundred Years War.

       Meantime, Henry V. of England, the ambitious young Lancastrian
       king who came to the throne of that country in 1413, saw a
       favorable opportunity, in the distracted state of France, to
       reopen the questions left unsettled by the breaking of the
       treaty of Bretigny. He invaded France in 1415, as the rightful
       king coming to dethrone a usurper, and began by taking
       Harfleur at the mouth of the Seine, after a siege which cost
       him so heavily that he found it prudent to retreat towards
       Calais. The French intercepted him at Agincourt and forced him
       to give them battle. He had only twenty thousand men, but they
       formed a well disciplined and well ordered army. The French
       had gathered eighty thousand men, but they were a feudal mob.
       The battle ended, like those of Crécy and Poitiers, in the
       routing and slaughter of the French, with small loss to
       Henry's force. His army remained too weak in numbers, however,
       for operations in a hostile country, and the English king
       returned home, with a great train of captive princes and
       lords.

       He left the Armagnacs and Burgundians still fighting one
       another, and disabling France as effectually as he could do if
       he stayed to ravage the land. In 1417 he came back and began
       to attack the strong cities of Normandy, one by one, taking
       Caen first. In the next year, by a horrible massacre, the
       Burgundian mob in Paris overcame the Armagnacs there, and
       reinstated Duke John of Burgundy in possession of the capital.
       The latter was already in negotiation with the English king,
       and evidently prepared to sacrifice the kingdom for whatever
       might seem advantageous to himself. But in 1419 Henry V. took
       Rouen, and, when all of Normandy submitted with its capital,
       he demanded nothing less than that great province, with
       Brittany, Guienne, Maine, Anjou and Touraine in addition,--or,
       substantially, the western half of France.

    Burgundian and English Alliance.

       Parleyings were brought to an end in September of that year by
       the treacherous murder of Duke John. The Armagnacs slew him
       foully, at an interview to which he had been enticed, on the
       bridge of Montereau. His son, Duke Philip of Burgundy, now
       reopened negotiations with the invader, in conjunction with
       Queen Isabella (wife of the demented king), who had played an
       evil part in all the factious troubles of the time. These two,
       having control of the king's person, concluded a treaty with
       Henry V. at Troyes, according to the terms of which Henry
       should marry the king's daughter Catherine; should be
       administrator of the kingdom of France while Charles VI.
       lived, and should receive the crown when the latter died. The
       marriage took place at once, and almost the whole of France
       north of the Loire seemed submissive to the arrangement. The
       States-General and the Parliament of Paris gave official
       recognition to it; the disinherited dauphin of France, whose
       own mother had signed away his regal heritage, retired, with
       his Armagnac supporters, to the country south of the Loire,
       and had little apparent prospect of holding even that.

    {1039}

    Two Kings in France.

       But a mortal malady had already stricken King Henry V., and he
       died in August, 1422. The unfortunate, rarely conscious French
       king, whose crown Henry had waited for, died seven weeks
       later. Each left an heir who was proclaimed king of France.
       The English pretender (Henry VI. in England, Henry II. in
       France) was an innocent infant, ten months old; but his court
       was in Paris, his accession was proclaimed with due ceremony
       at St. Denis, his sovereignty was recognized by the Parliament
       and the University of that city, and the half of France
       appeared resigned to the lapse of nationality which its
       acceptance of him signified. The true heir of the royal house
       of France (Charles VII.) was a young man of nearly mature age
       and of fairly promising character; but he was proclaimed in a
       little town of Berry, by a small following of lords and
       knights, and the nation for which he stood hardly seemed to
       exist.

       The English supporters of the English king of France were too
       arrogant and overbearing to retain very long the good will of
       their allies among the French people. Something like a
       national feeling in northern France was aroused by the
       hostility they provoked, and the strength of the position in
       which Henry V. left them was steadily but slowly lost. Charles
       proved incapable, however, of using any advantages which
       opened to him, or of giving his better counsellors an
       opportunity to serve him with good effect, and no important
       change took place in the situation of affairs until the
       English laid siege, in 1428, to the city of Orleans, which was
       the stronghold of the French cause.

    Jeanne d'Arc, the Maid of Orleans.

       Then occurred one of the most extraordinary episodes in
       history; the appearance of the young peasant girl of Lorraine,
       Jeanne d'Arc, whose coming upon the scene of war was like the
       descent of an angel out of Heaven, sent with a Divine
       commission to rescue France. Belief in the inspiration of this
       simple maiden, who had faith in her own visions and voices,
       was easier for that age than belief in a rational rally of
       public energies, and it worked like a miracle on the spirit of
       the nation. But it could not have done so with effect if the
       untaught country girl of Domremy had not been endowed in a
       wonderful way, with a wise mind, as well as with an
       imaginative one, and with courage as well as with faith. When
       the belief in her inspired mission gave her power to lead the
       foolish king, and authority to command his disorderly troops,
       she acted almost invariably with understanding, with good
       sense, with a clear, unclouded judgment, with straightforward
       singleness of purpose, and with absolute personal
       fearlessness. She saw the necessity for saving Orleans; and
       when that had been done under her own captaincy (1429), she
       saw how greatly King Charles would gain in prestige if he made
       his way to Rheims, and received, like his predecessors, a
       solemn coronation and consecration in the cathedral of that
       city. It was by force of her gentle obstinacy of determination
       that this was done, and the effect vindicated the sagacity of
       the Maid. Then she looked upon her mission as accomplished,
       and would have gone quietly home to her village; for she seems
       to have remained as simple in feeling as when she left her
       father's house, and was innocent to the end of any selfish
       pleasure in the fame she had won and the importance she had
       acquired. But those she had helped would not let her go; and
       yet they would not be guided by her without wrangle and
       resistance. She wished to move the army straight from Rheims
       to Paris, and enter that city before it had time to recover
       from the consternation it was in. But other counsellors
       retarded the march, by stopping to capture small towns on the
       way, until the opportunity for taking Paris was lost. The
       king, who had been braced up to a little energy by her
       influence, sank back into his indolent pleasures, and faction
       and frivolity possessed the court again. Jeanne strove with
       high courage against malignant opposition and many
       disheartenments, in the siege of Paris and after, exposing
       herself in battle with the bravery of a seasoned warrior; and
       her reward was to find herself abandoned at last, in a
       cowardly way, to the enemy, when she had led a sortie from the
       town of Compiegne, to drive back the Duke of Burgundy, who was
       besieging it. Taken prisoner, she was given up to the Duke,
       and sold by him to the English at Rouen.

       That the Maid acted with supernatural powers was believed by
       the English as firmly as by the French; but those powers, in
       their belief, came, not from Heaven, but from Hell. In their
       view she was not a saint, but a sorceress. They paid a high
       price to the Duke of Burgundy for his captive, in order to put
       her on trial for the witchcraft which they held she had
       practised against them, and to destroy her mischievous power.
       No consideration for her sex, or her youth, or for the beauty
       and purity of character that is revealed in all the accounts
       of her trial, moved her judges to compassion. They condemned
       her remorselessly to the stake, and she was burned on the 31st
       of May, 1431, with no effort put forth on the part of the
       French or their ungrateful king to save her from that horrible
       fate.

    End of the Hundred Years War.

       After this, things went badly with the English, though some
       years passed before Charles VII. was roused again to any
       display of capable powers. At last, in 1435, a general
       conference of all parties in the war was brought about at
       Arras. The English were offered Normandy and Aquitaine in full
       sovereignty, but they refused it, and withdrew from the
       conference when greater concessions were denied to them. The
       Duke of Burgundy then made terms with King Charles, abandoning
       the English alliance, and obtaining satisfaction for the
       murder of his father. Charles was now able, for the first time
       in his reign, to enter the capital of his kingdom (May, 1436),
       and it is said that he found it so wasted by a pestilence and
       so ruined and deserted, that wolves came into the city, and
       that forty persons were devoured by them in a single week,
       some two years later.

    {1040}

       Charles now began to show better qualities than had appeared
       in his character before. He adopted strong measures to
       suppress the bands of marauders who harassed and wasted the
       country, and to bring all armed forces in the kingdom under
       the control and command of the Crown. He began the creation of
       a disciplined and regulated militia in France. He called into
       his service the greatest French merchant of the day, Jacques
       Cœur, who successfully reorganized the finances of the state,
       and whose reward, after a few years, was to be prosecuted and
       plundered by malignant courtiers, while the king looked
       passively on, as he had looked on at the trial and execution
       of Jeanne d'Arc.

       In 1449, a fresh attack upon the English in Normandy was
       begun; and as civil war--the War of the Roses--was then at the
       point of outbreak in England, they could make no effective
       resistance. Within a year, the whole of Normandy had become
       obedient again to the rule of the king of France. In two years
       more Guienne had been recovered, and when, in October, 1453,
       the French king entered Bordeaux, the English had been finally
       expelled from every foot of the realm except Calais and its
       near neighborhood. The Hundred Years War was at an end.

    England under Edward III.

       The century of the Hundred Years War had been, in England, one
       of few conspicuous events; and when the romantic tale of that
       war--the last sanguinary romance of expiring Chivalry--is
       taken out of the English annals of the time, there is not much
       left that looks interesting on the surface of things. Below
       the surface there are movements of no little importance to be
       found.

       When Edward III. put forward his claim to the crown of France,
       and prepared to make it good by force of arms, the English
       nation had absolutely no interest of its own in the
       enterprise, from which it could derive no possible advantage,
       but which did, on the contrary, promise harm to it, very
       plainly, whatever might be the result. If the king succeeded,
       his English realm would become a mere minor appendage to a far
       more imposing continental dominion, and he and his successors
       might easily acquire a power independent and absolute, over
       their subjects. If he failed, the humiliation of failure would
       wound the pride and the prestige of the nation, while its
       resources would have been drained for naught. But these
       rational considerations did not suffice to breed any
       discoverable opposition to King Edward's ambitious
       undertaking. The Parliament gave sanction to it; most probably
       the people at large approved, with exultant expectations of
       national glory; and when Crécy and Poitiers, with victories
       over the hostile Scots, filled the measure of England's glory
       to overflowing, they were intoxicated by it, and had little
       thought then of the cost or the consequences.

       But long before Edward's reign came to an end, the splendid
       pageantries of the war had passed out of sight, and a new
       generation was looking at, and was suffering from, the
       miseries and mortifications that came in its train. The
       attempt to conquer France had failed; the fruits of the
       victories of Crécy and Poitiers had been lost; even Guienne,
       which had been English ground since the days of Henry II., was
       mostly given up. And England was weak from the drain of money
       and men which the war had caused. The awful plague of the 14th
       century, the Black Death, had smitten her people hard and left
       diminished numbers to bear the burden. There had been famine
       in the land, and grievous distress, and much sorrow.

       But the calamities of this bitter time wrought beneficent
       effects, which no man then living is likely to have clearly
       understood. By plague, famine and battle, labor was made
       scarce, wages were raised, the half-enslaved laborer was
       speedily emancipated, despite the efforts of Parliament to
       keep him in bonds, and land-owners were forced to let their
       lands to tenant-farmers, who strengthened the English
       middle-class. By the demands of the war for money and men, the
       king was held more in dependence on Parliament than he might
       otherwise have been, and the plant of constitutional
       government, which began its growth in the previous century,
       took deeper root.

       In the last years of his life Edward III. lost all of his
       vigor, and fell under the influence of a woman, Alice Perrers,
       who wronged and scandalized the nation. The king's eldest son,
       the Black Prince, was slowly dying of an incurable disease,
       and took little part in affairs; when he interfered, it seems
       to have been with some leanings to the popular side. The next
       in age of the living sons of Edward was a turbulent, proud,
       self-seeking prince, who gave England much trouble and was
       hated profoundly. This was John, Duke of Lancaster, called
       John of Gaunt, or Ghent, because of his birth in that city.

    England under Richard II.

       The Black Prince, dying in 1376, left a young son, Richard,
       then ten years old, who was immediately recognized as the heir
       to the throne, and who succeeded to it in the following year,
       when Edward III. died. The Duke of Lancaster had been
       suspected of a design to set Richard aside and claim the crown
       for himself. But he did not venture the attempt; nor was he
       able to secure even the regency of the kingdom during the
       young king's minority. The distrust of him was so general that
       Parliament and the lords preferred to invest Richard with full
       sovereignty even in his boyhood. But John of Gaunt,
       notwithstanding these endeavors to exclude him from any place
       of authority, contrived to attain a substantial mastery of the
       government, managing the war in France and the expenditure of
       public moneys in his own way, and managing them very badly. At
       least, he was held chiefly responsible for what was bad, and
       his name was heard oftenest in the mutterings of popular
       discontent. The peasants were now growing very impatient of
       the last fetters of villeinage which they wore, and very
       conscious of their right to complete freedom. Those feelings
       were strongly stirred in them by a heavy poll-tax which
       Parliament levied in 1381. The consequence was an outbreak of
       insurrection, led by one Wat the Tyler, which became
       formidable and dangerous. The insurgents began by making
       everybody they encountered swear to be true to King Richard,
       and to submit to no king named John, meaning John of Gaunt.
       They increased in numbers and boldness until they entered and
       took possession of the city of London, where they beheaded the
       Archbishop of Canterbury, and other obnoxious persons; but
       permitted no thieving to be done.
    {1041}
       The day after this occurred, Wat Tyler met the young king at
       Smithfield, for a conference, and was suddenly killed by one
       of those who attended the king. The excuse made for the deed
       was some word of insolence on the part of the insurgent
       leader; but there is every appearance of a foul act of
       treachery in the affair. Richard on this occasion behaved
       boldly and with much presence of mind, acquiring by his
       courage and readiness a command over the angry rebels, which
       resulted in their dispersion.

       The Wat Tyler rebellion appears to have manifested a more
       radically democratic state of thinking and feeling among the
       common people than existed again in England before the
       seventeenth century. John Ball, a priest, and others who were
       associated with Wat Tyler in the leadership, preached
       doctrines of social equality that would nearly have satisfied
       a Jacobin of the French Revolution.

       This temper of political radicalism had no apparent connection
       with the remarkable religious feeling of the time, which the
       great reformer, Wyclif, had aroused; yet the two movements of
       the English mind were undoubtedly started by one and the same
       revolutionary shock, which it took from the grave alarms and
       anxieties of the age, and for which it had been prepared by
       the awakening of the previous century. Wyclif was the first
       English Puritan, and more of the spirit of the reformation of
       religion which he sought, than the spirit of Luther's
       reformation, went into the Protestantism that ultimately took
       form in England. The movement he stirred was a more wonderful
       anticipation of the religious revolt of the sixteenth century
       than any other which occurred in Europe; for that of Huss in
       Bohemia took its impulse from Wyclif and the English Lollards,
       as Wyclif's followers were called.

       Richard was a weak but wilful king, and the kingdom was kept
       in trouble by his fitful attempts at independence and
       arbitrary rule. He made enemies of most of the great lords,
       and lost the good will and confidence of Parliament. He did
       what was looked upon as a great wrong to Henry of Bolingbroke,
       son of John of Gaunt, by banishing both him and the Duke of
       Norfolk from the kingdom, when he should have judged between
       them; and he made the wrong greater by seizing the lands of
       the Lancastrian house when John of Gaunt died. This caused his
       ruin. Henry of Bolingbroke, now Duke of Lancaster, came back to
       England (1399), encouraged by the discontent in the kingdom,
       and was immediately joined by so many adherents that Richard
       could offer little resistance. He was deposed by act of
       Parliament, and the Duke of Lancaster (a grandson of Edward
       III., as Richard was), was elected to the throne, which he
       ascended as Henry IV. By judgment of King and Parliament,
       Richard was presently condemned to imprisonment for life in
       Pomfret Castle; and, early in the following year, after a
       conspiracy in his favor had been discovered, he died
       mysteriously in his prison.

    England Under Henry IV.

       The reign of Henry IV., which lasted a little more than
       thirteen years, was troubled by risings and conspiracies, all
       originating among the nobles, out of causes purely personal or
       factious, and having no real political significance. But no
       events in English history are more commonly familiar, or seem
       to be invested with a higher importance, than the rebellions
       of Owen Glendower and the Percys,--Northumberland and Harry
       Hotspur,--simply because Shakespeare has laid his magic upon
       what otherwise would be a story of little note. Wars with the
       always hostile Scots supplied other stirring incidents to the
       record Of the time; but these came to a summary end in 1405,
       when the crown prince, James, of Scotland, voyaging to France,
       was driven by foul winds to the English coast and taken
       prisoner. The prince's father, King Robert, died on hearing
       the news, and James, the captive, was now entitled to be king.
       But the English held him for eighteen years, treating him as a
       guest at their court, rather than as a prisoner, and educating
       him with care, but withholding him from his kingdom.

       To strengthen his precarious seat upon the throne, Henry
       cultivated the friendship of the Church, and seems to have
       found this course expedient, even at considerable cost to his
       popularity. For the attitude of the commons towards the Church
       during his reign was anything but friendly. They went so far
       as to pass a bill for the confiscation of Church property,
       which the Lords rejected; and they seem to have repented of an
       Act passed early in his reign, under which a cruel persecution
       of the Lollards was begun. The clergy and the Lords, with the
       favor of the king, maintained the barbarous law, and England
       for the first time saw men burned at the stake for heresy.

    England Under Henry V. and Henry VI.

       Henry IV. died in 1413, and was succeeded by his spirited and
       able, but too ambitious son, Henry V., the Prince Hal of
       Shakespeare, who gave up riotous living when called to the
       grave duties of government and showed himself to be a man of
       no common mould. The war in France, which he renewed, and the
       chief events of which have been sketched already, filled up
       most of his brief reign of nine years. His early death (1422)
       left two crowns to an infant nine months old. The English
       crown was not disputed. The French crown, though practically
       won by conquest, was not permanently secured, but was still to
       be fought for; and in the end, as we have seen, it was lost.
       No more need be said of the incidents of the war which had
       that result.

       The infant king was represented in France by his elder uncle,
       the Duke of Bedford. In England, the government was carried on
       for him during his minority by a council, in which his younger
       uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, occupied the chief place,
       but with powers that were jealously restricted. While the war
       in France lasted, or during most of the thirty-one years
       through which it was protracted after Henry V.'s death, it
       engrossed the English mind and overshadowed domestic
       interests, so that the time has a meagre history.

       Soon after he came of age, Henry VI. married (1444) Margaret
       of Anjou, daughter of René, Duke of Anjou, who claimed to be
       King of Naples and Jerusalem. The marriage, which aimed at
       peace with France, and which had been brought about by the
       cession to that country of Maine and Anjou, was unpopular in
       England. Discontent with the feeble management of the war, and
       with the general weakness and incapability of the government,
       grew apace, and showed itself, among other exhibitions, in a
       rebellion (1450) known as Jack Cade's, from the name of an
       Irishman who got the lead of it. Jack Cade and his followers
       took possession of London and held it for three days, only
       yielding at last to an offer of general pardon, after they had
       beheaded Lord Say, the most obnoxious adviser of the king. A
       previous mob had taken the head of the Earl of Suffolk, who
       was detested still more as the contriver of the king's
       marriage and of the humiliating policy in France.

    {1042}

    The Wars of the Roses.

       At length, the Duke of York, representing an elder line of
       royal descent from Edward III., took the lead of the
       discontented in the nation, and civil war was imminent in
       1452; but pacific counsels prevailed for the moment. The king,
       who had always been weak-minded, and entirely under the
       influence of the queen, now sank for a time into a state of
       complete stupor, and was incapable of any act. The Lords in
       Parliament thereupon appointed the Duke of York Protector of
       England, and the government was vigorously conducted by him
       for a few months, until the king recovered. The queen, and the
       councillors she favored, now regained their control of
       affairs, and the opposition took arms.

       The long series of fierce struggles between these two parties,
       which is commonly called the Wars of the Roses, began on the
       22d of May, 1455, with a battle at St. Albans--the first of
       two that were fought on the same ground. At the beginning, it
       was a contest for the possession of the unfortunate,
       irresponsible king, and of the royal authority which resided
       nominally in his person. But it became, ere long, a contest
       for the crown which Henry wore, and to which the Duke of York
       denied his right. The Duke traced his ancestry to one son of
       Edward III., and King Henry to another son. But the Duke's
       forefather, Lionel, was prior in birth to the King's
       forefather, John of Gaunt, and, as an original proposition,
       the House of York was clearly nearer than the House of
       Lancaster to the royal line which had been interrupted when
       Richard II. was deposed. The rights of the latter House were
       such as it had gained prescriptively by half a century of
       possession.

       At one time it was decided by the Lords that Henry should be
       king until he died, and that the Duke of York and his heirs
       should succeed him. But Queen Margaret would not yield the
       rights of her son, and renewed the war. The Duke of York was
       killed in the next battle fought. His son, Edward, continued
       the contest, and early in 1461, having taken possession of
       London, he was declared king by a council of Lords, which
       formally deposed Henry. The Lancastrians were driven from the
       kingdom, and Edward held the government with little
       disturbance for eight years. Then a rupture occurred between
       him and his most powerful supporter, the Earl of Warwick.
       Warwick put himself at the head of a rebellion which failed in
       the first instance, but which finally, when Warwick had joined
       forces with Queen Margaret, drove Edward to flight. The latter
       took refuge in the Netherlands (1470), where he received
       protection and assistance from the Duke of Burgundy, who was
       his brother-in-law. Henry VI. was now restored to the throne;
       but for no longer a time than six months. At the end of that
       period Edward landed again in England, with a small force,
       professing that he came only to demand his dukedom. As soon as
       he found himself well received and strongly supported, he
       threw off the mask, resumed the title of king, and advanced to
       London, where the citizens gave him welcome. A few days later
       (April 14, 1471) he went out to meet Warwick and defeated and
       slew him in the fierce battle of Barnet. One more fight at
       Tewkesbury, where Queen Margaret was taken prisoner, ended the
       war. King Henry died, suspiciously, in the Tower, on the very
       night of his victorious rival's return to London, and Edward
       IV. had all his enemies under his feet.

    England under the House of York.

       For a few years England enjoyed peace within her borders, and
       the material effects of the protracted civil wars were rapidly
       effaced. Indeed, the greater part of England appears to have
       been lightly touched by those effects. The people at large had
       taken little part in the conflict, and had been less disturbed
       by it, in their industries and in their commerce, than might
       have been expected. It had been a strife among the great
       families, enlisting the gentry to a large extent, no doubt,
       but not the middle class. Hence its chief consequence had been
       the thinning and weakening of the aristocratic order, which
       relatively enhanced the political importance of the commons.
       But the commons were not yet trained to act independently in
       political affairs. Their rise in power had been through joint
       action of lords and commons against the Crown, with the former
       in the lead; they were accustomed to depend on aristocratic
       guidance, and to lean on aristocratic support. For this
       reason, they were not only unprepared to take advantage of the
       great opportunity which now opened to them, for decisively
       grasping the control of government, but they were unfitted to
       hold what they had previously won, without the help of the
       class above them. As a consequence, it was the king who
       profited by the decimation and impoverishment of the nobles,
       grasping not only the power which they lost, but the power
       which the commons lacked skill to use. For a century and a
       half following the Wars of the Roses, the English monarchy
       approached more nearly to absolutism than at any other period
       before or after.

       The unsparing confiscations by which Edward IV. and his
       triumphant party crushed their opponents enriched the Crown
       for a time and made it independent of parliamentary subsidies.
       When supply from that source began to fall short, the king
       invented another. He demeaned himself so far as to solicit
       gifts from the wealthy merchants of the kingdom, to which he
       gave the name of "benevolences," and he practiced this system
       of royal beggary so persistently and effectually that he had
       no need to call Parliament together. He thus began, in a
       manner hardly perceived or resisted, the arbitrary and
       unconstitutional mode of government which his successors
       carried further, until the nation roused itself and took back
       its stolen liberties with vengeance and wrath.

    {1043}

    Richard III. and the first of the Tudors.

       Edward IV. died in 1483, leaving two young sons, the elder not
       yet thirteen. Edward's brother, Richard, contrived with
       amazing ability and unscrupulousness to acquire control of the
       government, first as Protector, and presently as King. The
       young princes, confined in the Tower, were murdered there, and
       Richard III. might have seemed to be secure on his wickedly
       won throne; for he did not lack popularity, notwithstanding
       his crimes. But an avenger soon came, in the person of Henry,
       Earl of Richmond, who claimed the Crown. Henry's claim was not
       a strong one. Through his mother, he traced his lineage to
       John of Gaunt, as the Lancastrians had done; but it was the
       mistress and not the wife of that prince who bore Henry's
       ancestor. His grandfather was a Welsh chieftain, Sir Owen
       Tudor, who won the heart of the widowed queen of Henry V.,
       Catherine of France, and married her. But the claim of Henry
       of Richmond, if a weak one genealogically, sufficed for the
       overthrow of the red-handed usurper, Richard. Henry, who had
       been in exile, landed in England in August, 1485, and was
       quickly joined by large numbers of supporters. Richard
       hastened to attack them, and was defeated and slain on
       Bosworth Field. With no more opposition, Henry won the
       kingdom, and founded, as Henry VII., the Tudor dynasty which
       held the throne until the death of Elizabeth.

       Under that dynasty, the history of England took on a new
       character, disclosing new tendencies, new impulses, new
       currents of influence, new promises of the future. We will not
       enter upon it until we have looked at some prior events in
       other regions.

    Germany.

       If we return now to Germany, we take up the thread of events
       at an interesting point. We parted from the affairs of that
       troubled country while two rival Emperors, Louis IV., or
       Ludwig, of Bavaria, and Frederick of Austria, were endeavoring
       (1325) to settle their dispute in a friendly way, by sharing
       the throne together. Before noting the result of that
       chivalric and remarkable compromise, let us glance backward
       for a moment at the most memorable and important incident of
       the civil war which led to it.

    Birth of the Swiss Confederacy.

       The three cantons of Switzerland which are known distinctively
       as the Forest Cantons, namely, Schwytz (which gave its name in
       time to the whole country), Uri, and Unterwalden, had stood in
       peculiar relations to the Hapsburg family since long before
       Rudolph became Emperor and his house became the House of
       Austria. In those cantons, the territorial rights were held
       mostly by great monasteries, and the counts of Hapsburg for
       generations past had served the abbots and abbesses in the
       capacity of advocates, or champions, to rule their vassals for
       them and to defend their rights. Authority of their own in the
       cantons they had none. At the same time, the functions they
       performed so continually developed ideas in their minds,
       without doubt, which grew naturally into pretensions that were
       offensive to the bold mountaineers. On the other hand, the
       circumstances of the situation were calculated to breed
       notions and feelings of independence among the men of the
       mountains. They gave their allegiance to the Emperor--to the
       high sovereign who ruled over all, in the name of Rome--and
       they opposed what came between them and him. It is manifest
       that a threatening complication for them arose when the Count
       of Hapsburg became Emperor, which occurred in 1273. They had
       no serious difficulty with Rudolph, in his time; but they
       wisely prepared themselves for what might come, by forming, or
       by renewing, in 1291, a league of the three cantons,--the
       beginning and nucleus of the Swiss Confederation, which has
       maintained its independence and its freedom from that day to
       this. The league of 1291 had existed something more than
       twenty years when the confederated cantons were first called
       upon to stand together in resistance to the Austrian
       pretensions. This occurred in 1315, during the war between
       Louis and Frederick, when Leopold, Duke of Austria, invaded
       the Forest Cantons and was disastrously beaten in a fight at
       the pass of Morgarten. The victory of the confederates and the
       independence secured by it gave them so much prestige that
       neighboring cities and cantons sought admission to their
       league. In 1332 Luzern was received as a member; in 1351,
       1352, and 1353, Zurich, Glarus, Zug, and Bern came in,
       increasing the membership to eight. It took the name of the
       Old League of High Germany, and its members were known as
       Eidgenossen, or Confederates.

       Such, in brief, are the ascertained facts of the origin of the
       Swiss Confederacy. There is nothing found in authentic history
       to substantiate the popular legend of William Tell.

       The questions between the league and the Austrian princes,
       which continued to be troublesome for two generations, were
       practically ended by the two battles of Sempach and Naefels,
       fought in 1386 and 1388, in both of which the Austrians were
       overthrown.

    The Emperor Louis IV. and the Papacy,

       While the Swiss were gaining the freedom which they never
       lost, Germany at large was making little progress in any
       satisfactory direction. Peace had not been restored by the
       friendly agreement of 1325 between Ludwig and Frederick. The
       partisans of neither were contented with it. Frederick was
       broken in health and soon retired from the government; in 1330
       he died. The Austrian house persisted in hostility to Louis;
       but his more formidable enemies were the Pope and the King of
       France. The period was that known in papal history as "the
       Babylonish Captivity," when the popes resided at Avignon and
       were generally creatures of the French court and subservient
       to its ambitions or its animosities. Philip of Valois, who now
       reigned in France, aspired to the imperial crown, which the head
       of the Church had conferred on the German kings, and which the
       same supreme pontiff might claim authority to transfer to the
       sovereigns of France. This is supposed to have been the secret
       of the relentless hostility with which Louis was pursued by
       the Papacy--himself excommunicated, his kingdom placed under
       interdict, and every effort made to bring about his deposition
       by the princes of Germany. But divided and depressed as the
       Germans were, they revolted against these malevolent
       pretensions of the popes, and in 1338 the electoral princes
       issued a bold declaration, asserting the sufficiency of the
       act of election to confer imperial dignity and power, and
       denying the necessity for any papal confirmation whatever. Had
       Louis been a commanding leader, and independent of the Papacy in
       his own feelings, he could probably have rallied a national
       sentiment on this issue that would have powerfully affected
       the future of German history.
    {1044}
       But he lacked the needful character, and his troubles
       continued until he died (1347). A year before his death, his
       opponents had elected and put forward a rival emperor,
       Charles, the son of King John of Bohemia. Charles (IV.) was
       subsequently recognized as king without dispute, and secured
       the imperial crown. "It may be affirmed with truth that the
       genuine ancient Empire, which contained a German kingdom, came
       to an end with the Emperor Ludwig the Bavarian. None strove
       again after his death to restore the imperial power. The
       golden bull of his successor Charles IV. sealed the fate of
       the old Empire. Through it, and indeed through the entire
       conduct of Charles IV., King of Bohemia as he really was, and
       emperor scarcely more than in name, the imperial government
       passed more and more into the hands of the prince-electors,
       who came to regard the emperor no longer as their master, but
       as the president of an assembly in which he shared the power
       with themselves." "From the time of Charles IV. the main
       object and chief occupation of the emperors was not the
       Empire, but the aggrandisement and security of their own
       house. The Empire served only as the means and instrument of
       their purpose" (Dollinger).

    The Golden Bull of Charles IV.

       The Golden Bull referred to by Dr. Dollinger was an instrument
       which became the constitution, so to speak, of the Holy Roman
       or Germanic Empire. It prescribed the mode of the election of
       the King, and definitively named the seven Electors. It also
       conferred certain special powers and privileges on these seven
       princes, which raised them much above their fellows and gave
       them an independence that may be said to have destroyed every
       hope of Germanic unity. This was the one mark which the reign
       of Charles IV. left upon the Empire. His exertions as Emperor
       were all directed to the aggrandizement of his own family, and
       with not much lasting result. In his own kingdom of Bohemia he
       ruled with better effect. He made its capital, Prague, an
       important city, adorning it with noble buildings and founding
       in it the most ancient of German universities. This University
       of Prague soon sowed seeds from which sprang the first
       movement of religious reformation in Germany.

       Charles IV., dying in 1378, was succeeded by his son Wenzel,
       or Wenceslaus, on the imperial throne as well as the Bohemian.
       Wenceslaus neglected both the Empire and the Kingdom, and the
       confusion of things in Germany grew worse. Some of the
       principal cities continued to secure considerable freedom and
       prosperity for themselves, by the combined efforts of their
       leagues; but everywhere else great disorder and oppression
       prevailed. It was at this time that the Swabian towns, to the
       number of forty-one, formed a union and waged unsuccessful war
       with a league which the nobles entered into against them. They
       were defeated, and crushingly dealt with by the Emperor.

       In 1400 Wenceslaus was deposed and Rupert of the Palatinate
       was elected, producing another civil war, and reducing the
       imperial government to a complete nullity. Rupert died in
       1410, and, after some contention, Sigmund, or Sigismund,
       brother of Wenceslaus, was raised to the throne. He was
       Margrave of Brandenburg and King of Hungary, and would become
       King of Bohemia when Wenceslaus died.

    The Reformation of Huss in Bohemia.

       Bohemia was about to become the scene of an extraordinary
       religious agitation, which John Huss, teacher and preacher in
       the new but already famous University of Prague, was beginning
       to stir. Huss, who drew more or less of his inspiration from
       Wyclif, anticipated Luther in the boldness of his attacks upon
       iniquities in the Church. In his case as in Luther's, the
       abomination which he could not endure was the sale of papal
       indulgences; and it was by his denunciation of that impious
       fraud that he drew on himself the deadly wrath of the Roman
       hierarchy. He was summoned before the great Council of the
       Church which opened at Constance in 1414. He obeyed the
       summons and went to the Council, bearing a safe-conduct from
       the Emperor which pledged protection to him until he returned.
       Notwithstanding this imperial pledge, he was imprisoned for
       seven months at Constance, and was then impatiently listened
       to and condemned to the stake. On the 6th of July, 1415, he
       was burned. In the following May, his friend and disciple,
       Jerome of Prague, suffered the same martyrdom. The Emperor,
       Sigismund, blustered a little at the insolent violation of his
       safe-conduct; but dared do nothing to make it effective.

       In Bohemia, the excitement produced by these outrages was
       universal. The whole nation seemed to rise, in the first
       wide-spread aggressive popular revolt that the Church of Rome
       had yet been called upon to encounter. In 1419 there was an
       armed assembly of 40,000 men, on a mountain which they called
       Tabor, who placed themselves under the leadership of John
       Ziska, a nobleman, one of Huss' friends. The followers of
       Ziska soon displayed a violence of temper and a radicalism
       which repelled the more moderate Hussites, or Reformers, and
       two parties appeared, one known as the Taborites, the other as
       the Calixtines, or Utraquists. The former insisted on entire
       separation from the Church of Rome; the latter confined their
       demands to four reforms, namely: Free preaching of the Word of
       God; the giving of the Eucharistic cup to the laity; the
       taking of secular powers and of worldly goods from the clergy;
       the enforcing of Christian discipline by all authorities. So much
       stress was laid by the Calixtines on their claim to the
       chalice or cup (communion in both kinds) that it gave them
       their name. The breach between these parties widened until
       they were as hostile to each other as to the Catholics, and
       the Bohemian reform movement was ruined in the end by their
       division.

       In 1419, the deposed Emperor Wenceslaus, who had still
       retained his kingdom of Bohemia, was murdered in his palace,
       at Prague. His brother, the Emperor Sigismund, was his heir;
       but the Hussites refused the crown to him, and resisted his
       pretensions with arms. This added a political conflict to the
       religious one, and Bohemia was afflicted with a frightful
       civil war for fifteen years. Ziska fortified mount Tabor and
       took possession of Prague. The Emperor and the Pope allied
       themselves, to crush an insurrection which was aimed against
       both. They summoned Christendom to a new crusade, and
       Sigismund led 100,000 men against Prague, in 1420. Ziska met
       him and defeated him, and drove him, with his crusaders, from
       the country. The Taborites were now maddened by their success,
       and raged over the land, destroying convents and burning
       priests. Their doctrines, moreover, began to take on a
       socialistic and republican character, threatening property in
       general and questioning monarchy, too. The well-to-do and
       conservative classes were more and more repelled from them.

    {1045}

       In 1421 a second crusading army, 200,000 strong, invaded
       Bohemia and was scattered like chaff by Ziska (now blind) and
       his peasant soldiery. The next year they defeated the Emperor
       again; but in 1424 Ziska died, and a priest called Procopius
       the Great took his place. Under their new leader, the fierce
       Taborites were as invincible as they had been under Ziska.
       They routed an imperial army in 1426, and then carried the war
       into Austria and Silesia, committing fearful ravages. Still
       another crusade was set in motion against them by the Pope,
       and still another disastrous failure was made of it. Then
       Germany again suffered a more frightful visitation from the
       vengeful Hussites than before. Towns and villages were
       destroyed by hundreds, and wide tracks of ruin and death were
       marked on the face of the land, to its very center. Once more,
       and for the last time, in 1431, the Germans rallied a great force
       to retaliate these attacks, and they met defeat, as in all
       previous encounters, but more completely than ever before.
       Then the Pope and the Emperor gave up hope of putting down the
       indomitable revolutionists by force, and opened parleyings.
       The Pope called a council at Basel for the discussion of
       questions with the Hussites, and, finally, in 1433, their
       moderate party was prevailed upon to accept a compromise which
       really conceded nothing to them except the use of the cup in
       the communion. The Taborites refused the terms, and the two
       parties grappled each other in a fierce struggle for the
       control of the state. But the extremists had lost much of
       their old strength, and the Utraquists vanquished them in a
       decisive battle at Lipan, in May, 1434. Two years later
       Sigismund was formally acknowledged King of Bohemia and
       received in Prague. In 1437 he died. His son-in-law, Albert of
       Austria, who succeeded him, lived but two years, and the heir
       to the throne then was a son, Ladislaus, born after his
       father's death. This left Bohemia in a state of great
       confusion and disorder for several years, until a strong man,
       George Podiebrad, acquired the control of affairs.

       Meantime, the Utraquists had organized a National Church of
       Bohemia, considerably divergent from Rome. It failed to
       satisfy the deeper religious feelings that were widely current
       among the Bohemians in that age, and there grew up a sect
       which took the name of "Unitas Fratrum," or "Unity of the
       Brethren," but which afterwards became incorrectly known as
       the Moravian Brethren. This sect, still existing, has borne an
       important part in the missionary history of the Christian
       world.

    The Papacy.--The Great Schism.

       The Papacy, at the time of its conflict with the Hussites, in
       Bohemia, was rapidly sinking to that lowest level of
       debasement which it reached in the later part of the fifteenth
       century. Its state was not yet so abhorrent as it came to be
       under the Borgias; but it had been brought even more into
       contempt, perhaps, by the divisions and contentions of "the
       Great Schism." The so-called "Babylonish Captivity" of the
       series of popes who resided for seventy years at Avignon
       (1305-1376), and who were under French influence, had been
       humiliating to the Church; but the schism which immediately
       followed (1378-1417), when a succession of rival popes, or
       popes and antipopes, thundered anathemas and excommunications
       at one another, from Rome and from Avignon, was even more
       scandalous and shameful. Christendom was divided by the
       quarrel. France, Spain, Scotland, and some lesser states, gave
       their allegiance to the pope at Avignon; England, Germany and
       the northern kingdoms adhered to the pope at Rome. In 1402, an
       attempt to heal the schism was made by a general Council of
       the Church convened at Pisa. It decreed the deposition of both
       the contending pontiffs, and elected a third; but its
       authority was not recognized, and the confusion of the Church
       was only made worse by bringing three popes into the quarrel,
       instead of two. Twelve years later, another Council, held at
       Constance,--the same which burned Huss,--had more success.
       Europe had now grown so tired of the scandal, and so disgusted
       with the three pretenders to spiritual supremacy, that the
       action of the Council was backed by public opinion, and they
       were suppressed. A fourth pope, Martin V., whom the Council
       then seated in the chair of St. Peter (1417), was universally
       acknowledged, and the Great Schism was at an end.

       But other scandals and abuses in the Church, which public
       opinion in Europe had already begun to cry loudly against,
       were untouched by these Councils. A subsequent Council at
       Basel, which met in 1431, attempted some restraints upon papal
       extortion (ignoring the more serious moral evils that claimed
       attention); but was utterly beaten in the conflict with Pope
       Eugenius IV., which this action brought on, and its decrees
       lost all effect. So the religious autocracy at Rome, sinking
       stage by stage below the foulest secular courts of the time,
       continued without check to insult and outrage, more and more,
       the piety, the common sense, and the decent feeling of
       Christendom, until the habit of reverence was quite worn out
       in the minds of men throughout the better half of Europe.

    Rome and the last Tribune, Rienzi.

       The city of Rome had fallen from all greatness of its own when
       it came to be dependent on the fortunes of the popes. Their
       departure to Avignon had reduced it to a lamentable state.
       They took with them, in reality, the sustenance of the city;
       for it lived, in the main, on the revenues of the Papacy, and
       knew little of commerce beyond the profitable traffic in
       indulgences, absolutions, benefices, relics and papal
       blessings, which went to Avignon with the head of the Church.
       Authority, too, departed with the Pope, and the wretched city
       was given up to anarchy almost uncontrolled. A number of
       powerful families--the Colonna, the Orsini, and
       others--perpetually at strife with one another, fought out
       their feuds in the streets, and abused and oppressed their
       neighbors with impunity. Their houses were impregnable
       castles, and their retainers were a formidable army.

    {1046}

       It was while this state of things was at its worst that the
       famous Cola di Rienzi, "last of the Tribunes," accomplished a
       revolution which was short-lived but extraordinary. He roused
       the people to action against their oppressors and the
       disturbers of their peace. He appealed to them to restore the
       republican institutions of ancient Rome, and when they
       responded, in 1347, by conferring on him the title and
       authority of a Tribune, he actually succeeded in expelling the
       turbulent nobles, or reducing them to submission, and
       established in Rome, for a little time, what he called "the
       Good Estate." But his head was quickly turned by his success;
       he was inflated with conceit and vanity; he became arrogant
       and despotic; the people tired of him, and after a few months
       of rule he was driven from Rome. In 1354 he came back as a
       Senator, appointed by the Pope, who thought to use him for the
       restoration of papal authority; but his influence was gone,
       and he was slain by a-riotous mob.

       The return of the Pope to Rome in 1376 was an event so long
       and ardently desired by the Roman people that they submitted
       themselves eagerly to his government. But his sovereignty over
       the States of the Church was substantially lost, and the
       regaining of it was the principal object of the exertions of
       the popes for a long subsequent period.

    The Two Sicilies.

       In Southern Italy and Sicily, since the fall of the
       Hohenstaufens (1268), the times had been continuously evil.
       The rule of the French conqueror, Charles of Anjou, was hard
       and unmerciful, and the power he established became
       threatening to the Papacy, which gave the kingdom to him. In
       1282, Sicily freed itself, by the savage massacre of Frenchmen
       which bears the name of the Sicilian Vespers. The King of
       Aragon, Peter III., whose queen was the Hohenstaufen heiress,
       supported the insurrection promptly and vigorously, took
       possession of the island, and was recognized by the people as
       their king. A war of twenty years' duration ensued. Both
       Charles and Peter died and their sons continued the battle. In
       the end, the Angevin house held the mainland, as a separate
       kingdom, with Naples for its capital, and a younger branch of
       the royal family of Aragon reigned in the island. But both
       sovereigns called themselves Kings of Sicily, so that History,
       ever since, has been forced to speak puzzlingly of "Two
       Sicilies." For convenience it seems best to distinguish them
       by calling one the kingdom of Naples and the other the kingdom
       of Sicily. On the Neapolitan throne there came one estimable
       prince, in Robert, who reigned from 1309 to 1343, and who was
       a friend of peace and a patron of arts and letters. But after
       him the throne was befouled by crimes and vices, and the
       kingdom was made miserable by civil wars. His grand-daughter
       Joanna, or Jane, succeeded him. Robert's elder brother
       Caribert had become King of Hungary, and Joanna now married
       one of that king's sons--her cousin Andrew. At the end of two
       years he was murdered (1345) and the queen, a notoriously
       vicious woman, was accused of the crime. Andrew's brother,
       Louis, who had succeeded to the throne in Hungary, invaded
       Naples to avenge his death, and Joanna was driven to flight.
       The country then suffered from the worst form of civil war--a
       war carried on by the hireling ruffians of the "free
       companies" who roamed about Italy in that age, selling their
       swords to the highest bidders. In 1351 a peace was brought
       about which restored Joanna to the throne. The Hungarian
       King's son, known as Charles of Durazzo, was her recognized
       heir, but she saw fit to disinherit him and adopt Louis, of
       the Second House of Anjou, brother of Charles V. in France.
       Charles of Durazzo invaded Naples, took the queen prisoner and
       put her to death. Louis of Anjou attempted to displace him, but
       failed. In 1383 Louis died, leaving his claims to his son.
       Charles of Durazzo was called to Hungary, after a time, to
       take the crown of that kingdom, and left his young son,
       Ladislaus, on the Neapolitan throne. The Angevin claimant,
       Louis II., was then called in by his partisans, and civil war
       was renewed for years. When Ladislaus reached manhood he
       succeeded in expelling Louis, and he held the kingdom until
       his death, in 1414. He was succeeded by his sister, Joanna
       II., who proved to be as wicked and dissolute a woman as her
       predecessor of the same name. She incurred the enmity of the
       Pope, who persuaded Louis III., son of Louis II., to renew the
       claims of his house. The most renowned "condottiere" (or
       military contractor, as the term might be translated), of the
       day, Atteridolo Sforza, was engaged to make war on Queen
       Joanna in the interest of Louis. On her side she obtained a
       champion by promising her dominions to Alfonso V., of Aragon
       and Sicily. The struggle went on for years, with varying
       fortunes. The fickle and treacherous Joanna revoked her
       adoption of Alfonso, after a time, and made Louis her heir.
       When Louis died, she bequeathed her crown to his brother René,
       Duke of Lorraine. Her death occurred in 1435, but still the
       war continued, and nearly all Italy was involved in it, taking
       one side or the other. Alfonso succeeded at last (1442) in
       establishing himself at Naples, and René practically gave up
       the contest, although he kept the title of King of Naples. He
       was the father of the famous English Queen Margaret of Anjou,
       who fought for her weak-minded husband and her son in the Wars
       of the Roses.

       While the Neapolitan kingdom was passing through these endless
       miseries of anarchy, civil war, and evil government, the
       Sicilian kingdom enjoyed a more peaceful and prosperous
       existence. The crown, briefly held by a cadet branch of the
       House of Aragon, was soon reunited to that of Aragon; and
       under Alfonso, as we have seen, it was once more joined with
       that of Naples, in a "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies." But both
       these unions were dissolved on the death of Alfonso, who
       bequeathed Aragon and Sicily to his legitimate heir, and
       Naples to a bastard son.

    The Despots of Northern Italy.

       In Northern Italy a great change in the political state of
       many among the formerly free commonwealths had been going on
       since the thirteenth century. The experience of the Greek
       city-republics had been repeated in them. In one way and
       another, they had fallen under the domination of powerful
       families, who had established a despotic rule over them,
       sometimes gathering several cities and their surrounding
       territory into a considerable dominion, and obtaining from the
       Emperor or the Pope a formally conferred and hereditary title.
       Thus the Visconti had established themselves at Milan, and had
       become a ducal house. After a few generations they gave way to
       the military adventurer, Francesco Sforza, son of the Sforza
       who made war for Louis III. of Anjou on Joanna II. of Naples.
       In Verona, the Della Scala family reigned for a time, until
       Venice overcame them; at Modena and Ferrara, the Estes; at
       Mantua, the Gonzagas; at Padua, the Carraras.

    {1047}

    The Italian Republics.

       In other cities, the political changes were of a different
       character. Venice, which grew rich and powerful with
       extraordinary rapidity, was tyrannically governed by a haughty
       and exclusive aristocracy. In commerce and in wealth she
       surpassed all her rivals, and her affairs were more shrewdly
       conducted. She held large possessions in the East, and she was
       acquiring an extensive dominion on the Italian mainland. The
       Genoese, who were the most formidable competitors of Venice in
       commerce, preserved their democracy, but at some serious
       expense to the administrative efficiency of their government.
       They were troubled by a nobility which could only be turbulent
       and could not control. They fought a desperate but losing
       fight with the Venetians, and were several times in subjection
       to the dukes of Milan and the kings of France. Pisa, which had
       led both Venice and Genoa in the commercial race at the
       beginning, was ruined by her wars with the latter, and with
       Florence, and sank, in the fourteenth century, under the rule
       of the Visconti, who sold their rights to the Florentines.

    Florence.

       The wonderful Florentine republic was the one which preserved
       its independence under popular institutions the longest, and
       in which they bore the most splendid fruit. For a period that
       began in the later part of the thirteenth century, the
       government of Florence was so radically democratic that the
       nobles (grandi) were made ineligible to office, and could only
       qualify themselves for election to any place in the magistracy
       by abandoning their order and engaging in the labor of some
       craft or art. The vocations of skilled industry were all
       organized in gilds, called Arti, and were divided into two
       classes, one representing what were recognized as the superior
       arts (Arti Major, embracing professional and mercantile callings,
       with some others); the other including the commoner
       industries, known as the Arti Minori. From the heads, or
       Priors, of the Arti were chosen a Signory, changed every two
       months, which was entrusted with the government of the
       republic. This popular constitution was maintained in its
       essential features through the better part of a century, but
       with continual resistance and disturbance from the excluded
       nobles, on one side, and from the common laboring people, on
       the other, who belonged to no art-gild and who, therefore,
       were excluded likewise from participation in political
       affairs. Between these two upper and lower discontents, the
       bourgeois constitution gave way at last. The mob got control
       for a time; but only, as always happens, to bring about a
       reactionary revolution, which placed an oligarchy in power;
       and the oligarchy made smooth the way for a single family of
       great wealth and popular gifts and graces to rise to supremacy
       in the state. This was the renowned family which began to rule
       in Florence in 1435, when Cosimo de' Medici entered on the
       office of Gonfaloniere. The Medici were not despots, of the
       class of the Visconti, or the Sforzas, or the Estes. They
       governed under the old constitutional forms, with not much
       violation of anything except the spirit of them. They acquired
       no princely title, until the late, declining days of the
       house. Their power rested on influence and prestige, at first,
       and finally on habit. They developed, and enlisted in their
       own support, as something reflected from themselves, the pride
       of the city in itself,--in its magnificence,--in its great and
       liberal wealth,--in its patronage of letters and art,--in its
       fame abroad and the admiration with which men looked upon it.

       Through all the political changes in Florence there ran an
       unending war of factions, the bitterest and most inveterate in
       history. The control of the city belonged naturally to the
       Guelfs, for it was the head and front of the Guelfic party in
       Italy. "Without Florence," says one historian, "there would
       have been no Guelfs." But neither party scrupled to call armed
       help from the outside into its quarrels, and the Ghibellines
       were able, nearly as often as the Guelfs, to drive their
       opponents from the city. For the ascendancy of one faction
       meant commonly the flight or expulsion of every man in the
       other who had importance enough to be noticed. It was thus
       that Dante, an ardent Ghibelline, became an exile from his
       beloved Florence during the later years of his life. But the
       strife of Guelfs with Ghibellines did not suffice for the
       partisan rancor of the Florentines, and they complicated it
       with another split of factions, which bore the names of the
       Bianchi and the Neri, 01' the Whites and the Blacks.

       For two or three centuries the annals of Florence are naught,
       one thinks in reading them, but an unbroken tale of strife
       within, or war without--of tumult, riot, revolution,
       disorder. And yet, underneath, there is an amazing story to be
       found, of thrift, industry, commerce, prosperity, wealth, on
       one side, and of the sublimest genius, on another, giving
       itself, in pure devotion, to poetry and art. The contradiction
       of circumstances seems irreconcilable to our modern
       experience, and we have to seek an explanation of it in the
       very different conditions of mediæval life. It is with
       certainty a fact that Florence, in its democratic time, was
       phenomenal in genius, and in richness of life,--in prosperity
       both material and intellectual; and it is reasonable to credit
       to that time the planting and the growing of fruits which
       ripened surpassingly in the Medicean age.

    The Ottomans and the Eastern Empire.

       So little occasion has arisen for any mention of the lingering
       Eastern Empire, since Michael Palæologus, the Greek, recovered
       Constantinople from the Franks (1261), that its existence
       might easily be forgotten. It had no importance until it fell,
       and then it loomed large again, in history, not only by the
       tragic impression of its fall upon the imaginations of men,
       but by the potent consequences of it.

       For nearly two hundred years, the successors of Palæologus,
       still calling themselves "Emperors of the Romans," and ruling
       a little Thracian and Macedonian corner of the old dominion of
       the Eastern Cæsars, struggled with a new race of Turks, who
       had followed the Seljuk horde out of the same Central Asian
       region. One of the first known leaders of this tribe was
       Osman, or Othman, after whom they are sometimes called
       Osmanlis, but more frequently Ottoman Turks. They appeared in
       Asia Minor about the middle of the thirteenth century,
       attacking both Christian and Mahometan states, and gradually
       extending their conquest over the whole. About the end of the
       first century of their career, they passed the straits and won
       a footing in Europe. In 1361, they took Hadrianople and made
       it their capital. Their sultan at this time was Amurath.

    {1048}

       As yet, they did not attack Constantinople. The city itself
       was too strong in its fortifications; but beyond the walls of
       the capital there was no strength in the little fragment of
       Empire that remained. It appealed vainly to Western Europe for
       help. It sought to make terms with the Church of Rome. Nothing
       saved it for the moment but the evident disposition of the
       Turk to regard it as fruit which would drop to his hand in due
       time, and which he might safely leave waiting while he turned
       his arms against its more formidable neighbors. He contented
       himself with exacting tribute from the emperors, and
       humiliating them by commands which they dared not disobey. In
       the Servians, the Bosnians, and the Bulgarians, Amurath found
       worthier foes. He took Sophia, their principal city, from the
       latter, in 1382; in 1389 he defeated the two former nations in
       the great battle of Kossova. At the moment of victory he was
       assassinated, and his son Bajazet mounted the Ottoman throne.
       The latter, at Nicopolis (1396), overwhelmed and destroyed the
       one army which Western Europe sent to oppose the conquering
       march of his terrible race. Six years later, he himself was
       vanquished and taken prisoner in Asia by a still more terrible
       conqueror,--the fiendish Timour or Tamerlane, then scourging
       the eastern Continent. For some years the Turks were paralyzed
       by a disputed succession; but under Amurath II., who came to
       the throne in 1421, their advance was resumed, and in a few
       years more their long combat with the Hungarians began.

    Hungary and the Turks.

       The original line of kings of Hungary having died out in 1301,
       the influence of the Pope, who claimed the kingdom as a fief
       of the papal see, secured the election to the throne of
       Charles Robert, or Caribert, of the Naples branch of the House
       of Anjou. He and his son Louis, called the Great, raised the
       kingdom to notable importance and power. Louis added the crown
       of Poland to that of Hungary, and on his death, leaving two
       daughters, the Polish crown passed to the husband of one and
       the Hungarian crown to the husband of the other. This latter
       was Sigismund of Luxemburg, who afterwards became Emperor, and
       also King of Bohemia. Under Sigismund, Hungary was threatened
       on one side by the Turks, and ravaged on the other by the
       Hussites of Bohemia. He was succeeded (1437) by his
       son-in-law, Albert of Austria, who lived only two years, and
       the latter was followed by Wladislaus, King of Poland; who
       again united the two crowns, though at the cost of a
       distracting civil war with partisans of the infant son of
       Albert. It was in the reign of this prince that the Turks
       began their obstinate attacks on Hungary, and thenceforth, for
       two centuries and more, that afflicted country served
       Christendom as a battered bulwark which the new warriors of
       Islam could beat and disfigure but could not break down. The
       hero of these first Hungarian wars with the Turks was John
       Huniades, or Hunyady, a Wallachian, who fought them with
       success until a peace was concluded in 1444. But King
       Wladislaus was persuaded the same year by a papal agent to
       break the treaty and to lead an expedition against the enemy's
       lines. The result was a calamitous defeat, the death of the
       king, and the almost total destruction of his army. Huniades
       now became regent of the kingdom, during the minority of the
       late King Albert's young son, Ladislaus.

       He suffered one serious defeat at the hands of the Turks, but
       avenged it again and again, with help from an army of
       volunteers raised in all parts of Europe by the exertions of a
       zealous monk named Capistrano. When Huniades died, in 1456,
       his enemies already controlled the worthless young king,
       Ladislaus, and the latter pursued him in his grave with
       denunciations as a traitor and a villain. In 1458, Ladislaus
       died, and Mathias, a son of Huniades, was elected king. After
       he had settled himself securely upon the throne, Mathias
       turned his arms, not against the Turks, but against the
       Hussites of Bohemia, in an attempt to wrest the crown of that
       kingdom from George Podiebrad.

    The Fall of Constantinople.

       Meantime, the Turkish Sultan, Mohammed II., had accomplished
       the capture of Constantinople and brought the venerable Empire
       of the East--Roman, Greek, or Byzantine, as we choose to name
       it--to an end. He was challenged to the undertaking by the
       folly of the last Emperor, Constantine Palæologus, who
       threatened to support a pretender to Mohammed's throne. The
       latter began serious preparations at once for a siege of the
       long coveted city, and opened his attack in April, 1453. The
       Greeks, even in that hour of common danger, were too hotly
       engaged in a religious quarrel to act defensively together.
       Their last preceding emperor had gone personally to the
       Council of the Western Church, at Florence, in 1439, with some
       of the bishops of the Greek Church, and had arranged for the
       submission of the latter to Rome, as a means of procuring help
       from Catholic Europe against the Turks. His successor,
       Constantine, adhered to this engagement, professed the
       Catholic faith and observed the Catholic ritual. His subjects
       in general repudiated the imperial contract with scorn, and
       avowedly preferred a Turkish master to a Roman shepherd. Hence
       they took little part in the defense of the city. Constantine,
       with the small force at his command, fought the host of
       besiegers with noble courage and obstinacy for seven weeks,
       receiving a little succor from the Genoese, but from no other
       quarter. On the 29th of May the walls were carried by storm;
       the Emperor fell, fighting bravely to the last; and the Turks
       became masters of the city of Constantine. There was no
       extensive massacre of the inhabitants; the city was given up
       to pillage, but not to destruction, for the conqueror intended
       to make it his capital. A number of fugitives had escaped,
       before, or during the siege, and made their way into Italy and
       other parts of Europe, carrying an influence which was
       importantly felt, as we shall presently see; but 60,000
       captives, men, women and children, were sold into slavery and
       scattered throughout the Ottoman Empire.

       Greece and most of the islands of the Ægean soon shared the
       fate of Constantinople, and the subjugation of Servia and
       Bosnia was made complete. Mohammed was even threatening Italy
       when he died, in 1481.

    {1049}

    Renaissance.

       We have now come, in our hasty survey of European history, to
       the stretch of time within which historians have quite
       generally agreed to place the ending of the state of things
       characteristic of the Middle Ages, and the beginning of the
       changed conditions and the different spirit that belong to the
       modern life of the civilized world. The transition in European
       society from mediæval to modern ways, feelings, and thoughts
       has been called Renaissance, or new birth; but the figure
       under which this places the conception before one's mind does
       not seem to be really a happy one. There was no birth of
       anything new in the nature of the generations of men who
       passed through that change, nor in the societies which they
       formed. What occurred to make changes in both was an
       expansion, a liberation, an enlightenment--an opening of eyes,
       and of ears, and of inner senses and sensibilities. There was no
       time and no place that can be marked at which this began; and
       there is no cause nor chain of causes to which it can be
       traced. We have found signs of its coming, here and there, in
       one token of movement and another, all the way through later
       mediæval times--at least since the first Crusades. In the
       thirteenth century there was a wonderful quickening of all the
       many processes which made it up. In the fourteenth century
       they were checked; but still they went on. In the fifteenth
       they revived with greater energy than before; and in the
       sixteenth they rose to their climax in intensity and effect.
       That which took place in European society was not a
       re-naissance so much as the re-wakening of men to a day-light
       existence, after a thousand years of sunless
       night,--moonlighted at the best. The truest descriptive figure
       is that which represents these preludes to our modern age as a
       morning dawn and daybreak.

       Probably foremost among the causes of the change in Western
       Europe from the mediæval to the modern state, we must place
       those influences that extinguished the disorganizing forces in
       feudalism. Habits and forms of the feudal arrangement remained
       troublesome in society, as they do in some measure to the
       present day; but feudalism as a system of social disorder and
       disintegration was by this time cleared away. We have noted in
       passing some of the undermining agencies by which it was
       destroyed: the crusading movements; the growth and
       enfranchisement of cities; the spread of commerce; the rise of
       a middle class; the study of Roman law; the consequent increase
       of royal authority in France,--all these were among the causes
       of its decline. But possibly none among them wrought such
       quick and deadly harm to feudalism as the introduction of
       gunpowder and fire-arms in war, which occurred in the
       fourteenth century. When his new weapons placed the
       foot-soldier on a fairly even footing in battle with the
       mailed and mounted knight, the feudal military organization of
       society was ruined beyond remedy. The changed conditions of
       warfare made trained armies, and therefore standing armies, a
       necessity; standing armies implied centralized authority; with
       centralized authority the feudal condition disappeared.

       If these agencies in the generating of the new movement of
       civilization which we call Modern are placed before the
       subtler and more powerful influence of the printing press, it
       is because they had to do a certain work in the world before
       the printing press could be an efficient educator. Some
       beginning of a public, in our modern sense, required to be
       created, for letters to act upon. Until that came about, the
       copyists of the monasteries and of the few palace libraries
       existing were more than sufficient to satisfy all demands for
       the multiplication of ancient writings or the publication of
       new ones. The printer, if he had existed, would have starved
       for want of employment. He would have lacked material,
       moreover, to work upon; for it was the rediscovery of a great
       ancient literature which made him busy when he came.

    Invention of Printing.

       The preparation of Europe for an effective use of the art of
       printing may be said to have begun in the twelfth and
       thirteenth centuries, when the great universities of Paris,
       Bologna, Naples, Padua, Modena, and others, came into
       existence, to be centers of intellectual
       irritation--disputation--challenge--groping inquiry. But it
       was not until the fourteenth century, when the labors and the
       influence of Petrarch and other scholars and men of genius
       roused interest in the forgotten literature of ancient Rome
       and Greece, that the craving and seeking for books grew
       considerable. Scholars and pretended scholars from the Greek
       Empire then began to find employment, in Italy more
       especially, as teachers of the Greek language, and a market
       was opened for manuscripts of the older Greek writings, which
       brought many precious ones to light, after long burial, and
       multiplied copies of them. From Italy, this revival of classic
       learning crept westward and northward somewhat slowly, but it
       went steadily on, and the book as a commodity in the commerce
       of the world rose year by year in importance, until the
       printer came forward, about the middle of the fifteenth
       century, to make it abundant and cheap.

       Whether John Gutenberg, at Mentz, in 1454, or Laurent Coster,
       at Haarlem, twenty years earlier, executed the first printing
       with movable types, is a question of small importance, except
       as a question of justice between the two possible inventors,
       in awarding a great fame which belongs to one or both. The
       grand fact is, that thought and knowledge took wings from that
       sublime invention, and ideas were spread among men with a
       swift diffusion that the world had never dreamed of before.
       The slow wakening that had gone on for two centuries became
       suddenly so quick that scarcely more than fifty years, from
       the printing of the first Bible, sufficed to inoculate half of
       Europe with the independent thinking of a few boldly
       enlightened men.

    {1050}

    The Greek Revival.

       If Gutenberg's printing of Pope Nicholas' letter of
       indulgence, in 1454, was really the first achievement of the
       new-born art, then it followed by a single year the event
       commonly fixed upon for the dating of our Modern Era, and it
       derived much of its earliest importance indirectly from that
       event. For the fall of Constantinople, in 1453, was preceded
       and followed by a flight of Greeks to Western Europe, bearing
       such treasures as they could save from the Turks. Happily
       those treasures included precious manuscripts; and among the
       fugitives was no small number of educated Greeks, who became
       teachers of their language in the West. Thus teaching and text
       were offered at the moment when the printing press stood ready
       to make a common gift of them to every hungering student. This
       opened the second of the three stages which the late John
       Addington Symonds defined in the history of scholarship during
       the Renaissance: "The first is the age of passionate desire;
       Petrarch poring over a Homer he could not understand, and
       Boccaccio in his maturity learning Greek, in order that he
       might drink from the well-head of poetic inspiration, are the
       heroes of this period. They inspired the Italians with a
       thirst for antique culture. Next comes the age of acquisition
       and of libraries. Nicholas V., who founded the Vatican Library
       in 1453, Cosmo de' Medici, who began the Medicean Collection a
       little earlier, and Poggio Bracciolani, who ransacked all the
       cities and convents of Europe for manuscripts, together with
       the teachers of Greek, who in the first half of the fifteenth
       century escaped from Constantinople with precious freights of
       classic literature, are the heroes of this second period."
       "Then came the third age of scholarship--the age of the
       critics, philologers, and printers. ... Florence, Venice,
       Basle, and Paris groaned with printing presses. The Aldi, the
       Stephani, and Froben, toiled by night and day, employing
       scores of scholars, men of supreme devotion and of mighty
       brain, whose work it was to ascertain the right reading of
       sentences, to accentuate, to punctuate, to commit to the
       press, and to place beyond the reach of monkish hatred or of
       envious time, that everlasting solace of humanity which exists
       in the classics. All subsequent achievements in the field of
       scholarship sink into insignificance beside the labours of
       these men, who needed genius, enthusiasm, and the sympathy of
       Europe for the accomplishment of their titanic task. Virgil
       was printed in 1470, Homer in 1488, Aristotle in 1498, Plato
       in 1512. They then became the inalienable heritage of mankind.
       ... This third age in the history of the Renaissance
       Scholarship may be said to have reached its climax in Erasmus
       [1465-1536]; for by this time Italy had handed on the torch
       of learning to the northern nations" (Symonds).

       Art had already had its new birth in Italy; but it shared with
       everything spiritual and intellectual the wonderful quickening
       of the age, and produced the great masters of the fifteenth
       and sixteenth centuries: Michael Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci,
       Raphael, Titian, in Italy, the Brothers Van Eyck in Flanders,
       Holbein and Dürer, in Germany, and the host of their compeers
       in that astonishing age of artistic genius.

    Portuguese Explorations.

       A ruder and more practical direction in which the spirit of
       the age manifested itself conspicuously and with prodigious
       results was that of exploring navigation, to penetrate the
       unknown regions of the globe and find their secrets out. But,
       strangely, it was none of the older maritime and commercial
       peoples who led the way in this: neither the Venetians, nor
       the Genoese, nor the Catalans, nor the Flemings, nor the Hansa
       Leaguers, nor the English, were early in the search for new
       countries and new routes of trade. The grand exploit of
       "business enterprise" in the fifteenth century, which changed
       the face of commerce throughout the world, was left to be
       performed by the Portuguese, whose prior commercial experience
       was as slight as that of any people in Europe. And it was one
       great man among them, a younger son in their royal family,
       Prince Henry, known to later times as "the Navigator," who
       woke the spirit of exploration in them and pushed them to the
       achievement which placed Portugal, for a time, at the head of
       the maritime states. Beginning in 1434, Prince Henry sent
       expedition following expedition down the western coast of
       Africa, searching for the southern extremity of the continent,
       and a way round it to the eastward--to the Indies, the goal of
       commercial ambition then and long after. In our own day it
       seems an easy thing to sail down the African coast to the
       Cape; but it was not easy in the middle of the fifteenth
       century; and when Prince Henry died, in 1460, his ships had
       only reached the mouth of the Gambia, or a little way beyond
       it. His countrymen had grown interested, however, in the
       pursuit which he began, and expeditions were continued, not
       eagerly but at intervals, until Bartolomew Diaz, in 1486,
       rounded the southern point of the continent without knowing
       it, and Vasco da Gama, in 1497, passed beyond, and sailed to
       the coast of India.

    Discovery of America.

       Five years before this, Columbus, in the service of Ferdinand
       and Isabella of Spain, had made the more venturesome voyage
       westward, and had found the New World of America. That the
       fruits of that surpassing discovery fell to Spain, is one of
       the happenings of history which one need not try to explain;
       since (if we except the Catalans among them) there were no
       people in Europe less inclined to ocean adventure than the
       Spaniards. But they had just finished the conquest of the
       Moors; their energies, long exercised in that struggle,
       demanded some new outlet, and the Genoese navigator, seeking
       money and ships, and baffled in all more promising lands, came
       to them at the right moment for a favorable hearing. So
       Castile won the amazing prize of adventure, which seems to
       have belonged by more natural right to Genoa, or Venice, or
       Bruges, or Lubeck, or Bristol.

       The immediate material effects of the finding of the new way
       to the Asiatic side of the world were far more important than
       the effects of the discovery of America, and they were
       promptly felt. No sooner had the Portuguese secured their
       footing in the eastern seas, and on the route thither, which
       they proceeded vigorously to do, than the commerce of Europe
       with that rich region of spices and silks, and curious
       luxuries which Europe loved, abandoned its ancient channels
       and ran quickly into the new one. There were several strong
       reasons for this: (1) the carriage of goods by the longer
       ocean route was cheaper than by caravan routes to the
       Mediterranean; (2) the pestilent Moorish pirates of the
       Barbary Coast were escaped; (3) European merchants found heavy
       advantages in dealing directly with the East instead of
       trading at second hand through Arabs and Turks. So the
       commerce of the Indies fled suddenly away from the
       Mediterranean to the Atlantic; fled from Venice, from Genoa,
       from Marseilles, from Barcelona, from Constantinople, from
       Alexandria; fled, too, from many cities of the arrogant Hanse
       league in the North, which had learned the old ways of traffic
       and were slow to catch the idea of a possible change. At the
       outset of the rearrangement of trade, the Portuguese won and
       held, for a time, the first handling of East Indian
       commodities, while Dutch, English and German
       traders--especially the first named--met them at Lisbon and
       took their wares for distribution through central and northern
       Europe. But, in no long time, the Dutch and English went to
       India on their own account, and ousted the Portuguese from
       their profitable monopoly.

    {1051}

       Commercially, the discovery of America had little effect on
       Europe for a century or two. Politically, it had vast
       consequences in the sixteenth century, which came, in the
       main, from the power and prestige that accrued to Spain. But
       perhaps its most important effects were those moral and
       intellectual ones which may be attributed to the sudden,
       surprising enlargement of the geographical horizon of men. The
       lifting of the curtain of mystery which had hung so long
       between two halves of the world must have compelled every man,
       who thought at all, to suspect that other curtains of mystery
       might be hiding facts as simple and substantial, waiting for
       their Columbus to disclose them; and so the bondage of the
       mediæval mind to that cowardice of superstition which fears
       inquiry, must surely have been greatly loosened by the
       startling event. But the Spaniards, who rushed to the
       possession of the new-found world, showed small signs of any
       such effect upon their minds; and perhaps it was the greedy
       thought of their possession which excluded it.

    Nationalization of Spain.

       The Spaniards were one of half-a-dozen peoples in Western
       Europe who had just arrived, in this fifteenth century, at a
       fairly consolidated nationality, and were prepared, for the
       first time in their history, to act with something like
       organic unity in the affairs of the world. It was one of the
       singular birth-marks of the new era in history, that so many
       nations passed from the inchoate to the definite form at so
       nearly the same time. The marriage of Isabella of Castile to
       Ferdinand of Aragon, in 1469, effected a permanent union of
       the two crowns, and a substantial incorporation of the greater
       part of the Spanish peninsula into a single strong kingdom,
       made yet stronger in 1491 by the conquest of Grenada and
       subjugation of the last of the Spanish Moors.

    Louis XI. and the Nationalizing of France.

       The nationalizing of France had been a simultaneous but quite
       different process. From the miserably downfallen and divided
       state in which it was left by the Hundred Years War, it was
       raised by a singular king, who employed strange, ignoble
       methods, but employed them with remarkable success. This was
       Louis XI., who owes to Sir Walter Scott's romance of "Quentin
       Durward" an introduction to common fame which he could hardly
       have secured otherwise; since popular attention is not often
       drawn to the kind of cunning and hidden work in politics which
       he did.

       Louis XI., on coming to the throne in 1461, found himself
       surrounded by a state of things which seemed much like a
       revival of the feudal state at its worst, when Philip Augustus
       and Louis IX. had to deal with great vassals who rivalled or
       overtopped them in power. The reckless granting of appanages
       to children of the royal family had raised up a new group of
       nobles, too powerful and too proud to be loyal and obedient
       subjects of the monarchy. At the head of them was the Duke of
       Burgundy, whose splendid dominion, extended by marriage over
       most of the Netherlands, raised him to a place among the
       greater princes of Europe, and who quite outshone the King of
       France in everything but the royal title. It was impossible,
       under the circumstances, for the crown to establish its
       supremacy over these powerful lords by means direct and open.
       The craft and dishonesty of Louis found methods more
       effectual. He cajoled, beguiled, betrayed and cheated his
       antagonists, one by one. He played the selfishness and
       ambitions of each against the others, and he skilfully evoked
       something like a public opinion in his kingdom against the
       whole. At the outset of his reign the nobles formed a
       combination against him which they called the League of the
       Public Weal, but which aimed at nothing but fresh gains to the
       privileged class and advantages to its chiefs. Of alliance with
       the people against the crown, as in England, there was no
       thought. Louis yielded to the League in appearance, and
       cunningly went beyond its demands in his concessions, making
       it odious to the kingdom at large, and securing to himself the
       strong support of the States-General of France, when he
       appealed to it.

       The tortuous policy of Louis was aided by many favoring
       circumstances and happenings. It was favored not least,
       perhaps, by the hot-headed character of Charles the Bold, who
       succeeded his father, Philip, in the Duchy of Burgundy, in
       1467. Charles was inspired with a great and not unreasonable
       ambition, to make his realm a kingdom, holding a middle place
       between France and Germany. He had abilities, but he was of a
       passionate and haughty temper, and no match for the cool,
       perfidious, plotting King of France. The latter, by skilful
       intrigue, involved him in a war with the Swiss, which he
       conducted imprudently, and in which he was defeated and killed
       (1477). His death cleared Louis' path to complete mastery in
       France, and he made the most of his opportunity. Charles left
       only a daughter, Mary of Burgundy, and her situation was
       helpless. Louis lost no time in seizing the Duchy of Burgundy,
       as a fief of France, and in the pretended exercise of his
       rights as godfather of the Duchess Mary. He also took
       possession of Franche Comté, which was a fief of the Empire,
       and he put forward claims in Flanders, Artois, and elsewhere.
       But the Netherlanders, while they took advantage of the young
       duchess' situation, and exacted large concessions of chartered
       privileges from her, yet maintained her rights; and before the
       first year of her orphanage closed, she obtained a champion by
       marriage with the Archduke Maximilian of Austria, son of the
       Emperor, Frederick III. Maximilian was successful in war with
       Louis; but the latter succeeded, after all, in holding
       Burgundy, which was thenceforth absorbed in the royal domain
       of France and gave no further trouble to the monarchy, while
       he won some important extensions of the northwestern frontiers
       of his kingdom.

       Before the death of Louis XI. the French crown regained Anjou,
       Maine, and Provence, by inheritance from the last
       representative of the great second House of Anjou. Thus the
       kingdom which he left to his son, Charles VIII. (1483), was a
       consolidated nation, containing in its centralized government
       the germs of the absolute monarchy of a later day.

    {1052}

    Italian Expedition of Charles VIII.

       Charles VIII. was a loutish and uneducated boy of eight years
       when his father died. His capable sister Anne carried on the
       government for some years, and continued her father's work by
       defeating a revolt of the nobles, and by marrying the young
       king to the heiress of Brittany--thereby uniting to the crown
       the last of the great semi-independent fiefs. When Charles
       came of age, he conceived the idea of recovering the kingdom
       of Naples, which the House of Anjou claimed, and which he
       looked upon as part of his inheritance from that House. He was
       incited to the enterprise, moreover, by Ludovico il Moro, or
       Louis the Moor, an intriguing uncle of the young Duke of
       Milan, who conspired to displace his nephew. In 1494 Charles
       crossed the Alps with a large and well-disciplined army, and
       met with no effectual opposition. The Medici of Florence and
       the Pope had agreed together to resist this French intrusion,
       which they feared; but the invading force proved too
       formidable, and the Florentines, then under the influence of
       Savonarola, looked to it for their liberation from the
       Medicean rule, already oppressive. Accordingly Charles marched
       triumphantly through the peninsula, making some stay at Rome.
       On his approach to Naples, the Aragonese King, Alfonso,
       abdicated in favor of his son, Ferdinand II., and died soon
       after. Ferdinand, shut out of Naples by an insurrection, fled
       to Sicily, and Charles entered the city, where the populace
       welcomed him with warmth. Most of the kingdom submitted within
       a few weeks, and the conquest seemed complete, as it had been
       easy.

       But what they had won so easily the French held with a
       careless hand, and they lost it with equal ease. While they
       revelled and caroused in Naples, abusing the hospitality of
       their new subjects, and gathering plunder with reckless greed,
       a dangerous combination was formed against them, throughout
       the peninsula. Before they were aware, it had put them in
       peril, and Charles was forced to retreat with haste, in the
       spring of 1495, leaving an inadequate garrison to hold the
       Neapolitan capital. In Lombardy, he had to fight with the
       Venetians, and with his protege, Louis the Moor, now Duke of
       Milan. He defeated them, and regained France in November. Long
       before that time, the small force he left at Naples had been
       overcome, and Ferdinand had recovered his kingdom.

       In one sense, the French had nothing to show for this their
       first expedition of conquest. In another sense they had much
       to show and their gain was great. They had made their first
       acquaintance with the superior culture of Italy. They had
       breathed the air beyond the Alps, which was then surcharged
       with the inspirations of the Renaissance. Both the ideas and
       the spoil they brought back were of more value to France than
       can be easily estimated. They had returned laden with booty,
       and much of it was in treasures of art, every sight of which
       was a lesson to the sense of beauty and the taste of the
       people among whom they were shown. The experience and the
       influence of the Italian expedition were undoubtedly very
       great, and the Renaissance in France, as an artistic and a
       literary birth, is reasonably dated from it.

    Italian Wars of Louis XII.

       Charles VIII. died suddenly in 1498 and was succeeded by his
       cousin, of the Orleans branch of the Valois family, Louis XII.
       The new king was weak in character, but not wicked. His first
       thought on mounting the throne was of the claims of his family
       to other thrones, in Italy. Besides the standing Angevin claim
       to the kingdom of Naples, he asserted rights of his own to the
       duchy of Milan, as a descendant of Valentina Visconti, heiress
       of the ducal house which the Sforzas supplanted. In 1499 he sent
       an army against Louis the Moor, and the latter fled from Milan
       without an attempt at resistance. Louis took possession of the
       duchy with the greatest good will of the people; but, before
       half a year had passed, French taxes, French government, and
       French manners had disgusted them, and they made an attempt to
       restore their former tyrant. The attempt failed, and Louis the
       Moor was imprisoned in France for the remainder of his life.

       Milan secured, Louis XII. began preparations to repeat the
       undertaking of Charles VIII. against Naples. The Neapolitan
       crown had now passed to an able and popular king, Frederick,
       and Frederick had every reason to suppose that he would be
       supported and helped by his kinsman, Ferdinand of Aragon, the
       well-known consort of Isabella of Castile. Ferdinand had the
       power to hold the French king in check; but instead of using
       it for the defense of the Neapolitan branch of his house, he
       secretly and treacherously agreed with Louis to divide the
       kingdom of Naples with him. Under these circumstances, the
       conquest was easily accomplished (1501). The betrayed
       Frederick surrendered to Louis, and lived as a pensionary in
       France until his death. The Neapolitan branch of the House of
       Aragon came to an end.

       Louis and Ferdinand speedily quarreled over the division of
       their joint conquest. The treacherous Spaniard cheated the
       French king in treaty negotiations, gaining time to send
       forces into Italy which expelled the French. It was in this
       war that the Spanish general, Gonsalvo di Cordova, won the
       reputation which gave him the name of "the Great Captain"; and
       it was likewise in this war that the chivalric French knight,
       Bayard, began the winning of his fame.

    The League of Cambrai and the Holy League.

       Naples had again slipped from the grasp of France, and this
       time it had passed to Spain. Louis XII. abandoned the tempting
       kingdom to his rival, and applied himself to the establishing
       of his sovereignty over Milan and its domain. Some territory
       formerly belonging to the Milaness had been ceded to Venice by
       the Sforzas. He himself had ceded another district or two to
       the republic in payment for services rendered. Ferdinand of
       Spain had made payments in the same kind of coin, from his
       Neapolitan realm, for Venetian help to secure it.
    {1053}
       The warlike Pope Julius II. saw Rimini and other towns
       formerly belonging to the States of the Church now counted
       among the possessions of the proud mistress of the Adriatic.
       All of these disputants in Italy resented the gains which
       Venice had gathered at their expense, and envied and feared
       her somewhat insolent prosperity. They accordingly suspended
       their quarrels with one another, to form a league for breaking
       her down and for despoiling her. The Emperor Maximilian, who had
       grievances of his own against the Venetians, joined the
       combination, and Florence was bribed to become a party to it
       by the betrayal of Pisa into her hands. Thus was formed the
       shameful League of Cambrai (1508). The French did most of the
       fighting in the war that ensued, though Pope Julius, who took
       the field in person, easily proved himself a better soldier
       than priest. The Venetians were driven for a time from the
       greater part of the dominion they had acquired on the
       mainland, and were sorely pressed. But they made terms with
       the Pope, and it then became his interest, not merely to stop
       the conquests of his allies, but to press them out of Italy,
       if possible. He began accordingly to intrigue against the
       French, and presently had a new league in operation, making
       war upon them. It was called a Holy League, because the head
       of the Church was its promoter, and it embraced the Emperor,
       King Ferdinand of Spain, King Henry VIII. of England, and the
       Republic of Venice. As the result of the ruthless and
       destructive war which they waged, Louis XII., before he died,
       in 1515, saw all that he had won in Lombardy stripped from him
       and restored to the Sforzas--the old family of the Dukes of
       Milan; Venice recovered most of her possessions, but never
       regained her former power, since the discovery of the ocean
       route to India, round the Cape of Good Hope, was now turning
       the rich trade of the East, the great source of her wealth,
       into the hands of the Portuguese; the temporal dominion of the
       Popes was enlarged by the recovery of Bologna and Perugia and by
       the addition of Parma and Piacenza; and Florence, which had
       been a republic since the death of Savonarola, was forced to
       submit anew to the Medici.

    The Age of Infamous Popes.

       The fighting Pope, Julius II., who made war and led armies,
       while professing to be the vicar of Him who brought the
       message of good-will and peace to mankind, was very far from
       being the worst of the popes of his age. He was only worldly,
       thinking much of his political place as a temporal sovereign
       in Italy, and little of his spiritual office as the head of
       the Church of Christ. As the sovereign of Rome and the Papal
       States, Julius II. ran a brilliant career, and is one of the
       splendid figures of the Italian renaissance. Patron of Michael
       Angelo and Raphael, projector of St. Peter's, there is a
       certain grandeur in his character to be admired, if we could
       forget the pretended apostolic robe which he smirched with
       perfidious politics and stained with blood.

       But the immediate predecessors of Julius II., Sixtus IV. and
       Alexander VI., had had nothing in their characters to lure
       attention from the hideous examples of bestial wickedness
       which they set before the world. Alexander, especially, the
       infamous Borgia,--systematic murderer and robber, liar and
       libertine,--accomplished practitioner of every crime and every
       vice that was known to the worst society of a depraved
       generation, and shamelessly open in the foulest of his
       doings,--there is scarcely a pagan monster of antiquity that
       is not whitened by comparison with him. Yet he sat in the
       supposed seat of St. Peter for eleven years, to be venerated
       as the Vicar of Christ, the "Holy Father" of the Christian
       Church; his declarations and decrees in matters of faith to be
       accepted as infallible inspirations; his absolution to be
       craved as a passport to Heaven; his anathema to be dreaded as
       a condemnation to Hell!

       This evil and malignant being died in 1503. poisoned by one of
       his own cups, which he had brewed for another. Julius II.
       reigned until 1513; and after him came the Medicean Pope, Leo
       X., son of Lorenzo the Magnificent,--princely and worldly as
       Julius, but in gentler fashion; loving ease, pleasure, luxury,
       art, and careless of all that belonged to religion beyond its
       ceremonies and its comfortable establishment of clerical
       estates. Is it strange that Christendom was prepared to give
       ear to Luther?

    Luther and the Reformation.

       When Luther raised his voice, he did but renew a protest which
       many pure and pious and courageous men before him had uttered,
       against evils in the Church and falsities and impostures in
       the Papacy. But some of them, like Arnold of Brescia, like
       Peter Waldo, and the Albigenses, had been too far in advance
       of their time, and their revolt was hopeless from the
       beginning. Wyclif's movement had been timed unfortunately in
       an age of great commotions, which swallowed it up. That of
       Huss had roused an ignorant peasantry, too uncivilized to
       represent a reformed Christianity, and had been ruined by the
       fierceness of their misguided zeal. The Reformation of
       Savonarola, at Florence, had been nobly begun, but not wisely
       led, and it had spent its influence at the end on aims less
       religious than political.

       But there occurred a combination, when Luther arose, of
       character in himself, of circumstances in his country, and of
       temper in his generation, which made his protest more
       lastingly effective. He had high courage, without rashness. He
       had earnestness and ardor, without fanaticism. He had the
       plain good sense and sound judgment which win public
       confidence. His substantial learning put him on terms with the
       scholars of his day, and he was not so much refined by it as
       to lose touch with the common people. A certain coarseness in
       his nature was not offensive to the time in which he lived,
       but rather belonged among the elements of power in him. His
       spirituality was not fine, but it was strong. He was sincere,
       and men believed in him. He was open, straightforward, manly,
       commanding respect. His qualities showed themselves in his
       speech, which went straight to its mark, in the simplest
       words, moulding the forms and phrases of the German language
       with more lasting effect than the speech of any other man who
       ever used it. Not many have lived in any age or any country
       who possessed the gift of so persuasive a tongue, with so
       powerful a character to command the hearing for it.

    {1054}

       And the generation to which Luther spoke really waited for a
       bold voice to break into the secret of its thoughts concerning
       the Church. It had inherited a century of alienation from
       quarreling popes and greedy, corrupted priests and now there
       had been added in its feeling the deep abhorrence roused by
       such villains as the Borgia in the papal chair, and by their
       creatures and minions in the priesthood of the Church. If it
       is crediting too much to the common multitude of the time to
       suppose them greatly sickened by the vices and corruptions of
       their priests, we may be sure, at least, that they were
       wearied and angered by the exactions from them, which a
       vicious hierarchy continually increased. The extravagance of
       the Papacy kept pace with its degradation, and Christendom
       groaned under the burden of the taxes that were wrung from it
       in the name of the lowly Saviour of mankind.

       Nowhere in Europe were the extortions of the Church felt more
       severely than in Germany, where the serfdom of the peasants
       was still real and hard, and where the depressing weight of
       the feudal system had scarcely been lifted from society at
       all. Feudalism had given way in that country less than in any
       other. Central authority remained as weak, and national
       solidification as far away, as ever. Of organic unity in the
       heterogeneous bundle of electoral principalities, duchies,
       margravates and free cities which made up the nominal realm of
       the King of the Romans, there was no more at the beginning of
       the sixteenth century than there had been in the twelfth. But
       that very brokenness and division in the political state of
       Germany proved to be one of the circumstances which favored
       the Protestant Reformation of the Church. Had monarchical
       authority established itself there as in France, then the
       Austro-Spanish family which wielded it, with the concentrated
       bigotry of their narrow-minded race, would have crushed the
       religious revolt as completely in Saxony as they did in
       Austria and Bohemia.

    The Ninety-five Theses.

       The main events of the Reformation in Germany are so commonly
       known that no more than the slightest sketching of them is
       needed here. Letters of indulgence, purporting to grant a
       remission of the temporal and purgatorial penalties of sin,
       had been sold by the Church for centuries; but none before
       Pope Leo X. had made merchandize of them in so peddlar-like
       and shameful a fashion as that which scandalized the
       intelligent piety of Europe in 1517. Luther, then a professor
       in the new University of Wittenberg, Saxony, could not hide
       his indignation, as most men did. He stood forth boldly and
       challenged the impious fraud, in a series of propositions or
       theses, which, after the manner of the time, he nailed to the
       door of Wittenberg Church. Just that bold action was needed to
       let loose the pent-up feeling of the German people. The
       ninety-five theses were printed and went broadcast through the
       land, to be read and to be listened to, and to stir every
       class with independent ideas. It was the first great appeal
       made to the public opinion of the world, after the invention
       of printing had put a trumpet to the mouths of eloquent men,
       and the effect was too amazing to be believed by the careless
       Pope and his courtiers.

    Political Circumstances.

       But more than possibly--probably, indeed--the popular feeling
       stirred up would never have accomplished the rupture with Rome
       and the religious independence to which North Germany attained
       in the end, if political motives had not coincided with
       religious feelings to bring certain princes and great nobles
       into sympathy with the Monk of Wittenberg. The Elector of
       Saxony, Luther's immediate sovereign, had long been in
       opposition to the Papacy on the subject of its enormous
       collections of money from his subjects, and he was well
       pleased to have the hawking of indulgences checked in his
       dominions. Partly for this reason, partly because of the pride
       and interest with which he cherished his new University,
       partly from personal liking and admiration of Luther, and
       partly, too, no doubt, in recognition of the need of Church
       reforms, he gave Luther a quiet protection and a concealed
       support. He was the strongest and most influential of the
       princes of the Empire, and his obvious favor to the movement
       advanced it powerfully and rapidly.

       At first, there was no intention to break with the Papacy and
       the Papal Church,--certainly none in Luther's mind. His
       attitude towards both was conciliatory in every way, except as
       concerned the falsities and iniquities which he had protested
       against. It was not until the Pope, in June, 1520, launched
       against him the famous Bull, "Exurge Domine," which left no
       alternative between abject submission and open war, that
       Luther and his followers cast off the authority of the Roman
       Church and its head, and grounded their faith upon Holy
       Scripture alone. By formally burning the Bull, Luther accepted
       the papal challenge, and those who believed with him were
       ready for the contest.

    The Diet of Worms.

       In 1521, the reformer was summoned before a Diet of the
       Empire, at Worms, where a hearing was given him. The influence
       of the Church, and of the young Austro-Spanish Emperor,
       Charles V., who adhered to it, was still great enough to
       procure his condemnation; but they did not dare to deal with
       him as Huss had been dealt with. He was suffered to depart
       safely, pursued by an imperial edict which placed the ban of
       the Empire on all who should give him countenance or support.
       His friends among the nobles spirited him away and concealed
       him in a castle, the Wartburg, where he remained for several
       months, employed in making his translation of the Bible.
       Meantime, the Emperor had been called away from Germany by his
       multifarious affairs, in the Netherlands and Spain, and had
       little attention to give to Luther and the questions of
       religion for half-a-dozen years. He was represented in Germany
       by a Council of Regency, with the Elector of Saxony at the
       head of, it; and the movement of reformation, if not
       encouraged in his absence, was at least considerably
       protected. It soon showed threatening signs of wildness and
       fanaticism in many quarters; but Luther proved himself as
       powerful in leadership as he had been in agitation, and the
       religious passion of the time was controlled effectively, on
       the whole.

    {1055}

    Organization of the Lutheran Church.

       Before the close of the year 1521, Pope Leo X. died, and his
       successor, Adrian, while insisting upon the enforcement of the
       Edict of Worms against Luther and his supporters, yet
       acknowledged the corruptions of the Church and promised a
       reformation of them. His promises came too late; his
       confessions only gave testimony to the independent reformers
       which their opponents could not impeach. There was no longer
       any thought of cleansing the Church of Rome, to abide in it. A
       separated--a restored Church--was clearly determined on, and
       Luther framed a system of faith and discipline which was
       adopted in Saxony, and then accepted very generally by the
       reformed Churches throughout Germany. In 1525, the Elector
       Frederick of Saxony died. He had quietly befriended the
       Lutherans and tolerated the reform, but never identified
       himself with them. His brother, John, who succeeded him, made
       public profession of his belief in the Lutheran doctrines, and
       authoritatively established the church system which Luther had
       introduced. The Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, the Margrave of
       Brandenburg, and the Dukes of Mecklenburg, Pomerania and Zell,
       followed his example; while the imperial cities of Frankfort,
       Nuremberg, Bremen, Strasburg, Brunswick, Nordhausen, and
       others, formally ranged themselves on the same side. By the
       year 1526, when a diet at Spires declared the freedom of each
       state in the Empire to deal with the religious reform
       according to its own will, the Reformation in Germany was a
       solidly organized fact. But those of the reform had not yet
       received their name, of "Protestants." That came to them three
       years later, when the Roman party had rallied its forces in a
       new diet at Spires, to undo the declaration of 1526, and the
       leaders of the Lutheran party recorded their solemn protest.

    The Austro-Burgundian Marriage.

       To understand the situation politically, during the period of
       struggle for and against the Reformation, it will be necessary
       to turn back a little, for the noting of important occurrences
       which have not been mentioned.

       When Albert II., who was King of Hungary and Bohemia, as well
       as King of the Romans (Emperor-elect, as the title came to be,
       soon afterwards), died, in 1439, he was succeeded by his
       second cousin Frederick III., Duke of Styria, and from that
       time the Roman or imperial crown was held continuously in the
       Austrian family, becoming practically hereditary. But
       Frederick did not succeed to the duchy of Austria, and he
       failed of election to the throne in Hungary and Bohemia. Hence
       his position as Emperor was peculiarly weak and greatly
       impoverished, through want of revenue from any considerable
       possessions of his own. During his whole long reign, of nearly
       fifty-four years, Frederick was humiliated and hampered by his
       poverty; the imperial authority was brought very low, and
       Germany was in a greatly disordered state. There were frequent
       wars between its members, and between Austria and Bohemia, with
       rebellions in Vienna and elsewhere; while the Hungarians were
       left to contend with the aggressive Turks, almost unhelped.

       But in 1477 a remarkable change in the circumstances and
       prospects of the family of the Emperor Frederick III. was made
       by the marriage of his son and heir, Maximilian, to Mary, the
       daughter and heiress of the wealthy and powerful Duke of
       Burgundy, Charles the Bold. The bridegroom was so poor that
       the bride is said to have loaned him the money which enabled
       him to make a fit appearance at the wedding. She had lost, as
       we saw, the duchy of Burgundy, but the valiant arm of
       Maximilian enabled her to hold the Burgundian county, Franche
       Comté, and the rich provinces of the Netherlands, which formed
       at that time, perhaps, the most valuable principality in
       Europe. The Duchess Mary lived only five years after her
       marriage; but she left a son, Philip, who inherited the
       Netherlands and Franche Comté, and Maximilian ruled them as
       his guardian.

       In 1493, the Emperor Frederick died, and Maximilian, who had
       been elected King of the Romans some years before, succeeded
       him in the imperial office. He was never crowned at Rome, and
       he took the title, not used before, of King of Germany and
       Emperor-elect. He was Archduke of Austria, Duke of Styria,
       Carinthia and Carniola, and Count of Tyrol; and, with his
       guardianship in the Low Countries, he rose greatly in
       importance and power above his father. But he accomplished
       less than might possibly have been done by a ruler of more
       sureness of judgment and fixity in purpose. His plans were
       generally beyond his means, and the failures in his
       undertakings were numerous. He was eager to interfere with the
       doings of Charles VIII. and Louis XIII. in Italy; but the
       Germanic diet gave him so little support that he could do
       nothing effective. He joined the League of Cambrai against
       Venice, and the Holy League against France, but bore no
       important part in either. His reign was signalized in Germany
       by the division of the nation into six administrative
       "Circles," afterwards increased to ten, and by the creation of
       a supreme court of appeal, called the Imperial Chamber,--both
       of which measures did something towards the diminution of
       private wars and disorders.

    The Austro-Spanish Marriage.--Charles V.

       But Maximilian figures most conspicuously in history as the
       immediate ancestor of the two great sovereign dynasties--the
       Austrian and the Austro-Spanish--which sprang from his
       marriage with Mary of Burgundy and which dominated Europe for
       a century after his death. His son Philip, heir to the
       Burgundian sovereignty of the Netherlands, married (1496)
       Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Two
       children, Charles and Ferdinand, were the fruit of this
       marriage. Charles, the elder, inherited more crowns and
       coronets than were ever gathered, in reality, by one
       sovereign, before or since. Ferdinand and Isabella had united
       by their marriage the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, and, by
       the conquest of Granada and the partial conquest of Navarre,
       the entire peninsula, except Portugal, was subsequently added
       to their joint dominion. Joanna inherited the whole, on the
       death of Isabella, in 1504, and the death of Ferdinand, in
       1516. She also inherited from her father, Ferdinand, the
       kingdom of the Two Sicilies--which he had reunited--and the
       island of Sardinia. Philip, on his side, already in possession
       of the Netherlands and Franche Comté, was heir to the domain of
       the House of Austria. Both of these great inheritances
       descended in due course to Charles, and he had not long to
       wait for them. His father, Philip, died in 1506, and his
       mother, Joanna, lost her mind, through grief at that event.
       The death of his Spanish grandfather, Ferdinand, occurred in
       1516, and that of his Austrian grandfather, the Emperor
       Maximilian, followed three years later.
    {1056}
       At the age of twenty years (representing his mother in her
       incapacity) Charles found himself sovereign of Spain, and
       America, of Sicily, Naples, Sardinia, the Low Countries,
       Franche Comté, Austria, and the duchies associated with it.
       The same year (1519) he was chosen King of Germany and
       Emperor-elect, after a keen contest over the imperial crown,
       in which Francis I. of France and Henry VIII. of England were
       his competitors. On attaining this dignity, he conferred the
       Austrian possessions on his brother Ferdinand. But he remained
       the most potent and imposing monarch that Europe had seen
       since Charlemagne. He came upon the stage just as Luther had
       marshalled, in Germany, the reforming forces of the new era,
       against intolerable iniquities in the Papal Church.
       Unfortunately, he came, with his vast armament of powers, to
       resist the demands of his age, and to be the champion of old
       falsities and wrongs, both in Church and State. There was
       nothing in the nature of the man, nor in his education, nor in
       the influences which bore upon him, from either the Spanish or
       the Austrian side of his family, to put him in sympathy with
       lifting movements or with liberal ideas. He never formed a
       conception of the world in which it looked larger to his eyes,
       or signified more to him, than the globe upon his scepter. So,
       naturally enough, this Cæsar of the Renaissance (Charles V. in
       Germany and Charles I. in Spain) did his utmost, from the day
       he climbed the throne, to thrust Europe back into the murk of
       the fourteenth century, which he found it pretty nearly
       escaped from. He did not succeed; but he gave years of misery
       to several countries by his exertions, and he resigned the
       task to a successor whom the world is never likely to tire of
       abhorring and despising.

    The end of popular freedom in Spain.

       The affairs which called Charles V. away from Germany, after
       launching his ineffectual edict of Worms against Luther and
       Luther's supporters, grew in part out of disturbances in his
       kingdom of Spain. His election to the imperial office had not
       been pleasing to the Spaniards, who anticipated the
       complications they would be dragged into by it, the foreign
       character which their sovereign (already foreign in mind by
       his education in the Netherlands) would be confirmed in, and
       the indifference with which their grievances would be
       regarded. For their grievances against the monarchy had been
       growing serious in the last years of Ferdinand, and since his
       death. The crown had gained power in the process of political
       centralization, and its aggrandizement from the possession of
       America began to loom startlingly in the light of the conquest
       of Mexico, just achieved. During the absence of Charles in
       Germany, his former preceptor, Cardinal Adrian, of Utrecht,
       being in charge of the government as regent, a revolt broke
       out at Toledo which spread widely and became alarming. The
       insurgents organized their movement under the name of the
       Santa Junta, or Holy League, and having obtained possession of
       the demented Queen, Joanna, they assumed to act for her and
       with her authority. This rebellion was suppressed with
       difficulty; but the suppression was accomplished (1521-1522),
       and it proved to be the last struggle for popular freedom in
       Spain. The government used its victory with an unsparing
       determination to establish absolute powers, and it succeeded.
       The conditions needed for absolutism were already created, in
       fact, by the deadly blight which the Inquisition had been
       casting upon Spain for forty years. Since the beginning of the
       frightful work of Torquemada, in 1483, it had been diligently
       searching out and destroying every germ of free thought and
       manly character that gave the smallest sign of fruitfulness in
       the kingdom; and the crushing of the Santa Junta may be said
       to have left few in Spain who deserved a better fate than the
       political, the religious and the intellectual servitude under
       which the nation sank.

    Persecution of the Spanish Moriscoes.

       Charles, whose mind was dense in its bigotry, urged on the
       Inquisition, and pointed its dreadful engines of destruction
       against the unfortunate Moriscoes, or Moors, who had been
       forced to submit to Christian baptism after their subjugation.
       Many of these followers of Mahomet had afterwards taken up
       again the prayers and practices of their own faith, either
       secretly or in quiet ways, and their relapse appears to have
       been winked at, more or less. For they were a most useful
       people, far surpassing the Spaniards in industry, in thrift
       and knowledge of agriculture, and in mechanical skill. Many of
       the arts and manufactures of the kingdom were entirely in
       their hands. It was ruinous to interfere with their peaceful
       labors. But Charles, as heathenish as the Grand Turk when it
       suited his ends to be so, could look on these well-behaved and
       useful Moors with no eyes but the eyes of an orthodox piety, and
       could take account of nothing but their infidel faith. He
       began, therefore, in 1524, the heartless, senseless and
       suicidal persecution of the Moriscoes which exterminated them
       or drove them from the land, and which contributed signally to
       the making of Spain an exemplary pauper among the nations.

    Despotism of Charles V. in the Netherlands.

       In his provinces of the Low Countries, Charles found more than
       in Spain to provoke his despotic bigotry. The Flemings and the
       Dutch had been tasting of freedom too much for his liking, in
       recent years, and ideas, both political and religious, had
       been spreading among them, which were not the ideas of his
       august mind, and must therefore, of necessity, be false. They
       had already become infected with the rebellious anti-papal
       doctrines of Luther. Indeed, they had been even riper than
       Luther's countrymen for a religious revolution, when he
       sounded the signal note which echoed through all northern
       Europe. In Germany, the elected emperor could fulminate an
       edict against the audacious reformers, but he had small power
       to give force to it. In the Netherlands, he possessed a
       sovereignty more potent, and he took instant measures to
       exercise the utmost arbitrariness of which he could make it
       capable. The Duchess Margaret, his aunt, who had been
       governess of the provinces, was confirmed by him in that
       office, and he enlarged the powers in her commission. His
       commands practically superseded the regular courts, and
       subjected the whole administration of justice to his arbitrary
       will and that of his representative. At the same time they
       stripped the States of their legislative functions and reduced
       them to insignificance.
    {1057}
       Having thus trampled on the civil liberties of the provinces,
       he borrowed the infernal enginery of the Inquisition, and
       introduced it for the destruction of religious freedom. Its
       first victims were two Augustine monks, convicted of
       Lutheranism, who were burned at Brussels, in July, 1523. The
       first martyr in Holland was a priest who suffered impalement
       as well as burning, at the Hague, in 1525. From these
       beginnings the persecution grew crueler as the alienation of
       the stubborn Netherlanders from the Church of Rome widened;
       and Charles did not cease to fan its fires with successive
       proclamations or "placards," which denounced and forbade every
       reading of Scripture, every act of devotion, every
       conversation of religion, in public or private, which the
       priests of the Church did not conduct. "The number of
       Netherlanders who were burned, strangled, beheaded, or buried
       alive, in obedience to his edicts, ... have been placed as
       high as 100,000 by distinguished authorities, and have never
       been put at a lower mark than 50,000."

    Charles V. and Francis I. in Italy.

       These exercises of an autocratic piety in Spain and the Low
       Countries may be counted, perhaps, among the pleasures of the
       young Emperor during the earlier years of his reign. His more
       serious affairs were connected mainly with his interests or
       ambitions in Italy, which seemed to be threatened by the King
       of France. The throne in that country was now occupied by
       Francis I., a cousin of Louis XII., who had succeeded the
       latter in 1515, and who had taken up anew the Italian projects
       in which Louis failed. In the first year of his reign, he
       crossed the Alps with an army, defeated the Swiss whom the
       Duke of Milan employed against him, and won the whole duchy by
       that single fight. This re-establishment of the French at
       Milan was regarded with exceeding jealousy by the Austrian
       interest, and by the Pope. Maximilian, shortly before his
       death, had made a futile effort to dislodge them, and Charles
       V., on coming to the throne, lost no time in organizing plans
       to the same end. He entered into an alliance with Pope Leo X.,
       by a treaty which bears the same date as the Edict of Worms
       against Luther, and there can be little doubt that the two
       instruments were part of one understanding. Both parties
       courted the friendship of Henry VIII. of England, whose power
       and importance had risen to a high mark, and Henry's able
       minister, Cardinal Wolsey, figured notably in the diplomatic
       intrigues which went on during many years.

       War began in 1521, and in three months the French were
       expelled from nearly every part of the Milanese territory.
       Pope Leo X. lived just long enough to receive the news. His
       successor was Adrian VI., former tutor of the Emperor, who
       made vain attempts to arrange a peace. Wolsey had brought
       Henry VIII. of England into the alliance against Francis,
       expecting to win the papal tiara through the Emperor's
       influence; but he was disappointed.

       Francis made an effort in 1523 to recover Milan; but was
       crippled at the moment of sending his expedition across the
       Alps by the treason of the most powerful noble of France, the
       Constable, Charles, Duke of Bourbon. The Constable had been
       wronged and affronted by the King's mother, and by intriguers
       at court, and he revenged himself basely by going over to the
       enemies of his country. In the campaigns which followed
       (1523-1524), the French had ill-success, and lost their
       chivalrous and famous knight, Bayard, in one of the last
       skirmishes of their retreat. Another change now occurred in
       the occupancy of the papal throne, and Wolsey's ambitious
       schemes were foiled again. The new Pope was Giulio de'Medici,
       who took the name of Clement VII.

       Once more the King of France, in October, 1524, led his forces
       personally into Italy and laid siege to Pavia. It was a
       ruinous undertaking. He was defeated overwhelmingly in a
       battle fought before Pavia (February 24, 1525) and taken
       prisoner. After a captivity in Spain of nearly a year, he
       regained his freedom disgracefully, by signing and solemnly
       swearing to a treaty which he never intended to observe. By
       this treaty he not only renounced all claims to Milan, Naples,
       Genoa, and other Italian territory, but he gave up the duchy
       of Burgundy. Released in good faith on these terms, in the
       early part of 1526, he perfidiously repudiated the treaty, and
       began fresh preparations for war. He found the Italians now as
       ready to oust the Spaniards from their peninsula with French
       help, as they had been ready before to expel the French with
       help from Spain. The papal interest was in great alarm at the
       power acquired by the Emperor, and Venice and Milan shared the
       feeling. A new "Holy Alliance" was accordingly formed, with
       the Pope at its head, and with Henry VIII. of England for its
       "Protector." But before this League took the field with its
       forces, Rome and Italy were stricken and trampled, as though
       by a fresh invasion of Goths.

    Sack of Rome, by the army of the Constable.

       The imperial army, quartered in the duchy of Milan, under the
       command of the Constable Bourbon, was scantily paid and fed.
       The soldiers were forced to plunder the city and country for
       their subsistence, and, of course, under those circumstances,
       there was little discipline among them. The region which they
       terrorized was soon exhausted, by their robberies and by the
       stoppage of industries and trade. It then became necessary for
       the Constable to lead them to new fields, and he moved
       southwards. His forces were made up in part of Spaniards and
       in part of Germans--the latter under a Lutheran commander, and
       enlisted for war with the Pope and for pillage in Italy. He
       directed the march to Rome, constrained, perhaps, by the
       demands of his soldiery, but expecting, likewise, to crush the
       League by seizing its apostolic head. On the 5th of May, 1527,
       his 40,000 brigands arrived before the city. At daybreak, the
       next morning, they assaulted the walls irresistibly and
       swarmed over them. Bourbon was killed in the assault, and his
       men were left uncontrolled masters of the venerable capital of
       the world. They held it for seven months, pillaging and
       destroying, committing every possible excess and every
       imaginable sacrilege. Rome is believed to have suffered at
       their hands more lasting defacement and loss of the splendors
       of its art than from the sacking of Vandals or Goths.

       The Pope held out in Castle St. Angelo for a month and then
       surrendered. The hypocritical Charles V., when he learned what
       his imperially commissioned bandits had done, made haste to
       express horror and grief, but did not hasten to check or
       repair the outrage in the least. Pope Clement was not released
       from captivity until a great money-payment had been extorted
       from him, with the promise of a general council of the Church
       to reform abuses and to eradicate Lutheranism.

    {1058}

    Spanish Domination in Italy.

       Europe was shocked by the barbarity of the capture of Rome,
       and the enemies leagued against Charles were stimulated to
       more vigorous exertions. Assisted with money from England,
       Francis sent another army into Italy, which took Genoa and
       Pavia and marched to Naples, blockading the city by sea and
       land. But the siege proved fatal to the French army. So many
       perished of disease that the survivors were left at the mercy
       of the enemy, and capitulated in September, 1528.

       The great Genoese Admiral, Andrea Doria, had been offended,
       meantime, by King Francis, and had excited his fellow citizens
       to a revolution, which made Genoa, once more, an independent
       republic, with Doria at its head. Shortly before this
       occurred, Florence had expelled the Medici and reorganized her
       government upon the old republican basis. But the defeat of
       the French before Naples ended all hope of Italian liberty;
       since the Pope resigned himself after that event to the will
       of the Emperor, and the papal and imperial despotisms became
       united as one, to exterminate freedom from the peninsula.
       Florence was the first victim of the combination. The city was
       besieged and taken by the Emperor's troops, in compliance with
       the wishes of the Pope, and the Medici, his relatives, were
       restored. Francis continued war feebly until 1529, when a
       peace called the "Ladies Peace" was brought about, by
       negotiations between the French King's mother and the
       Emperor's aunt. This was practically the end of the long
       French wars in Italy.

    Germany.

       Such were the events which, in different quarters of the
       world, diverted the attention of the Emperor during several
       years from Luther and the Reformation in Germany. The
       religious movement in those years had been making a steady
       advance. Yet its enemies gained control of another Diet held
       at Spires in 1529 and reversed the ordinance of the Diet of
       1526, by which each state had been left free to deal in its
       own manner with the edict of Worms. Against this action of the
       Diet, the Lutheran princes and the representatives of the
       Lutheran towns entered their solemn protest, and so acquired
       the name, "Protestants," which became in time the accepted and
       adopted name of all, in most parts of the world, who withdrew
       from the Roman communion.

    The Peasants' War and the Anabaptists.

       Before this time, the Reform had passed through serious
       trials, coming from excesses in the very spirit out of which
       itself had risen and to which it gave encouragement. The long
       suffering, much oppressed peasantry of Germany, who had found
       bishops as pitiless extortioners as lords, caught eagerly at a
       hope of relief from the overthrow of the ancient Church.
       Several times within the preceding half-century they had risen
       in formidable revolts, with a peasants' clog, or bundschuh for
       their banner. In 1525 fresh risings occurred in Swabia,
       Franconia, Alsace, Lorraine, Bavaria, Thuringia and elsewhere,
       and a great Peasants' War raged for months, with ferocity and
       brutality on both sides. The number who perished in the war is
       estimated at 100,000. The demands made by the peasants were for
       measures of the simplest justice--for the poorest rights and
       privileges in life. But their cause was taken up by
       half-crazed religious fanatics, who became in some parts their
       leaders, and such a character was given to it that reasonable
       reformers were justified, perhaps, in setting themselves
       sternly against it. The wildest prophet of the outbreak was
       one Thomas Münzer, a precursor of the frenzied sect of the
       Anabaptists. Münzer perished in the wreck of the peasants'
       revolt; but some of his disciples, who fled into Westphalia
       and the Netherlands, made converts so rapidly in the town of
       Münster that in 1535 they controlled the city, expelled every
       inhabitant who would not join their communion, elected and
       crowned a king, and exhibited a madness in their proceedings
       that is hardly equalled in history. The experience at Münster
       may reasonably be thought to have proved the soundness of
       Luther's judgment in refusing countenance to the cause of the
       oppressed peasants when they rebelled.

       At all events, his opposition to them was hard and bitter. And
       it has been remarked that what may be called Luther's
       political position in Germany had become by this time quite
       changed. "Instead of the man of the people, Luther became the
       man of the princes; the mutual confidence between him and the
       masses, which had supported the first faltering steps of the
       movement, was broken; the democratic element was supplanted by
       the aristocratic; and the Reformation, which at first had
       promised to lead to a great national democracy, ended in
       establishing the territorial supremacy of the German princes.
       ... The Reformation was gradually assuming a more secular
       character, and leading to great political combinations"
       (Dyer).

    Progress of Lutheranism in Germany.

       By the year 1530, the Emperor Charles was prepared to give
       more attention to affairs in Germany and to gratify his
       animosity towards the movement of Reformation. He had
       effectually beaten his rival, the King of France, had
       established his supremacy in Italy, had humbled the Pope, and
       was quite willing to be the zealous champion of a submissive
       Church. His brother Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria, had
       secured, against much opposition, both the Hungarian and the
       Bohemian crowns, and so firmly that neither was ever again
       wrested from his family, though they continued for some time
       to be nominally elective. The dominions of Ferdinand had
       suffered a great Turkish invasion, in 1529, under the Sultan
       Solyman, who penetrated even to Vienna and besieged the city,
       but without success, losing heavily in his retreat.

       In May, 1530, Charles re-entered Germany from Italy. The
       following month he opened the sitting of the Diet, which had
       been convened at Augsburg. His first act at Augsburg was to
       summon the protesting princes, of Saxony, Hesse, Brandenburg,
       and other states, before him and to signify to them his
       imperial command that the toleration of Lutheranism in their
       dominions must cease. He expected the mandate to suffice; when
       he found it ineffectual, he required an abstract of the new
       religions doctrines to be laid before him. This was prepared
       by Melancthon, and, afterwards known as the Confession of
       Augsburg, became the Lutheran standard of faith.
    {1059}
       The Catholic theologians prepared a reply to it, and both were
       submitted to the Emperor. He made some attempt to bring about
       a compromise of the differences, but he demanded of the
       Protestants that they should submit themselves to the Pope,
       pending the final decisions of a proposed general Council of
       the Church. When this was refused, the Diet formally condemned
       their doctrines and required them to reunite themselves with
       the Catholic Church before the 15th of April following. The
       Emperor, in November, issued a decree accordingly, renewing
       the Edict of Worms and commanding its enforcement.

       The Protestant princes, thus threatened, assembled in
       conference at Schmalkald at Christmas, 1530, and there
       organized their famous armed league. But fresh preparations
       for war by the Turk now compelled Charles to make terms with
       his Lutheran subjects. They refused to give any assistance to
       Austria or Hungary against the Sultan, while threatened by the
       Augsburg decree. The gravity of the danger forced a concession
       to them, and by the Peace of Nuremberg (1532) it was agreed
       that the Protestants should have freedom of worship until the
       next Diet should meet, or a General Council should be held.
       This peace was several times renewed, and there were ten years
       of quiet under it, in Germany, during which time the cause of
       Protestantism made rapid advances. By the year 1540, it had
       established an ascendancy in Würtemberg, among the states of
       the South, and in the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Augsburg,
       Ulm, Constance, and Strasburg. Its doctrines had been adopted
       by "the whole of central Germany, Thuringia, Saxony, Hesse,
       part of Brunswick, and the territory of the Guelphs; in the
       north by the bishoprics of Magdeburg, Halberstadt, and
       Naumburg ... ; by East Friesland, the Hanse Towns, Holstein
       and Schleswig, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Anhalt, Silesia, the
       Saxon states, Brandenburg, and Prussia. Of the larger states
       that were closed against it there remained only Austria,
       Bavaria, the Palatinate and the Rhenish Electorates"
       (Hausser). In 1542, Duke Henry of Brunswick, the last of the
       North German princes who adhered to the Papal Church, was
       expelled from his duchy and Protestantism established. About
       the same time the Archbishop-Elector of Cologne announced his
       conviction of the truth of the Protestant doctrines.

    The Schmalkaldic War.

       Charles was still too much involved in foreign wars to venture
       upon a struggle with the Lutherans; but a few years more
       sufficed to free his hands. The Treaty of Crespy, in 1544,
       ended his last conflict with Francis I. In the same year, Pope
       Paul III. summoned the long promised General Council of the
       Church to meet at Trent the following spring--by which
       appointment a term was put to the toleration conceded in the
       Peace of Nuremberg. The Protestants, though greatly increased
       in numbers, were now less united than at the time of the
       formation of the Schmalkaldic League. There was much division
       among the leading princes. They yielded no longer to the
       influence of their wisest and ablest chief, Philip of Hesse.
       Luther, whose counsels had always been for peace, approached
       his end, and died in 1546. The circumstances were favorable to
       the Emperor, when he determined to put a stop to the
       Reformation by force. He secured an important ally in the very
       heart of Protestant Germany, winning over to his side the
       selfish schemer, Duke Maurice of Saxony--now the head of the
       Albertine branch of the Saxon house. In 1546 he felt prepared
       and war began. The successes were all on the imperial side.
       There was no energy, no unity, no forethoughtfulness of plan,
       among the Lutherans. The Elector, John Frederick, of Saxony,
       and Philip of Hesse, both fell into the Emperor's hands and
       were barbarously imprisoned. The former was compelled to
       resign his Electorate, and it was conferred upon the renegade
       Duke Maurice. Philip was kept in vile places of confinement
       and inhumanly treated for years. The Protestants of Germany
       were entirely beaten down, for the time being, and the Emperor
       imposed upon them in 1548 a confession of faith called "the
       Interim," the chief missionaries of which were the Spanish
       soldiers whom he had brought into the country. But if the
       Lutherans had suffered themselves to be overcome, they were
       not ready to be trodden upon in so despotic a manner. Even
       Maurice, now Elector of Saxony, recoiled from the tyranny
       which Charles sought to establish, while he resented the
       inhuman treatment of Philip of Hesse, who was his
       father-in-law. He headed a new league, therefore, which was
       formed against the Emperor, and which entered into a secret
       alliance with Henry II. of France (Francis I. having died in
       1547). Charles was taken by surprise when the revolt broke
       out, in 1552, and barely escaped capture. The operations of
       Maurice were vigorous and ably conducted, and in a few weeks
       the Protestants had recovered all the ground lost in 1546-7;
       while the French had improved the opportunity to seize the
       three bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun. The ultimate result
       was the so-called "Religious Peace of Augsburg," concluded in
       1555, which gave religious freedom to the ruling princes of
       Germany, but none whatever to the people. It put the two
       religions on the same footing, but it was simply a footing of
       equal intolerance. Each ruler had the right to choose his own
       creed, and to impose it arbitrarily upon his subjects if he
       saw fit to do so. As a practical consequence, the final
       division of Germany between Protestantism and Catholicism was
       substantially determined by the princes and not by the people.

       The humiliating failure of Charles V. to crush the Reformation
       in Germany was no doubt prominent among the experiences which
       sickened him of the imperial office and determined him to
       abdicate the throne, which he did in the autumn of 1556.

    Reformation in Switzerland.

       A generation had now passed since the Lutheran movement of
       Reformation was begun in Germany, and, within that time, not
       only had the wave of influence from Wittenberg swept over all
       western Europe, but other reformers had risen independently
       and contemporaneously, or nearly so, in other countries, and
       had co-operated powerfully in making the movement general. The
       earliest of these was the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, who
       began preaching against indulgences and other flagrant abuses
       in the Church, at Zurich, in 1519, the same year in which
       Luther opened his attack. The effect of his preaching was so
       great that Zurich, four years later, had practically separated
       itself from the Roman Church.
    {1060}
       From that beginning the Reformation spread so rapidly that in
       half-a-dozen years it had mastered most of the Cantons of
       Switzerland outside of the five Forest Cantons, where
       Catholicism held its ground with stubbornness. The two
       religions were then represented by two parties, which absorbed
       in themselves all the political as well as the religious
       questions of the day, and which speedily came to blows. The
       Catholics allied themselves with Ferdinand of Austria, and the
       Protestants with several of the imperial cities of Germany.
       But such an union between the Swiss and the German Protestants
       as seemed plainly desirable was prevented; mainly, by the
       dictatorial obstinacy of Luther. Zwingli's reforming ideas
       were broader, and at the same time more radical, than
       Luther's, and the latter opposed them with irreconcilable
       hostility. He still held with the Catholics to the doctrine of
       transubstantiation, which the Swiss reformer rejected. Hence
       Zwingli was no less a heretic in Luther's eyes than in the
       eyes of the pope, and the anathemas launched against him from
       Wittenberg were hardly less thunderous than those from Rome.
       So the two contemporaneous reformation movements, German and
       Swiss, were held apart from one another, and went on side by
       side, with little help or sympathy from one another. In 1531
       the Forest Cantons attacked and defeated the men of Zurich,
       and Zwingli was slain in the battle. Peace was then concluded
       on terms which left each canton free to establish its own
       creed, and each congregation free to do the same in the common
       territories of the confederation.

    Reformation in France.

       In France, the freer ideas of Christianity--the ideas less
       servile to tradition and to Rome--that were in the upper air
       of European culture when the sixteenth century began, had
       found some expression even before Luther spoke. The influence
       of the new classical learning, and of the "humanists" who
       imbibed its spirit, tended to that liberation of the mind, and
       was felt in the greatest center of the learning of the time,
       the University of Paris. But not sufficiently to overcome the
       conservatism of the Sorbonne--the theological faculty of the
       University; for Luther's writings were solemnly condemned and
       burned by it in 1521, and a persecution of those inclined
       toward the new doctrines was early begun. Francis I., in whose
       careless and coarse nature there was some taste for letters and
       learning, as well as for art, and who patronized in an idle
       way the Renaissance movements of his reign, seemed disposed at
       the beginning to be friendly to the religious Reformers. But
       he was too shallow a creature, and too profoundly unprincipled
       and false, to stand firmly in any cause of righteousness, and
       face such a power as that of Rome. His nobler sister, Margaret
       of Angoulême, who embraced the reformed doctrines with
       conviction, exerted a strong influence upon the king in their
       favor while she was by his side; but after her marriage to
       Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre, and after Francis had
       suffered defeat and shame in his war with Charles V., he was
       ready to make himself the servant of the Papacy for whatever
       it willed against his Protestant subjects, in order to have
       its alliance and support. So the persecution grew steadily
       more fierce, more systematic, and more determined, as the
       spirit of the Reformation spread more widely through the
       kingdom.

    Calvin at Geneva.

       One of the consequences of the persecution was the flight from
       France, in 1534, of John Calvin, who subsequently became the
       founder and the exponent of a system of Protestant theology
       which obtained wider acceptance in Europe than that of Luther.
       All minor differences were practically merged in the great
       division between these two theologies--the Lutheran and the
       Calvinistic--which split the Reformation in twain. After two
       years of wandering, Calvin settled in the free city of Geneva,
       where his influence very soon rose to so extraordinary a
       height that he transformed the commonwealth and ruled it,
       unselfishly, and in perfect piety, but with iron-handed
       despotism, for a quarter of a century.

    The French Court.

       The reign of Francis I. has one other mark in history, besides
       that of his persecution of the Reformers, his careless
       patronage of arts and letters, and his unsuccessful wars with
       the Emperor. He gave to the French Court--at least more than
       his predecessors had done--the character which made it in
       later French history so evil and mischievous a center of
       dissoluteness, of base intrigue, of national demoralization.
       It was invested in his time with the fascinations which drew
       into it the nobles of France and its men of genius, to corrupt
       them and to destroy their independence. It was in his time that
       the Court began to seem to be, in its own eyes, a kind of
       self-centered society, containing all of the French nation
       which needed or deserved consideration, and holding its place
       in the order of things quite apart from the kingdom which it
       helped its royal master to rule. Not to be of the Court was to
       be non-existent in its view; and thus every ambition in France
       was invited to push at its fatal doors.

    Catherine de' Medici and the Guises.

       Francis I. died in 1547, and was followed on the throne by his
       son Henry II., whose marriage to Catherine de' Medici, of the
       renowned Florentine family, was the most important personal
       act of his life. It was important in the malign fruits which
       it bore; since Catherine, after his death, gave an evil
       Italian bend-sinister to French politics, which had no lack of
       crookedness before. Henry continued the war with Charles V.,
       and was afterwards at war with Philip II., Charles' son, and
       with England, the latter country losing Calais in the
       contest,--its last French possession. Peace was made in 1559,
       and celebrated with splendid tournaments, at one of which the
       French king received a wound that caused his death.

       He left three sons, all weaklings in body and character, who
       reigned successively. The elder, Francis II., died the year
       following his accession. Although aged but seventeen when he
       died, he had been married some two years to Mary Stuart, the
       young queen of Scots. This marriage had helped to raise to
       great power in the kingdom a family known as the Guises. They
       were a branch of the ducal House of Lorraine, whose duchy was
       at that time independent of France, and, although the father
       of the family, made Duke of Guise by Francis I., had become
       naturalized in France in 1505, his sons were looked upon as
       foreigners by the jealous Frenchmen whom they supplanted at
       Court.
    {1061}
       Of the six sons, there were two of eminence, one (the second
       duke of Guise) a famous general in his day, the other a
       powerful cardinal. Five sisters completed the family in its
       second generation. The elder of these, Mary, had married James
       V. of Scotland (whose mother was the English princess,
       Margaret, sister of Henry VIII.), and Mary Stuart, queen of
       Scots, born of that marriage, was therefore a niece of the
       Guises. They had brought about her marriage to Francis II.,
       while he was dauphin, and they mounted with her to supreme
       influence in the kingdom when she ascended the throne with her
       husband. The queen-mother, Catherine de' Medici, was as eager
       as the Guises to control the government, in what appeared to
       her eyes the interest of her children; but during the short
       reign of Francis II. she was quite thrust aside, and the
       queen's uncles ruled the state.

       The death of Francis II. (1560) brought a change, and with the
       accession of Charles IX., a boy of ten years, there began a
       bitter contest for ascendancy between Catherine and the
       Guises; and this struggle became mixed and strangely
       complicated with a deadly conflict of religions, which the
       steady advance of the Reformation in France had brought at
       this time to a crisis.

    The Huguenots.

       Under the powerful leadership which Calvin assumed, at Geneva,
       the reformed religion in France had acquired an organized
       firmness and strength which not only resisted the most cruel
       persecution, but made rapid headway against it. "Protestantism
       had become a party which did not, like Lutheranism in Germany,
       spring up from the depths." "It numbered its chief adherents
       among the middle and upper grades of society, spread its roots
       rather among the nobles than the citizens, and among learned
       men and families of distinction rather than among the people."
       "Some of the highest aristocracy, who were discontented, and
       submitted unwillingly to the supremacy of the Guises, had
       joined the Calvinistic opposition--some undoubtedly from
       policy, others from conviction. The Turennes, the Rohans, and
       Soubises, pure nobles, who addressed the king as 'mon cousin,'
       especially the Bourbons, the agnates of the royal house, had
       adopted the new faith" (Hausser). One branch of the Bourbons
       had lately acquired the crown of Navarre. The Spanish part of
       the old Navarrese kingdom had been subjugated and absorbed by
       Ferdinand of Aragon; but its territory on the French side of
       the Pyrenees--Béarn and other counties--still maintained a
       half independent national existence, with the dignity of a
       regal government. When Margaret of Angoulême, sister of
       Francis I., married Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre, as
       mentioned before, she carried to that small court an earnest
       inclination towards the doctrines of the Reform. Under her
       protection Navarre became largely Protestant, and a place of
       refuge for the persecuted of France. Margaret's daughter, the
       famous Jeanne d'Albret, espoused the reformed faith fully, and
       her husband, Antoine de Bourbon, as well as Antoine's brother,
       Louis de Condé, found it politic to profess the same belief.
       For the Protestants (who were now acquiring, in some unknown
       way, the name of Huguenots) had become so numerous and so
       compactly organized as to form a party capable of being
       wielded with great effect, in the strife of court factions
       which the rivalry of Catherine and the Guises produced. Hence
       politics and religion were inextricably confused in the civil
       wars which broke out shortly after the death of Francis II.
       (1560), and the accession of the boy king, Charles IX. These
       wars belong to a different movement in the general current of
       European events, and we will return to them after a glance at
       the religious Reformation, and at the political circumstances
       connected with it, in England and elsewhere.

    England.

       Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, made king of England by his
       victory at Bosworth, established himself so firmly in the seat
       of power that three successive rebellions failed to disturb
       him. In one of these (1487) a pretender, Lambert Simnel, was
       put forward, who claimed to be the Earl of Warwick. In another
       (1491-1497) a second pretender, Perkin Warbeck, personated one
       of the young princes whom Richard III. had caused to be
       murdered in the tower. Neither of the impostures had much
       success in the kingdom. Henry VII. was not a popular king, but
       he was able and strong, and he solidified all the bases of
       monarchical independence which circumstances had enabled
       Edward IV. to begin laying down.

       It was in the reign of Henry that America was discovered, and
       he might have been the patron of Columbus, the beneficiary of
       the great voyage, and the proprietor and lord of the grand
       realm which Isabella and Ferdinand secured. But he lacked the
       funds or the faith--apparently both--and put aside his
       unequaled opportunity. When the field of westward exploration
       had been opened, however, he was early in entering it, and
       sent the Cabots upon those voyages which gave England her
       claim to the North American coasts.

       During the reign of Henry VII. there were two quiet marriages
       in his family which strangely influenced subsequent history.
       One was the marriage, in 1501, of the king's eldest son,
       Arthur, to Catherine of Aragon, youngest daughter of Ferdinand
       and Isabella. The other, in 1503, united the king's daughter,
       Margaret, to James IV., King of Scotland. It was through this
       latter marriage that the inheritance of the English crown
       passed to the Scottish House of Stuart, exactly one hundred
       years later, upon the failure of the direct line of descent in
       the Tudor family. The first marriage, of Prince Arthur to
       Catherine of Aragon, was soon dissolved by the death of the
       prince, in 1502. Seven years afterwards the widowed Catherine
       married her late husband's brother, just after he became Henry
       VIII., King of England, upon the death of his father, in 1509.
       Whence followed notable consequences which will presently
       appear.

    {1062}

    Henry VIII. and his breach with Rome.

       It was the ambition of Henry VIII. to play a conspicuous part
       in European affairs; and as England was rich and strong, and
       as the king had obtained nearly the absoluteness of the crown
       in France, the parties to the great contests then going on
       were all eagerly courting his alliance. His ambitions ran
       parallel, too, with those of the able minister, Thomas Wolsey,
       who rose to high influence at his side soon after his reign
       began. Wolsey aspired to the Papal crown, with the cardinal's
       cap as a preparatory adornment, and he drew England, as we
       have seen, into the stormy politics of the sixteenth century
       in Europe, with no gain, of glory or otherwise, to the nation,
       and not much result of any kind. When the Emperor Maximilian
       died, in 1519, Henry entered the lists against Maximilian's
       grandson, Charles of Spain, and Francis I. of France, as a
       candidate for the imperial crown. In the subsequent wars which
       broke out between his two rivals, he took the side of the
       successful Charles, now Emperor, and helped him to climb to
       supremacy in Europe over the prostrate French king. He had
       dreams of conquering France again, and casting the glories of
       Henry V. in the shade; but he carried his enterprise little
       beyond the dreaming. When it was too late to check the growth
       of Charles' overshadowing power, he changed his side and took
       Francis into alliance.

       But Henry's motives were always selfish and personal--never
       political; and the personal motives had now taken on a most
       despicable character. He had tired of his wife, the Spanish
       Catherine, who was six years older than himself. He had two
       pretexts for discontent with his marriage: 1, that his queen
       had borne him only a daughter, whereas England needed a male
       heir to the throne; 2, that he was troubled with scruples as
       to the lawfulness of wedlock with his brother's widow. On this
       latter ground he began intrigues to win from the Pope, not a
       divorce in the ordinary sense of the term, but a declaration
       of the nullity of his marriage. This challenged the opposition
       of the Emperor, Catherine's nephew, and Henry's alliances were
       naturally changed.

       The Pope, Clement VII., refused to annul the marriage, and
       Henry turned his unreasoning wrath upon Cardinal Wolsey, who
       had conducted negotiations with the Pope and failed in them.
       Wolsey was driven from the Court in disgrace and died soon
       afterwards. He was succeeded in the king's favor by a more
       unscrupulous man, Thomas Cromwell. Henry had not yet despaired
       of bringing the Pope to compliance with his wishes; and he
       began attacks upon the Church and upon the papal revenues
       which might shake, as he hoped, the firmness of the powers at
       Rome. With the help of a pliant minister and a subservient
       Parliament, he forced the clergy (1531-1532) in Convocation
       to acknowledge him to be the Supreme Head of the English
       Church, and to submit themselves entirely to his authority. At
       the same time he grasped the "annates," or first year's income
       of bishoprics, which had been the richest perquisite of the papal
       treasury. In all these proceedings, the English king was
       acting on a line parallel to that of the continental rising
       against Rome; but it was not in friendliness toward it nor in
       sympathy with it that he did so. He had been among the
       bitterest enemies of the Reformation, and he never ceased to
       be so. He had won from the Pope the empty title of "Defender
       of the Faith," by a foolish book against Luther, and the faith
       which he defended in 1521 was the faith in which he died. But
       when he found that the influence of Charles V. at Rome was too
       great to be overcome, and that the Pope could be neither
       bribed, persuaded nor coerced to sanction the putting away of
       his wife, he resolved to make the English Church sufficient in
       authority to satisfy his demand, by establishing its
       ecclesiastical independence, with a pontiff of its own, in
       himself. He purposed nothing more than this. He contemplated
       no change of doctrine, no cleansing of abuses. He permitted no
       one whose services he commanded in the undertaking to bring
       such changes into contemplation. So far as concerned Henry's
       initiative, there was absolutely nothing of religious
       Reformation in the movement which separated the Church of
       England from the Church of Rome. It accomplished its sole
       original end when it gave finality to the decree of an English
       ecclesiastical court, on the question of the king's marriage,
       and barred queen Catherine's appeal from it. It was the
       intention of Henry VIII. that the Church under his papacy
       should remain precisely what it had been under the Pope at
       Rome, and he spared neither stake nor gibbet in his
       persecuting zeal against impudent reformers.

       But the spirit of Reformation which was in the atmosphere of
       that time lent itself, nevertheless, to King Henry's project,
       and made that practicable which could hardly have been so a
       generation before. The influence of Wyclif had never wholly
       died out; the new learning was making its way in England and
       broadening men's minds; the voice of Luther and his fellow
       workers on the continent had been heard, and not vainly.
       England was ripe for the religious revolution, and her king
       promoted it, without intention. But while his reign lasted,
       and his despotism was heavy on the land, there was nothing
       accomplished but the breaking of the old Church fetters, and
       the binding of the nation anew with green withes, which,
       presently, it would burst asunder.

       The conspicuous events of Henry's reign are familiarly known.
       Most of them bear the stamp of his monstrous egotism and
       selfishness. He was the incomparable tyrant of English
       history. The monarch who repudiated two wives, sent two to the
       block, and shared his bed with yet two more; who made a whole
       national church the servant of his lusts, and who took the
       lives of the purest men of his kingdom when they would not
       bend their consciences to say that he did well--has a pedestal
       quite his own in the gallery of infamous kings.

    Edward VI. and the Reformation.

       Dying in 1547, Henry left three children: Mary, daughter of
       Catherine of Aragon, Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, and
       Edward, son of Jane Seymour. The latter, in his tenth year,
       became King (Edward VI.), and his uncle, the Duke of Somerset,
       acquired the control of the government, with the title of
       Protector. Somerset headed a party which had begun before the
       death of the king to press for more changes in the character
       of the new Church of England and less adherence to the pattern
       of Rome. There seems to be little reason to suppose that the
       court leaders of this party were much moved in the matter by
       any interest of a religious kind; but the growth of thinking
       and feeling in England tended that way, and the side of
       Reformation had become the stronger. They simply gave way to
       it, and, abandoned the repression which Henry had persisted
       in. At the same time, their new policy gave them more freedom
       to grasp the spoils of the old Church, which Henry VIII. had
       begun to lay hands on, by suppression of monasteries and
       confiscation of their estates. The wealth thus sequestered
       went largely into private hands.

    {1063}

       It was in the short reign of Edward VI. that the Church of
       England really took on its organic form as one of the Churches
       of the Reformation, by the composition of its first
       prayer-books, and by the framing of a definite creed.

    Lady Jane Grey.

       In 1553, the young king died. Somerset had fallen from power
       the previous year and had suffered death. He had been
       supplanted by Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Duke of
       Northumberland, and that minister had persuaded Edward to
       bequeath his crown to Lady Jane Grey, grand-daughter of the
       younger sister of Henry VIII. But Northumberland was hated by
       the people, and few could recognize the right of a boy on the
       throne to change the order of regal succession by his will.
       Parliament had formally legitimated both Catherine's daughter,
       Mary, and Anne Boleyn's daughter, Elizabeth, and had placed
       them in the line of inheritance. Mary's legal title to the
       crown was clear. She had adhered with her mother to the Roman
       Church, and her advent upon the throne would mean the
       subjection of the English Church to the Papacy anew; since the
       constitution of the Church armed the sovereign with supreme
       and indisputable power over it. The Protestants of the kingdom
       knew what to expect, and were in great fear; but they submitted.
       Lady Jane Grey was recommended to them by her Protestant
       belief, and by her beautiful character; but her title was too
       defective and her supporters too much distrusted. There were
       few to stand by the poor young girl when Northumberland
       proclaimed her queen, and she was easily dethroned by the
       partisans of Mary. A year later she was sent to the block.

       Catholicism was now ascendant again, and England was brought
       to share in the great reaction against the Reformation which
       prevailed generally through Europe and which we shall
       presently consider. Before doing so, let us glance briefly at
       the religious state of some other countries not yet touched
       upon.

    The Reformation in Scotland.

       In Scotland, a deep undercurrent of feeling against the
       corruptions of the Church had been repressed by resolute
       persecutions, until after the middle of the sixteenth century.
       Wars with England, and the close connection of the Scottish
       Court with the Guises of France, had both tended to retard the
       progress of a reform sentiment, or to delay the manifestation
       of it. But when the pent-up feeling began to respond to the
       voice of the great Calvinistic evangelist and organizer, John
       Knox, it swept the nation like a storm. Knox's first
       preaching, after his captivity in France and exile to Geneva,
       was in 1555. In 1560, the authority of the Pope was renounced,
       the mass prohibited, and the Geneva confession of faith
       adopted, by the Scottish Estates. After that time the Reformed
       Church in Scotland--the Church of Presbyterianism--had only
       to resist the futile hostility of Mary Stuart for a few years,
       until it came to its great struggle against English
       Episcopacy, under Mary's son and grandson, James and Charles.

    The Reformation in the North.

       In the three Scandinavian nations the ideas of the
       Reformation, diffused from Germany, had won early favor, both
       from kings and people, and had soon secured an enduring
       foothold. They owed their reception quite as much, perhaps, to
       the political situation as to the religious feeling of the
       northern peoples.

       When the ferment of the Reformation movement began, the three
       crowns were worn by one king, as they had been since the
       "Union of Calmar," in 1397, and the King of Denmark was the
       sovereign of the Union. His actual power in Sweden and Norway
       was slight; his theoretical authority was sufficient to
       irritate both. In Sweden, especially, the nobles chafed under
       the yoke of the profitless federation. Christian II., the last
       Danish king of the three kingdoms, crushed their disaffection
       by a harsh conquest of the country (1520), and by savage
       executions, so perfidious and so numerous that they are known
       in Swedish history as the Massacre of Stockholm. But this
       brutal and faithless king became so hateful in his own proper
       kingdom that the Danish nobles rose against him in 1523 and he
       was driven from the land. The crown was given to his uncle,
       Frederick, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. In that German Duchy,
       Lutheranism had already made its way, and Frederick was in
       accord with it. On coming to the throne of Denmark, where
       Catholicism still prevailed, he pledged himself to attempt no
       interference with it; but he felt no obligation, on the other
       hand, to protect it. He demanded and established a toleration
       for both doctrines, and gave to the reformers a freedom of
       opportunity which speedily undermined the old faith and
       overthrew it.

       In the meantime, Sweden had undergone the important revolution
       of her history, which placed the national hero, Gustavus Vasa,
       on the throne. Gustavus was a young noble whose title to the
       crown was not derived from his lineage, but from his genius.
       After Christian II. had bloodily exterminated the elder
       leaders of the Swedish state, this young lord, then a hostage
       and prisoner in the tyrant's hands, made his escape and took
       upon himself the mission of setting his country free. For
       three years Gustavus lived a life like that of Alfred the
       Great in England, when he, too, struggled with the Danes. His
       heroic adventures were crowned with success, and Sweden, led
       to independence by its natural king, bestowed the regal title
       upon him (1523) and seated him upon its ancient throne. The
       new Danish king, Frederick, acknowledged the revolution, and
       the Union of Calmar was dissolved. Sweden under Gustavus Vasa
       recovered from the state of great disorder into which it had
       fallen, and grew to be a nation of important strength. As a
       measure of policy, he encouraged the introduction of
       Lutheranism and promoted the spread of it, in order to break
       the power of the Catholic clergy, and also, in order, without
       doubt, to obtain possession of the property of the Church,
       which secured to the Crown the substantial revenues it
       required.

    {1064}

    Italy.

       In Italy, the reformed doctrines obtained no popular footing
       at any time, though many among the cultivated people regarded
       them with favor, and would gladly have witnessed, not only a
       practical purging of the Church, but a revision of those
       Catholic dogmas most offensive to a rational mind. But such
       little movement as stirred in that direction was soon stopped
       by the success of the Emperor, Charles V., in his Italian wars
       with Francis I., and by the Spanish domination in the
       peninsula which ensued thereon. The Spain of that age was like
       the bloodless octopus which paralyzes the victim in its
       clutch, and Italy, gripped in half of its many principalities
       by the deadly tentacles thrust out from Madrid, showed no
       consciousness for the next two centuries.

    The Council of Trent.

       The long demanded, long promised General Council, for
       considering the alleged abuses in the Church and the alleged
       falsities in its doctrine, and generally for discussion and
       action upon the questions raised by the Reformation, assembled
       at Trent in December, 1545. The Emperor seems to have desired
       with sincerity that the Council might be one which the
       Protestants would have confidence in, and in which they might
       be represented, for a full discussion of their differences
       with Rome. But this was made impossible from the beginning.
       The Protestants demanded that "final appeal on all debated
       points should be made to the sole authority of Holy
       Scripture," and this being refused by the Pope (Paul III.),
       there remained no ground on which the two parties could meet.
       The Italian prelates who composed the majority of the Council
       made haste, it would seem, to take action which closed the
       doors of conciliation against the Reformers. "First, they
       declared that divine revelation was continuous in the Church
       of which the Pope was the head; and that the chief written
       depository of this revelation--namely, the Scriptures--had no
       authority except in the version of the Vulgate. Secondly, they
       condemned the doctrine of justification by Faith. ... Thirdly,
       they confirmed the efficacy and the binding authority of the
       Seven Sacraments." "The Council terminated in December [1563]
       with an act of submission, which placed all its decrees at the
       pleasure of the Papal sanction. Pius [Pius IV. became Pope in
       1560] was wise enough to pass and ratify the decrees of the
       Tridentine fathers by a Bull dated on December 26, 1563,
       reserving to the Papal sovereign the sole right of
       interpreting them in doubtful or disputed cases. This he could
       well afford to do; for not an article had been penned without
       his concurrence, and not a stipulation had been made without a
       previous understanding with the Catholic powers. The very terms,
       moreover, by which his ratification was conveyed, secured his
       supremacy, and conferred upon his successors and himself the
       privileges of a court of ultimate appeal. At no previous
       period in the history of the Church had so wide, so undefined,
       and so unlimited an authority been accorded to the See of
       Rome" (Symonds).

       Some practical reforms in the Church were wrought by the
       Council of Trent, but its disciplinary decrees were less
       important than the dogmatic. From beginning to end of its
       sessions, which, broken by many suspensions and adjournments,
       dragged through eighteen years, it addressed itself to the
       task of solidifying the Church of Rome, as left by the
       Protestant schism,--not of healing the schism itself or of
       removing the provocations to it. The work which the Council
       did in that direction was of vast importance, and profoundly
       affected the future of the Papacy and of its spiritual realm.
       It gave a firm dogmatic footing to the great reactionary new
       forces which now came into play, with aggressive enthusiasm
       and zeal, to arrest the advance of the Reformation and roll it
       back.

    The Catholic reaction.

       The extraordinary revival of Catholicism and thrusting back of
       Protestantism which occurred in the later half of the
       sixteenth century had several causes behind it and within it.

       1. The spiritual impulse from which the Reformation started
       had considerably spent itself, or had become debased by a
       gross admixture of political and mercenary aims. In Germany,
       the spoils derived from the suppressing of monastic
       establishments and the secularizing of ecclesiastical fiefs
       and estates, appeared very early among the potent inducements
       by which mercenary princes were drawn to the side of the
       Lutheran reform. Later, as the opposing leagues, Protestant
       and Catholic, settled into chronic opposition and hostility,
       the struggle between them took on more and more the character
       of a great political game, and lost more and more the spirit
       of a battle for free conscience and a free mind. In France, as
       we have noticed, the political entanglements of the Huguenot
       party were such, by this time, that it could not fail to be
       lowered by them in its religious tone. In England, every
       breath of spirituality in the movement had so far (to the
       death of Henry VIII.) been stifled, and it showed nothing but
       a brazen political front to the world. In the Netherlands, the
       struggle for religious freedom was about to merge itself in a
       fight of forty years for self-government, and the fortitude
       and valor of the citizen were more surely developed in that
       long war than the faith and fervor of the Christian. And so,
       generally throughout Europe, Protestantism, in its conflict
       with the powers of the ancient Church, had descended, ere the
       sixteenth century ran far into its second half, to a
       distinctly lower plane than it occupied at first. On that
       lower plane Rome fronted it more formidably, with stronger
       arms, than on the higher.

       2. Broadly stating the fact, it may be said that Protestantism
       made all its great inroads upon the Church of Rome before
       partisanship came to the rescue of the latter, and closed the
       open mind with which Luther, and Zwingli, and Farel, and
       Calvin were listened to at first. It happens always, when new
       ideas, combative of old ones, whether religious or political,
       are first put forward in the world, they are listened to for a
       time with a certain disinterestedness of attention--a certain
       native candor in the mind--which gives them a fair hearing. If
       they seem reasonable, they obtain ready acceptance, and spread
       rapidly,--until the conservatism of the beliefs assailed
       takes serious alarm, and the radicalism of the innovating
       beliefs becomes ambitious and rampant; until the for and the
       against stiffen themselves in opposing ranks, and the voice of
       argument is drowned by the cries of party. That ends all
       shifting of masses from the old to the new ground. That ends
       conversion as an epidemic and dwindles it to the sporadic
       character.

       3. Protestantism became bitterly divided within itself at an
       early stage of its career by doctrinal differences, first
       between Zwinglians and Lutherans, and then between Lutherans
       and Calvinists, while Catholicism, under attack, settled into
       more unity and solidity than before.

    {1065}

       4. The tremendous power in Europe to which the Spanish
       monarchy, with its subject dominions, and its dynastic
       relations, had now risen, passed, in 1556, to a dull-brained
       and soulless bigot, who saw but one use for it, namely, the
       extinction of all dissent from his own beliefs, and all
       opposition to his own will. Philip II. differed from his
       father, Charles V., not in the enormity of his bigoted
       egotism--they were equals, perhaps, in that--but in the
       exclusiveness of it. There was something else in Charles,
       something sometimes faintly admirable. He did have some
       interests in life that were not purely malignant. But his
       horrid vampire of a son, the most repulsive creature of his
       kind in all history, had nothing in him that was not as deadly
       to mankind as the venom secreted behind the fang of a cobra. It
       was a frightful day for the world when a despotism which
       shadowed Spain, Sicily, Italy and the Low Countries, and which
       had begun to drag unbounded treasure from America, fell to the
       possession of such a being as this. Nothing substantial was
       taken away from the potent malevolence of Philip by his
       failure of election in Germany to the Imperial throne. On the
       contrary, he was the stronger for it, because all his dominion
       was real and all his authority might assume to be absolute.
       His father had been more handicapped than helped by his German
       responsibilities and embarrassments, which Philip escaped. It
       is not strange that his concentration of the vast enginery
       under his hands to one limited aim, of exterminating what his
       dull and ignorant mind conceived to be irreligion and treason,
       had its large measure of success. The stranger thing is, that
       there was fortitude and courage to resist such power, in even
       one corner of his realm.

       5. The Papacy was restored at this time to the purer and
       higher character of its best ages, by well-guided elections,
       which raised in succession to the throne a number of men, very
       different in ability, and quite different, too, in the spirit
       of their piety, but generally alike in dignity and decency of
       life, and in qualities which command respect. The fiery
       Neapolitan zealot, Caraffa, who became Pope in 1555 as Paul
       IV.; his cool-tempered diplomatic successor, Pius IV., who
       manipulated the closing labors of the Council of Trent; the
       austere inquisitor, Pius V.; the more commonplace Gregory
       XIII., and the powerful Sixtus V., were pontiffs who gave new
       strength to Catholicism, in their different ways, both by what
       they did and by what they were.

       6. The revival of zeal in the Roman Church, naturally
       following the attacks upon it, gave rise to many new religious
       organizations within its elastic fold, some reformatory, some
       missionary and militant, but all bringing an effectual
       reinforcement to it, at the time when its assailants began to
       show faltering signs. Among these was one--Loyola's Society of
       Jesus--which marched promptly to the front of the battle, and
       which contributed more than any other single force in the
       field to the rallying of the Church, to the stopping of
       retreat, and to the facing of its stubborn columns forward for
       a fresh advance. The Jesuits took such a lead and accomplished
       such results by virtue of the military precision of discipline
       under which they had been placed and to which they were
       singularly trained by the rules of the founder; and also by
       effect of a certain subtle sophistry that runs through their
       ethical maxims and their counsels of piety. They fought for
       their faith with a sublime courage, with a devotion almost
       unparalleled, with an earnestness of belief that cannot be
       questioned; but they used weapons and modes of warfare which
       the higher moral feeling of civilized mankind, whether
       Christian or Pagan, has always condemned. It is not Protestant
       enemies alone who say this. It is the accusation that has been
       brought against them again and again in their own Church, and
       which has expelled them from Catholic countries, again and
       again. In the first century or more of their career, this
       plastic conscience, moulded by a passionate zeal, and
       surrendered, with every gift of mind and body, to a service of
       obedience which tolerated no evasion on one side nor bending
       on the other, made the Jesuits the most invincible and
       dangerous body of men that was ever organized for defense and
       aggression in any cause.

       The order was founded in 1540, by a bull of Pope Paul III. At
       the time of Loyola's death, in 1556, it numbered about one
       thousand members, and under Lainez, the second general of the
       order, who succeeded Loyola at the head, it advanced rapidly,
       in numbers, in efficiency of organization, and in wide-spread
       influence.

       Briefly stated, these are the incidents and circumstances
       which help to explain--not fully, perhaps, but almost
       sufficiently--the check to Protestantism and the restored
       energy and aggressiveness of the Catholic Church, in the later
       half of the sixteenth century.

    The Ruin of Spain.

       In his kingdoms of Spain, Philip II. may be said to have
       finished the work of death which his father and his father's
       grand-parents committed to him. They began it, and appointed
       the lines on which it was to be done. The Spain of their day
       had the fairest opportunity of any nation in Europe for a
       great and noble career. The golden gates of her opportunity
       were unlocked and opened by good Queen Isabella; but the pure
       hands of the same pious queen threw over the neck of her
       country the noose of a strangler, and tightened it
       prayerfully. Her grandson, who was neither pious nor good,
       flung his vast weight of power upon it. But the strangling
       halter of the Spanish Inquisition did not extinguish signs of
       life in his kingdom fast enough to satisfy his royal
       impatience, and he tightened other cords upon the suffering
       body and all its limbs. Philip, when he came to take up the
       murderous task, found every equipment for it that he could
       desire. He had only to gather the strands of the infernal mesh
       into his hands, and bring the strain of his awful sovereignty
       to bear upon them: then sit and watch the palsy of death creep
       over his dominions.

       Of political life, Charles really left nothing for his son to
       kill. Of positive religious life, there can have been no
       important survival, for he and his Inquisition had been keenly
       vigilant; but Philip made much of the little he could
       discover. As to the industrial life of Spain, father and son
       were alike active in the murdering of it, and alike ingenious.
       They paralyzed manufactures, in the first instance, by
       persecuting and expelling the thrifty and skilful Moriscoes;
       then they made their work complete by heavy duties on raw
       materials. To extinguish the agricultural industries of the
       kingdom, they had happy inspirations.
    {1066}
       They prohibited the exportation of one commodity after
       another--corn, cattle, wool, cloth, leather, and the
       like--until they had brought Spain practically to the point of
       being dependent on other countries for many products of skill,
       and yet of having nothing to offer in exchange, except the
       treasure of precious metals which she drew from America. Hence
       it happened that the silver and gold of the Peruvian and
       Mexican mines ran like quicksand through her fingers, into the
       coffers of the merchants of the Low Countries and of England;
       and, probably, no other country in Europe saw so little of
       them, had so little of benefit from them, as the country they
       were supposed to enrich.

       If the killing of Spain needed to be made complete by anything
       more, Philip supplied the need, in the deadliness of his
       taxation. Spending vast sums in his attempt to repeat upon the
       Netherlands the work of national murder he had accomplished in
       Spain; losing, by the same act, the rich revenues of the
       thrifty provinces; launching into new expenditures as he
       pursued, by clumsy warfare, his mission of death into fresh
       fields, aiming now at the life of France, and now at the life
       of England,--he squeezed the cost of his armies and armadas
       from a country in which he had strangled production already,
       and made poverty the common estate. It was the last draining
       of the life-blood of a nation which ought to have been strong
       and great, but which suffered murder most foul and unnatural.

       We hardly exaggerate even in figure when we say that Spain was
       a dead nation whim Philip quitted the scene of his arduous
       labors. It is true that his successors still found something
       for their hands to do, in the ways that were pleasant to their
       race, and burned and bled and crushed the unhappy kingdom with
       indefatigable persistency; but it was really the corpse of a
       nation which they practised on. The life of Spain, as a
       breathing, sentient state, came to an end under the hands of
       Philip II., first of the Thugs.

    Philip II. and the Netherlands.

       The hand of Charles V. had been heavy on the Netherlands; but
       resistance to such a power as that of Spain in his day was
       hardly dreamed of. It was not easy for Philip to outdo his
       father's despotism; less easy to drive the laborious
       Hollanders and Flemings to desperation and force them into
       rebellious war. But he accomplished it. He filled the country
       with Spanish troops. He reorganized and stimulated the
       Inquisition. He multiplied bishoprics in the Provinces,
       against the wish of even the Catholic population. He scorned
       the counsels of the great nobles, and gave foreign advisers to
       the Regent, his half-sister, Margaret of Parma, illegitimate
       daughter of Charles V., whom he placed at the head of the
       government. His oppressions were endured, with increasing
       signs of hidden passion, for ten years. Then, in 1566, the
       first movement of patriotic combination appeared. It was a
       league among certain of the nobles; its objects were peaceful,
       its plans were legal; but it was not countenanced by the wiser
       of the patriots, who saw that events were not ripe. The
       members of the league went in solemn procession to the Regent
       with a petition; whereupon one of her councillors denounced
       them as "a troop of beggars." They promptly seized the epithet
       and appropriated it. A beggar's wallet became their emblem;
       the idea was caught up and carried through the country, and a
       visible party rose quickly into existence.

       The religious feeling now gained boldness. Enormous
       field-meetings began to be held, under arms, in every part of
       the open country, defying edicts and Inquisition. There
       followed a little later some fanatical and riotous outbreaks
       in several cities, breaking images and desecrating churches.
       Upon these occurrences, Philip despatched to the Netherlands,
       in the summer of 1567, a fresh army of Spanish troops,
       commanded by a man who was after his own heart--as mean, as
       false, as merciless, as little in soul and mind, as
       himself,--the Duke of Alva. Alva brought with him authority
       which practically superseded that of the Regent, and secret
       instructions which doomed every man of worth in the Provinces.

       At the head of the nobility of the country; by eminence of
       character, no less than by precedence in rank, stood William
       of Nassau, Prince of Orange, who derived his higher title from
       a petty and remote principality, but whose large family
       possessions were in Flanders, Brabant, Holland and Luxemburg.
       Associated closely with him, in friendship and in political
       action, were Count Egmont, and the Admiral Count Horn, the
       latter of a family related to the Montmorencies of France.
       These three conspicuous nobles Philip had marked with special
       malice for the headsman, though their solitary crime had been
       the giving of advice against his tyrannies. William of
       Orange-"the Silent," as he came to be known--far-seeing in
       his wisdom, and well-advised by trusty agents in Spain,
       withdrew into Germany before Alva arrived. He warned his
       friends of their danger and implored them to save themselves;
       but they were blinded and would not listen. The perfidious
       Spaniard lured them with flatteries to Brussels and thrust
       them into prison. They were to be the first victims of the
       appalling sacrifice required to appease the dull rage of the
       king. Within three months they had eighteen hundred
       companions, condemned like themselves to the scaffold, by a
       council in which Alva presided and which the people called
       "the Council of Blood." In June, 1568, they were brought to
       the block.

       Meantime Prince William and his brother, Louis of Nassau, had
       raised forces in Germany and attempted the rescue of the
       terrorized Provinces; but their troops were ill-paid and
       mutinous and they suffered defeat. For the time being, the
       Netherlands were crushed. As many of the people as could
       escape had fled; commerce was at a standstill; workshops were
       idle; the cities, once so wealthy, were impoverished; death,
       mourning, and terror, were everywhere. Alva had done very
       perfectly what he was sent to do.

       The first break in the blackness of the clouds appeared in
       April, 1572, when a fleet, manned by refugee adventurers who
       called themselves Sea-Beggars, attacked and captured the town
       of Brill. From that day the revolt had its right footing, on
       the decks of the ships of the best sailors in the world. It
       faced Philip from that day as a maritime power, which would
       grow by the very feeding of its war with him, until it had
       consumed everything Spanish within its reach. The taking of
       Brill soon gave the patriots control of so many places in
       Holland and Zealand that a meeting of deputies was held at
       Dort, in July, 1572, which declared William of Orange to be
       "the King's legal Stadtholder in Holland, Zealand, Friesland
       and Utrecht," and recommended to the other Provinces that he
       be appointed Protector of all the Netherlands during the
       King's absence.

    {1067}

       Alva's reign of terror had failed so signally that even he was
       discouraged and asked to be recalled. It was his boast when he
       retired that he had put eighteen thousand and six hundred of
       the Netherlanders to death since they were delivered into his
       hands, above and beyond the horrible massacres by which he had
       half depopulated every captured town. Under Alva's successor,
       Don Louis de Requesens, a man of more justice and humanity,
       the struggle went on, adversely, upon the whole, to the
       patriots, though they triumphed gloriously in the famous
       defense of Leyden. To win help from England, they offered the
       sovereignty of their country to Queen Elizabeth; but in vain.
       They made no headway in the southern provinces, where
       Catholicism prevailed, and where the religious difference drew
       people more to the Spanish side. But when Requesens died
       suddenly, in the spring of 1576, and the Spanish soldiery
       broke into a furious mutiny, sacking Antwerp and other cities,
       then the nobles of Flanders and Brabant applied to the northern
       provinces for help. The result was a treaty, called the
       Pacification of Ghent, which contemplated a general effort to
       drive the Spaniards from the whole land. But not much came of
       this confederacy; the Catholic provinces never co-operated
       with the Protestant provinces, and the latter went their own
       way to freedom and prosperity, while the former sank back,
       submissive, to their chains.

       For a short time after the death of Requesens, Philip was
       represented in the Netherlands by his illegitimate
       half-brother, Don John of Austria; but Don John died in
       October, 1578, and then came the great general, Alexander
       Farnese, Prince of Parma, who was to try the patriots sorely
       by his military skill. In 1579, the Prince of Orange drew them
       more closely together, in the Union of Utrecht, which Holland,
       Zealand, Gelderland, Zutphen, Utrecht, Overyssel, and
       Groningen, subscribed, and which was practically the
       foundation of the Dutch republic, though allegiance to Philip
       was not yet renounced. This followed two years later, in July,
       1581, when the States General, assembled at the Hague, passed a
       solemn Act of Abjuration, which deposed Philip from his
       sovereignty and transferred it to the Duke of Anjou, a prince
       of the royal family of France, who did nothing for the
       Provinces, and who died soon after. At the same time, the
       immediate sovereignty of Holland and Zealand was conferred on
       the Prince of Orange.

       In March, 1582, Philip made his first deliberate attempt to
       procure the assassination of the Prince. He had entered into a
       contract for the purpose, and signed it with his own hand. The
       assassin employed failed only because the savage pistol wound
       he inflicted, in the neck and jaw of his victim, did not kill.
       The master-murderer, at Madrid, was not discouraged. He
       launched his assassins, one following the other, until six had
       made their trial in two years. The sixth, one Balthazar
       Gerard, accomplished that for which he was sent, and William
       the Silent, wise statesman and admirable patriot, fell under
       his hand (July 10, 1584). Philip was so immeasurably delighted
       at this success that he conferred three lordships on the
       parents of the murderer.

       William's son, Maurice, though but eighteen years old, was
       immediately chosen Stadtholder of Holland, Zealand and
       Utrecht, and High Admiral of the Union. In the subsequent
       years of the war, he proved himself a general of great
       capacity. Of the details of the war it is impossible to speak.
       Its most notable event was the siege of Antwerp, whose
       citizens defended themselves against the Duke of Parma, with
       astonishing courage and obstinacy, for many months. They
       capitulated in the end on honorable terms; but the prosperity
       of their city had received a blow from which it never revived.

       Once more the sovereignty of the Provinces was offered to
       Queen Elizabeth of England, and once more declined; but the
       queen sent her favorite, the Earl of Leicester, with a few
       thousand men, to help the struggling Hollanders (1585). This
       was done, not in sympathy with them or their cause, but purely
       as a self-defensive measure against Spain. The niggardliness
       and the vacillations of Elizabeth, combined with the
       incompetency of Leicester, caused troubles to the Provinces
       nearly equal to the benefit of the forces lent them. Philip of
       Spain was now involved in his undertakings with the Guises and
       the League in France, and in his plans against England, and
       was weakened in the Netherlands for some years. Parma died in
       1592, and Count Mansfield took his place, succeeded in his
       turn by the Marquis Spinola. The latter, at last, made an
       honest report, that the subjugation of the United Provinces
       was impracticable, and, Philip II. being now dead, the Spanish
       government was induced in 1607 to agree to a suspension of
       arms. A truce for twelve years was arranged; practically it
       was the termination of the war of independence, and
       practically it placed the United Provinces among the nations,
       although the formal acknowledgment of their independence was
       not yielded by Spain until 1648.

    England under Mary.

       While the Netherlands had offered to Philip of Spain a special
       field for his malice, there were others thrown open to him
       which he did not neglect. He may be said, in fact, to have
       whetted his appetite for blood and for burned human flesh in
       England, whither he went, as a young prince, in 1554, to marry
       his elderly second cousin, Queen Mary. We may be sure that he
       did not check the ardor of his consort, when she hastened to
       re-establish the supremacy of the Pope, and to rekindle the
       fires of religious persecution. The two-hundred and
       seventy-seven heretics whom she is reckoned to have burned may
       have seemed to him, even then, an insignificant handful. He
       quickly tired of her, if not of her congenial work, and left
       her in 1555. In 1558 she died, and the Church of Rome fell
       once more, never to regain its old footing of authority.

    {1068}

    England under Elizabeth.

       Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, who now came to the
       throne, was Protestant by the necessities of her position,
       whether doctrinally convinced or no. The Catholics denied her
       legitimacy of birth, and disputed, therefore, her right to the
       crown. She depended upon the Protestants for her support, and
       Protestantism, either active or passive, had become, without
       doubt, the dominant faith of the nation. But the mild schism
       which formerly took most of its direction from Luther, had now
       been powerfully acted upon by the influence of Calvin. Geneva
       had been the refuge of many ministers and teachers who fled
       from Mary's fires, and they returned to spread and deepen in
       England the stern, strong, formidable piety which Calvin
       evoked. These Calvinistic Protestants now made themselves felt
       as a party in the state, and were known ere long by that name
       which the next century rendered famous in English and American
       history--the great name of the Puritans. They were not
       satisfied with the stately, decorous, ceremonious Church which
       Elizabeth reconstructed on the pattern of the Church of Edward
       VI. At the same time, no party could be counted on more surely
       for the support of the queen, since the hope of Protestantism
       in England depended upon her, even as she was dependent upon
       it.

       The Catholics, denying legitimacy to Elizabeth, recognized
       Mary Queen of Scots as the lawful sovereign of England. And
       Mary was, in fact, the next in succession, tracing her
       lineage, as stated before, to the elder sister of Henry VIII.
       If Elizabeth had been willing to frankly acknowledge Mary's
       heirship, failing heirs of her own body, it seems probable
       that the partisans of the Scottish queen would have been
       quieted, to a great extent. But Mary had angered her by
       assuming, while in France, the arms and style of Queen of
       England. She distrusted and disliked her Stuart cousin, and,
       moreover, the whole idea of a settlement of the succession was
       repugnant to her mind. At the same time, she could not be
       brought to marry, as her Protestant subjects wished. She
       coquetted with the notion of marriage through half her reign,
       but never to any purpose.

       Such were the elements of agitation and trouble in England
       under Elizabeth. The history of well-nigh half-a-century was
       shaped in almost all its events by the threatening attitude of
       Catholicism and its supporters, domestic and foreign, toward
       the English queen. She was supported by the majority of her
       subjects with staunch loyalty and fidelity, even though she
       treated them none too well, and troubled them in their very
       defense of her by her whims and caprices. They identified her
       cause with themselves, and took such pride in her courage that
       they shut their eyes to the many weaknesses that went with it.
       She never grasped the affairs she dealt with in a broadly
       capable way. She never acted on them with well considered
       judgment. Her ministers, it is clear, were never able to
       depend upon a reasonable action of her mind. Her vanity or her
       jealousy might put reason in eclipse at any moment, and a skilful
       flatterer could make the queen as foolish as a milkmaid. But
       she had a royal courage and a royal pride of country, and she
       did make the good and glory of England her aim. So she won the
       affection of all Englishmen whose hearts were not in the
       keeping of the Pope, and no monarch so arbitrary was ever more
       ardently admired.

    Mary, Queen of Scots.

       In 1567, Mary Stuart was deposed by her own subjects, or
       forced to abdicate in favor of her infant son, James. She had
       alienated the Scottish people, first by her religion, and then
       by her suspected personal crimes. Having married her second
       cousin, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, she was accused of being
       false to him. Darnley revenged his supposed wrongs as a
       husband by murdering her secretary, David Rizzio. In the next
       year (1567) Darnley was killed; the hand of the Earl of
       Bothwell appeared quite plainly in the crime, and the queen's
       complicity was believed. She confirmed the suspicions against
       herself by marrying Bothwell soon afterwards. Then her
       subjects rose against her, imprisoned her in Loch Leven
       Castle, and made the Earl of Murray regent of the Kingdom. In
       1568 Mary escaped from her Scottish prison and entered
       England. From that time until her death, in 1587, she was a
       captive in the hands of her rival, Queen Elizabeth, and was
       treated with slender magnanimity. More than before, she became
       the focus of intrigues and conspiracies which threatened both
       the throne and the life of Elizabeth, and a growing feeling of
       hostility to the wretched woman was inevitable.

       In 1570, Pope Pius V. issued against Elizabeth his formal bull
       of excommunication, absolving her subjects from their
       allegiance. This quickened, of course, the activity of the
       plotters against the queen and set treason astir. Priests from
       the English Catholic Seminary at Douai, afterwards at Rheims,
       began to make their appearance in the country; a few Jesuits
       came over; and both were active agents of the schemes on foot
       which contemplated the seating of Mary Stuart on the throne of
       Elizabeth Tudor. Some of these emissaries were executed, and
       they are counted among the martyrs of the Catholic Church,
       which is a serious mistake. The Protestantism of the sixteenth
       century was quite capable of religious persecution, even to
       death; but it has no responsibilities of that nature in these
       Elizabethan cases. As a matter of fact, the religion of the
       Jesuit sufferers in the reign of Elizabeth was a mere incident
       attaching itself to a high political crime, which no nation
       has ever forgiven.

       The plotting went on for twenty years, keeping the nation in
       unrest; while beyond it there were thickening signs of a great
       project of invasion in the sinister mind of Philip II. At
       last, in 1586, the coolest councillors of Elizabeth persuaded
       her to bring Mary Stuart to trial for alleged complicity in a
       conspiracy of assassination which had lately come to light.
       Convicted, and condemned to death, Mary ended her sad life on
       the scaffold, at Fotheringay, on the 8th of February, 1587.
       Whether guilty or guiltless of any knowledge of what had been
       done in her name, against the peace of England and against the
       life of the English queen, it cannot be thought strange that
       Protestant England took her life.

    The Spanish Armada.

       A great burst of wrath in Catholic Europe was caused by the
       execution of Mary, and Philip of Spain hastened forward his
       vast preparations for the invasion and conquest of England. In
       1588, the "invincible armada," as it was believed to be,
       sailed out of the harbors of Portugal and Spain, and wrecked
       itself with clumsy imbecility on the British and Irish coasts.
       It scarcely did more than give sport to the eager English
       sailors who scattered its helpless ships and hunted them down.
       Philip troubled England no more, and conspiracy ceased.

    {1069}

    England at Sea.

       But the undeclared, half-piratical warfare which private
       adventurers had been carrying on against Spanish commerce for
       many years now acquired fresh energy. Drake, Hawkins,
       Frobisher, Grenvil, Raleigh, were the heroic spirits of this
       enterprising warfare; but they had many fellows. It was the
       school of the future navy of England, and the foundations of
       the British Empire were laid down by those who carried it on.

       Otherwise, Elizabeth had little war upon her hands, except in
       Ireland, where the state of misery and disorder had already
       been long chronic. The first really complete conquest of the
       island was accomplished by Lord Mountjoy between 1600 and
       1603.

    Intellectual England.

       But neither the political troubles nor the naval and military
       triumphs of England during the reign of Elizabeth are of much
       importance, after all, compared with the wonderful flowering
       of the genius of the nation which took place in that age.
       Shakespeare, Spenser, Bacon, Ben Jonson, Marlowe, Hooker,
       Raleigh, Sidney, are the great facts of Elizabeth's time, and
       it shines with the luster of their names, the period most
       glorious in English history.

    The Religious Wars in France.

       Wherever the stealthy arm of the influence of Philip II. of
       Spain could reach, there the Catholic reaction of his time
       took on a malignant form. In France, it is quite probable that
       the Catholics and the Huguenots, if left to themselves, would
       have come to blows; but it is certain that the meddling
       fingers of the Spanish king put fierceness and fury into the
       wars of religion, which raged from 1562 to 1596, and that they
       were prolonged by his encouragement and help.

       Catherine de' Medici, to strengthen herself against the
       Guises, after the death of Francis II., offered attentions for
       a time to the Huguenot nobles, and encouraged them to expect a
       large and lasting measure of toleration. She went so far that
       the Huguenot influence at court, surrounding the young king,
       became very seriously alarming to Catholic onlookers, both at
       home and abroad. Among the many remonstrances addressed to the
       queen-regent, the one which appears to have been decisive in
       its effect came from Philip. He coldly sent her word that he
       intended to interfere in France and to establish the supremacy
       of the Catholic Church; that he should give his support for that
       purpose to any true friend of the Church who might request it.
       Whether Catherine had entertained an honest purpose or not, in
       her dealing with the Huguenots, this threat, with what lay
       behind it, put an end to the hope of justice for them. It is
       true that an assembly of notables, in January, 1562, did
       propose a law which the queen put forth, in what is known as
       the "Edict of January," whereby the Huguenots were given, for
       the first time, a legal recognition, ceasing to be outlaws,
       and were permitted to hold meetings, in the daytime, in open
       places, outside of walled cities; but their churches were
       taken away from them, they were forbidden to build more, and
       they could hold no meetings in walled towns. It was a measure
       of toleration very different from that which they had been led
       to expect; and even the little meted out by this Edict of January
       was soon shown to have no guarantee. Within three months, the
       Duke of Guise had found an opportunity for exhibiting his
       contempt of the new law, by ordering his armed followers to
       attack a congregation at Vassy, killing fifty and wounding two
       hundred of the peaceful worshippers. This outrage drove the
       Huguenots to arms and the civil wars began.

       The frivolous Anthony, King of Navarre, had been won back to
       the Catholic side. His staunch wife, Jeanne d'Albret, with her
       young son, the future Henry IV., and his brother, Louis,
       Prince of Condé, remained true to their faith. Condé was the
       chief of the party. Next to him in rank, and first in real
       worth and weight, was the noble Admiral Coligny. The first war
       was brief, though long enough to end the careers of Anthony of
       Navarre, killed in battle, and the Duke of Guise,
       assassinated. Peace was made in 1563 through a compromise,
       which conceded certain places to the Huguenots, wherein they
       might worship God in their own way. But it was a hollow peace,
       and the malicious finger of the great master of assassins at
       Madrid never ceased picking at it. In 1566, civil war broke
       out a second time, continuing until 1570. Its principal
       battles were that of Jarnac, in which Condé was taken prisoner
       and basely assassinated by his captors, and that of
       Moncontour. The Huguenots were defeated in both. After the
       death of Condé, young Henry of Navarre, who had reached his
       fifteenth year, was chosen to be the chief of the party, with
       Coligny for his instructor in war.

       Again peace was made, on a basis of slight concessions. Henry
       of Navarre married the King's sister, Margaret of Valois;
       prior to which he and his mother took up their residence with
       the court, at Paris, where Jeanne d'Albret soon sickened and
       died. The Admiral Coligny acquired, apparently, a marked
       influence over the mind of the young king; and once more there
       seemed to be a smiling future for the Reformed. But damnable
       treacheries were hidden underneath this fair showing. The most
       hideous conspiracy of modern times was being planned, at the
       very moment of the ostentatious peace-marriage of the King of
       Navarre, and the chief parties to it were Catherine de' Medici
       and the Guises, whose evil inclinations in common had brought
       them together at last. On the 22d of August, 1572, Coligny was
       wounded by an assassin, employed by the widow and son of the
       late Duke of Guise, whose death they charged against him,
       notwithstanding his protestations of innocence. Two days
       later, the monstrous and almost incredible massacre of St.
       Bartholomew's Day was begun. Paris was full of Huguenots--the
       heads of the party--its men of weight and influence--who had
       been drawn to the capital by the King of Navarre's marriage
       and by the supposed new era of favor in which they stood. To
       cut these off was to decapitate Protestantism in France, and
       that was the purpose of the infernal scheme. The weak-minded
       young king was not an original party to the plot. When
       everything had been planned, he was easily excited by a tale
       of pretended Huguenot conspiracies, and his assent to summary
       measures of prevention was secured. A little after midnight,
       on the morning of Sunday, August 24, the signal was given, by
       Catherine's order, which let loose a waiting swarm of
       assassins, throughout Paris, on the victims who had been
       marked for them. The Huguenots had had no warning; they were
       taken everywhere by surprise, and they were easily murdered in
       their beds, or hunted down in their hopeless flight.

    {1070}

       The noble Coligny, prostrated by the wound he had received two
       days before, was killed in his chamber, and his body flung out
       of the window. The young Duke of Guise stood waiting in the
       court below, to gloat on the corpse and to basely spurn it
       with his foot.

       The massacre in Paris was carried on through two nights and
       two days; and, for more than a month following, the example of
       the capital was imitated in other cities of France, as the
       news of what were called "the Paris Matins" reached them. The
       total number of victims in the kingdom is estimated variously
       to have been between twenty thousand and one hundred thousand.
       Henry of Navarre and the young Prince of Condé escaped the
       massacre, but they saved their lives by a hypocritical
       abjuration of their religion.

       The strongest town in the possession of the Huguenots was La
       Rochelle, and great numbers of their ministers and people of
       mark who survived the massacre now took refuge in that city,
       with a considerable body of armed men. The royal forces laid
       siege to the city, but made no impression on its defences.
       Peace was conceded in the end on terms which again promised
       the Huguenots some liberty of worship. But there was no
       sincerity in it.

       In 1574, Charles IX. died, and his brother, the Duke of Anjou,
       who had lately been elected King of Poland, ran away from his
       Polish capital with disgraceful haste and secrecy, to secure
       the French crown. He was the most worthless of the
       Valois-Medicean brood, and the French court in his reign
       attained its lowest depth of degradation. The contending
       religions were soon at war again, with the accustomed result,
       in 1576, of another short-lived peace. The Catholics were
       divided into two factions, one fanatical, following the
       Guises, the other composed of moderate men, calling themselves
       the Politiques, who hated the Spanish influence under which
       the Guises were always acting, and who were willing to make
       terms with the Huguenots. The Guises and the ultra-Catholics
       now organized throughout France a great oath-bound "Holy
       League", which became so formidable in power that the king
       took fright, put himself at the head of it, and reopened war
       with the Reformed.

       More and more, the conflict of religions became confused with
       questions of politics and mixed with personal quarrels. At one
       time, the king's younger brother, the Duke of Alençon, had
       gone over to the Huguenot side; but stayed only long enough to
       extort from the court some appointments which he desired. The
       king, more despised by his subjects than any king of France
       before him had ever been, grew increasingly jealous and afraid
       of the popularity and strength of the Duke of Guise, who was
       proving to be a man quite superior to his father in
       capability. Guise, on his side, was made arrogant by his sense
       of power, and his ambition soared high. There were reasons for
       believing that he did not look upon the throne itself as
       beyond his reach.

       After 1584, when the Duke of Alençon (Duke of Anjou under his
       later title) died, a new political question, vastly
       disturbing, was brought into affairs. That death left no heir
       to the crown in the Valois line, and the King of Navarre, of
       the House of Bourbon, was now nearer in birth to the throne
       than any other living person. Henry had, long ere this,
       retracted his abjuration of 1572, had rejoined the Huguenots
       and taken his place as their chief. The head of the Huguenots
       was now the heir presumptive to the crown, and the wretched,
       incapable king was being impelled by his fear of Guise to look
       to his Huguenot heir for support. It was a strange situation.
       In 1588 it underwent a sinister change. Guise and his brother,
       the Cardinal, were both assassinated by the king's body-guard,
       acting under the king's orders, in the royal residence at the
       Castle of Blois. When the murder had been done, the cowardly
       king spurned his dead enemy with his foot, as Guise, sixteen
       years before, had spurned the murdered Coligny, and said "I am
       King at last." He was mistaken. His authority vanished with
       the vile deed by which he expected to reinvigorate it. Paris
       broke into open rebellion. The League renewed its activity
       throughout France. The king, abandoned and cursed on all
       sides, had now no course open to him but an alliance with
       Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots. The alliance was effected,
       and the two Henrys joined forces to subdue insurgent Paris.
       While the siege of the city was in progress (1589), Henry III.
       fell a victim, in his turn, to the murderous mania of his
       depraved age and court. He was assassinated by a fanatical
       monk.

    Henry of Navarre.

       Henry of Navarre now steps into the foreground of French
       history, as Henry IV., lawful King of France as well as of
       Navarre, and ready to prove his royal title by a more useful
       reign than the French nation had known since it buried St.
       Louis, his last ancestor on the throne. But his title was
       recognized at first by few outside the party of the Huguenots.
       The League went openly into alliance with Philip of Spain, who
       even half-stopped his war in the Netherlands to send money and
       troops into France. The energies of his insignificant soul
       were all concentrated on the desire to keep the heretical
       Béarnese from the throne of France. But happily his powers
       were no longer equal to his malice; he was still staggering
       under the blow which destroyed his great Armada.

       Henry received some help in money from Queen Elizabeth, and
       5,000 English and Scotch came over to join his army. He was an
       abler general than any among his opponents, and he made
       headway against them. His splendid victory at Ivry, on the
       14th of March, 1590, inspirited his followers and took heart
       from the League. He was driven from his subsequent siege of
       Paris by a Spanish army, under the Duke of Parma; but the very
       interference of the Spanish king helped to turn French feeling
       in Henry's favor. On the 25th of July, 1593, he practically
       extinguished the opposition to himself by his final submission
       to the Church of Rome. It was an easy thing for him to do. His
       religion sat lightly on him. He had accepted it from his
       mother; he had adhered to it--not faithfully--as the creed of
       a party. He could give it up, in exchange for the crown of
       France, and feel no trouble of conscience. But the Reformed
       religion in France was really benefited by his apostacy. Peace
       came to the kingdom, as the consequence,--a peace of many
       years,--and the Huguenots were sheltered in considerable
       religious freedom by the peace. Henry secured it to them in
       1598 by the famous Edict of Nantes, which remained in force
       for nearly a hundred years.

    {1071}

       The reign of Henry IV. was one of the satisfactory periods in
       the life of France, so far as concerns the material prosperity
       of the nation. He was a man of strong, keen intellect, with
       firmness of will and elasticity of temper, but weak on the
       moral side. He was of those who win admiration and friendship
       easily, and he remains traditionally the most popular of
       French kings. He had the genius for government which so rarely
       coincides with royal birth. A wise minister, the Duke of
       Sully, gave stability to his measures, and between them they
       succeeded in remarkably improving and promoting the
       agricultural and the manufacturing industries of France,
       effacing the destructive effects of the long civil wars, and
       bringing economy and order into the finances of the
       overburdened nation. His useful career was ended by an
       assassin in 1610.

    Germany and the Thirty Years War.

       The reactionary wars of religion in Germany came
       half-a-century later than in France. While the latter country
       was being torn by the long civil conflicts which Henry IV.
       brought to an end, the former was as nearly in the enjoyment
       of religious peace as the miserable contentions in the bosom
       of Protestantism, between Lutherans and Calvinists (the latter
       more commonly called "the Reformed"), would permit. On the
       abdication of Charles V., in 1556, he had fortunately failed
       to bring about the election of his son Philip to the imperial
       throne. His brother Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and King of
       Bohemia and Hungary, was chosen Emperor, and that sovereign
       had too many troubles in his immediate dominions to be willing
       to invite a collision with the Protestant princes of Germany
       at large. The Turks had overrun Hungary and established
       themselves in possession of considerable parts of the country.
       Ferdinand obtained peace with the redoubtable Sultan Suleiman,
       but only by payments of money which bore a strong likeness to
       tribute. He succeeded, through his prudent and skilful policy,
       in making both the Hungarian and the Bohemian crowns practically
       hereditary in the House of Austria.

       Dying in 1564, Ferdinand transmitted both those kingdoms, with
       the Austrian Archduchy and the imperial office, to his son,
       Maximilian II., the broadest and most liberal minded of his
       race. Though educated in Spain, and in companionship with his
       cousin, Philip II., Maximilian exhibited the most tolerant
       spirit that appears anywhere in his age. Perhaps it was the
       hatefulness of orthodox zeal as exemplified in Philip which
       drove the more generous nature of Maximilian to revolt. He
       adhered to the Roman communion; but he manifested so much
       respect for the doctrines of the Lutheran that his father felt
       called upon at one time to make apologies for him to the Pope.
       Throughout his reign he held himself aloof from religious
       disputes, setting an example of tolerance and spiritual
       intelligence to all his subjects, Lutherans, Calvinists and
       Catholics alike, which ought to have influenced them more for
       their good than it did. Under the shelter of the toleration
       which Maximilian gave it, Protestantism spread quickly over
       Austria, where it had had no opportunity before; revived the
       old Hussite reform in Bohemia; made great gains in Hungary,
       and advanced in all parts of his dominions except the Tyrol.
       The time permitted to it for this progress was short, since
       Maximilian reigned but twelve years. He died in 1576, and his
       son Rudolph, who followed him, brought evil changes upon the
       country in all things. He, too, had been educated in Spain,
       but with a very different result. He came back a creature of
       the Jesuits; but so weakly wilful a creature that even they
       could do little with him. Authority of government went to
       pieces in his incompetent hands, and at last, in 1606, a
       family conclave of princes of the Austrian house began
       measures which aimed at dispossessing Rudolph of his various
       sovereignties, so far as possible, in favor of his brother
       Matthias. Rudolph resisted with some effect, and in the
       contests which ensued the Protestants of Austria and Bohemia
       improved their opportunity for securing an enlargement of
       their rights. Matthias made the concession of complete
       toleration in Austria, while Rudolph, in Bohemia, granted the
       celebrated charter, called the Letter of Majesty (1609), which
       gave entire religious liberty to all sects.

       These concessions were offensive to two princes, the Archduke
       Ferdinand of Styria, and Duke Maximilian of Bavaria, who had
       already taken the lead in a vigorous movement of Catholic
       reaction. Some proceedings on the part of Maximilian, which
       the Emperor sanctioned, against the Protestant free city of
       Donauwörth, had caused certain Protestant princes and cities,
       in 1608, to form a defensive Union. But the Elector Palatine,
       who attached himself to the Reformed or Calvinist Church, was
       at the head of this Union, and the bigoted Lutherans,
       especially the Elector of Saxony, looked with coldness upon
       it. On the other hand, the Catholic states formed a
       counter-organization--a Holy League--which was more compact
       and effective. The two parties being thus set in array, there
       rose suddenly between them a political question of the most
       disturbing character. It related to the right of succession to
       an important duchy, that of Juliers, Clèves, and Berg. There
       were several powerful claimants, in both of the Saxon
       families, and including also the Elector of Brandenburg and
       the Palsgrave of Neuberg, two members of the Union. As usual,
       the political question took possession of the religious issue
       and used it for its own purposes. The Protestant Union opened
       negotiations with Henry IV. of France, who saw an opportunity
       to weaken the House of Austria and to make some gains for
       France at the expense of Germany. A treaty was concluded, and
       Henry began active preparations for campaigns in both Germany
       and Italy, with serious intent to humble and diminish the
       Austrian power. The Dutch came into the alliance, likewise,
       and James I. of England promised his co-operation. The
       combination was formidable, and might have changed very
       extensively the course of events that awaited unhappy Germany,
       if the whole plan had not been frustrated by the assassination
       of Henry IV., in 1610. All the parties to the alliance drew
       back after that event, and both sides waited.

    {1072}

       In 1611, Rudolph was deposed in Bohemia, and the following
       year he died. Matthias, already King of Hungary, succeeded
       Rudolph in Bohemia and in the Empire. But Matthias was
       scarcely stronger in mind or body than his brother, and the
       same family pressure which had pushed Rudolph aside now forced
       Matthias to accept a coadjutor, in the person of the vigorous
       Ferdinand, Archduke of Styria. For the remainder of his reign
       Matthias was a cipher, and all power in the government was
       exercised by Ferdinand. His bitter opposition to the tolerant
       policy which had prevailed generally for half-a-century was
       well understood. Hence, his rise to supremacy in the Empire
       gave notice that the days of religious peace were ended. The
       outbreak of civil war was not long in coming.

    Beginning of the war in Bohemia.

       It began in Bohemia. A violation of the Protestant rights
       guaranteed by the Letter of Majesty provoked a rising under
       Count Thurn. Two of the king's councilors, with their
       secretary, were flung from a high window of the royal castle,
       and this act of violence was followed by more revolutionary
       measures. A provisional government of thirty Directors was set
       up and the king's authority set wholly aside. The Protestant
       Union gave prompt support to the Bohemian insurrection and
       sent Count Mansfield with three thousand soldiers to its aid.
       The Thirty Years War was begun (1618).

       Early in these disturbances, Matthias died (1619). Ferdinand
       had already made his succession secure, in Austria, Bohemia
       and Hungary, and the imperial crown was presently conferred on
       him. But the Bohemians repudiated his kingship and offered
       their crown to Frederick, the Elector Palatine, lately married
       to the Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I. of England.
       The Elector, persuaded, it is said, by his ambitious young
       wife, unwisely accepted the tempting bauble, and went to
       Prague to receive it. But he had neither prudence nor energy
       to justify his bold undertaking. Instead of strengthening
       himself for his contest with Ferdinand, he began immediately
       to enrage his new subjects by pressing Calvinistic forms and
       doctrines upon them, and by arrogantly interfering with their
       modes of worship. His reign was so brief that he is known in
       Bohemian annals as "the winter king." A single battle, won by
       Count Tilly, in the service of the Catholic League and of its
       chief, Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria, ended his sovereignty. He
       lost his Electorate as well as his kingdom, and was a
       wandering fugitive for the remainder of his life. Bohemia was
       mercilessly dealt with by the victorious Ferdinand. Not only
       was Protestantism crushed, and Catholicism established as the
       exclusive religion, but the very life of the country,
       intellectually and materially, was extinguished; so that
       Bohemia never again stood related to the civilization of
       Europe as it had stood before, when Prague was an important
       center of learning and thought. To a less extent, Austria
       suffered the same repression, and its Protestantism was
       uprooted.

       In this sketch it is unnecessary to follow the details of the
       frightful Thirty Years War, which began as here described.
       During the first years it was carried on mainly by the troops
       of the Catholic League, under Tilly, acting against Protestant
       forces which had very little coherence or unity, and which
       were led by Count Mansfield, Christian of Anhalt, and other
       nobles, in considerable independence of one another. In 1625
       the first intervention from outside occurred. Christian IV. of
       Denmark took up the cause of threatened Protestantism. As Duke
       of Schleswig-Holstein, he was a prince of the Empire, and he
       joined with other Protestant princes in condemning the
       deposition of the Elector-Palatine, whose electorate had been
       conferred on Maximilian of Bavaria. King Christian entered
       into an alliance with England and Holland, which powers
       promised help for the reinstatement of the Elector. But the
       aid given was trifling, and slight successes which Christian
       and his German allies obtained against Tilly were soon changed
       to serious reverses.

    Wallenstein.

       For the first time during the war, the Emperor now brought
       into the field an army acting in his own name, and not in that
       of the League. It was done in a singular manner--by contract,
       so to speak, with a great soldier and wealthy nobleman, the
       famous Wallenstein. Wallenstein offered to the Emperor the
       services of an army of 50,000 men, which he would raise and
       equip at his own expense, and which should be maintained
       without public cost--that is, by plunder. His proposal was
       accepted, and the formidable body of trained and powerfully
       handled brigands was launched upon Germany, for the torture
       and destruction of every region in which it moved. It was the
       last appearance in European warfare of the "condottiere" of
       the Middle Ages. Wallenstein and Tilly swept all before them.
       The former failed only before the stubborn town of Stralsund,
       which defied his siege. Mansfield and Christian of Anhalt both
       died in 1627. Peace was forced upon the Danish king. The
       Protestant cause was prostrate, and the Emperor despised its
       weakness so far that he issued an "Edict of Restitution,"
       commanding the surrender of certain bishoprics and
       ecclesiastical estates which had fallen into Protestant hands
       since the Treaty of Passau. At the same time, he yielded to
       the jealousy which Wallenstein's power had excited, by
       dismissing that commander from his service.

    Gustavus Adolphus.

       The time was an unfavorable one for such an experiment. A new
       and redoubtable champion of Protestantism had just appeared on
       the scene and was about to revive the war. This was Gustavus
       Adolphus, King of Sweden, who had ambitions, grievances and
       religious sympathies, all urging him to rescue the Protestant
       states of Germany from the Austrian-Catholic despotism which
       seemed to be impending over them. His interference was
       jealously resented at first by the greater Protestant princes.
       The Elector of Brandenburg submitted to an alliance with him
       only under compulsion. The Elector of Saxony did not join the
       Swedish king until (1631) Tilly had ravaged his territories
       with ferocity, burning 200 villages. When Gustavus had made
       his footing in the country secure, he quickly proved himself
       the greatest soldier of his age. Tilly was overwhelmed in a
       battle fought on the Breitenfeld, at Leipsic. The following
       spring he was again beaten, on the Lech, in Bavaria, and died
       of wounds received in the battle. Meantime, the greater part
       of Germany was at the feet of the Swedish king; and a sincere
       co-operation between him and the German princes would probably
       have ended the war. But small confidence existed between these
       allies, and Richelieu, the shrewd Cardinal who was ruling
       France, had begun intrigues which made the Thirty Years War
       profitable in the end to France. The victories of Gustavus
       seemed to bear little fruit. Wallenstein was summoned once
       more to save the Emperor's cause, and reappeared in the field
       with 40,000 men. The heroic Swede fought him at Lützen, on the
       16th of November, 1632, and routed him, but fell in the battle
       among the slain.

    {1073}

       With the death of Gustavus Adolphus, the possibility of a
       satisfactory conclusion of the war vanished. The Swedish army
       remained in Germany, under the military command of Duke
       Bernhard of Saxe Weimar and General Horn, but under the
       political direction of Axel Oxenstiern, the able Swedish
       Chancellor. On the Imperial side, Wallenstein again incurred
       distrust and suspicion. His power was so formidable that his
       enemies were afraid to let him live. They plotted his death by
       assassination, and he was murdered on the 25th of February,
       1634. The Emperor's son Ferdinand now took the command of the
       Imperial forces, and, a few months later, having received
       reinforcements from Spain, he had the good fortune to defeat
       the Swedes at Nördlingen.

    The French in the War.

       The Elector of Saxony, and other Protestant princes, then made
       peace with the Emperor, and the war was only prolonged by the
       intrigues of Richelieu and for the aggrandizement of France.
       In this final stage of it, when the original elements of
       contention, and most of the original contestants, had
       disappeared, it lasted for yet fourteen years. Ferdinand II.
       died in 1637, and was succeeded by his son Ferdinand III. Duke
       Bernhard died in 1639. In the later years of the war,
       Piccolomini on the Imperial side, Baner, Torstenson and
       Wrangel at the head of the Swedes, and Turenne and Condé in
       command of the French, were the soldiers who made great names.

    Destructiveness of the War.

       In 1648, the long suffering of Germany was eased by the Peace
       of Westphalia. Years of quiet, and of order fairly restored,
       would be needed to heal the bleeding wounds of the country and
       revive its strength. From end to end, it had been trampled
       upon for a generation by armies which plundered and destroyed
       as they passed. There is nothing more sickening in the annals
       of war than the descriptions which eye-witnesses have left of
       the misery, the horror, the desolation of that frightful
       period in German history. "Especially in the south and west,
       Germany was a wilderness of ruins; places that were formerly
       the seats of prosperity were the haunts of wolves and robbers
       for many a long year. It is estimated that the population was
       diminished by twenty, by some even by fifty, per cent. The
       population of Augsburg was reduced from 80,000 to 18,000; of
       Frankenthal, from 18,000 to 324 inhabitants. In Würtemberg, in
       1641, of 400,000 inhabitants, 48,000 remained; in the
       Palatinate, in 1636, there were 201 peasant farmers; and in
       1648, but a fiftieth part of the population remained"
       (Häusser).

    The Peace of Westphalia.

       By the treaties of Westphalia, the religious question was
       settled with finality. Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformed
       (Calvinists), were put on an equal footing of religious
       liberty. Politically, the effects of the Peace were radical
       and lasting in their injury to the German people. The few
       bonds of Germanic unity which had survived the reign of
       feudalism were dissolved. The last vestige of authority in the
       Empire was destroyed. "From this time Germany long remained a
       mere lax confederation of petty despotisms and oligarchies
       with hardly any national feeling. Its boundaries too were cut
       short in various ways. The independence of the two free
       Confederations at the two ends of the Empire, those of
       Switzerland and the United Provinces, which had long been
       practically cut off from the Empire, was now formally
       acknowledged. And, what was far more important, the two
       foreign kingdoms which had had the chief share in the war,
       France and Sweden, obtained possessions within the Empire, and
       moreover, as guarantors or sureties of the peace, they
       obtained a general right of meddling in its affairs." "The
       right of France to the 'Three Lotharingian Bishoprics,' which
       had been seized nearly a hundred years before, was now
       formally acknowledged, and, besides this, the possessions and
       rights of the House of Austria in Elsass, the German land
       between the Rhine and the Vosges, called in France Alsace,
       were given to France. The free city of Strasburg and other
       places in Elsass still remained independent, but the whole of
       South Germany now lay open to France. This was the greatest
       advance that France had yet made at the expense of the Empire.
       Within Germany itself the Elector of Brandenburg also received
       a large increase of territory" (Freeman).

       Among the treaties which made up the Peace of Westphalia was
       one signed by Spain, acknowledging the independence of the
       United Provinces, and renouncing all claims to them.

    France under Richelieu.

       The great gains of France from the Thirty Years War were part
       of the fruit of bold and cunning statesmanship which Richelieu
       had ripened and plucked for that now rising nation. For a time
       after the death of Henry IV., chaos had seemed likely to
       return again in France. His son, Louis XIII., was but nine
       years old. The mother, Marie de' Medici, who secured the
       regency, was a foolish woman, ruled by Italian favorites, who
       made themselves odious to the French people. As soon as the
       young king approached manhood, he put himself in opposition to
       his mother and her favorites, under the influence of a set of
       rivals no more worthy, and France was carried to the verge of
       civil war by their puerile hostilities. Happily there was
       something in the weak character of Louis XIII. which bent him
       under the influence of a really great mind when circumstances
       had brought him within its reach. Richelieu entered the King's
       council in 1624. The king was soon an instrument in his hands,
       and he ruled France, as though the scepter was his own, for
       eighteen years. He was as pitiless a despot as ever set heel
       on a nation's neck; but the power which he grasped with what
       seemed to be a miserly and commonplace greed, was all gathered
       for the aggrandizement of the monarchy that he served. He
       believed that the nation needed to have one master, sole and
       unquestioned in his sovereignty. That he enjoyed being that
       one master, in reality, while he lived, is hardly doubtful;
       but his whole ambition is not so explained. He wrought
       according to his belief for France, and the king, in his eyes,
       was the embodiment of France. He erected the pedestal on which
       "the grand monarch" of the next generation posed with
       theatrical effect.

    {1074}

       Three things Richelieu did;

       1. He enforced the royal authority, with inexorable rigor,
       against the great families and personages, who had not
       learned, even under Henry IV., that they were subjects in the
       absolute sense.

       2. He struck the Huguenots, not as a religious sect, but as a
       political party, and peremptorily stopped their growth of
       strength in that character, which had clearly become
       threatening to the state.

       3. He organized hostility in Europe to the overbearing and
       dangerous Austro-Spanish power, put France at the head of it,
       and took for her the lion's share of the conquests by which
       the Hapsburgs were reduced.

    Mazarin and the Fronde.

       The great Cardinal died near the close of the year 1642; and
       Louis XIII. followed him to the grave in the succeeding May,
       leaving a son, Louis XIV., not yet five years of age, under
       the regency of his mother, Anne of Austria. The minister,
       Cardinal Mazarin, who enjoyed the confidence of the
       queen-regent, and who was supposed to enjoy her affections as
       well, had been Richelieu's disciple, and took the helm of
       government on Richelieu's recommendation. He was an adroit
       politician, with some statesmanlike sagacity, but he lacked
       the potent spirit by which his master had awed and ruled every
       circle into which he came, great or small. Mazarin had the
       Thirty Years War to bring to a close, and he managed the
       difficult business with success, wasting nothing of the effect
       of the brilliant victories of Condé and Turenne. But the war had
       been very costly. Mazarin was no better financier than
       Richelieu had been before him, and the burdens of taxation
       were greater than wise management would have made them. There
       was inevitable discontent, and Mazarin, as a foreigner, was
       inevitably unpopular. With public feeling in this state, the
       Court involved itself in a foolish conflict with the
       Parliament of Paris, and presently there was a Paris
       revolution and a civil war afoot (1649). It was a strange
       affair of froth and empty rages--this war of "The Fronde," as
       it was called--having no depth of earnestness in it and no
       honesty of purpose anywhere visible in its complications. The
       men and women who sprang to a lead in it--the women more
       actively and rancorously than the men--were mere actors of
       parts in a great play of court intrigue, for the performance
       of which unhappy France had lent its grand stage. There seems
       to have been never, in any other civil conflict which history
       describes, so extraordinary a mixture of treason and
       libertinism, of political and amorous intrigue, of
       heartlessness and frivolity, of hot passion and cool
       selfishness. The people who fought most and suffered most
       hardly appear as noticeable factors in the contest. The court
       performers amused themselves with the stratagems and bloody
       doings of the war as they might have done with the tricks of a
       masquerade.

       It was in keeping with the character of the Frondeurs that
       they went into alliance, at last, with Spain, and that, even
       after peace within the nation had been restored, "the Great
       Condé" remained in the Spanish service and fought against his
       own countrymen. Mazarin regained control of affairs, and
       managed them on the whole ably and well. He brought about an
       alliance with England, under Cromwell, and humbled Spain to
       the acceptance of a treaty which considerably raised the
       position of France among the European Powers. By this Treaty
       of the Pyrenees (1659), the northwestern frontier of the
       kingdom was both strengthened and advanced; Lorraine was shorn
       of some of its territory and prepared for the absorption which
       followed after no long time; there were gains made on the side
       of the Pyrenees; and, finally, Louis XIV. was wedded to the
       infanta of Spain, with solemn renunciations on her part, for
       herself and her descendants, of all claims upon the Spanish
       crown, or upon Flanders, or Burgundy, or Charolais. Not a
       claim was extinguished by these solemn renunciations, and the
       Treaty of the Pyrenees is made remarkable by the number of
       serious wars and important events to which it gave rise.

       Cardinal Mazarin died in 1661 and the government was assumed
       personally by Louis XIV., then twenty-three years old.

    England Under the Stuarts.

       While Germany and France had, each in turn, been disordered by
       extremely unlike civil wars, one to the unmitigated
       devastation and prostration of the land, the other to the
       plain putting in proof of the nothingness of the nation at
       large, as against its monarchy and court, the domestic peace
       of England had been ruffled in a very different way, and with
       very different effects.

       The death of Queen Elizabeth united the crown of England with
       that of Scotland, on the head of James, son of the unhappy
       Mary Stuart. In England he was James I., in Scotland James VI.
       His character combined shrewdness in some directions with the
       most foolish simplicity in others. He was not vicious, he was
       not in any particular a bad man; but he was exasperating in
       his opinionated self-conceit, and in his gaucheries of mind
       and body. The Englishmen of those days did not love the Scots;
       and, all things considered, we may wonder, perhaps, that James
       got on so well as he did with his English subjects. He had
       high notions of kingship, and a superlative opinion of his own
       king-craft, as he termed the art of government. He scarcely
       deviated from the arbitrary lines which Elizabeth had laid
       down, though he had nothing of Elizabeth's popularity. He
       offended the nation by truckling to its old enemy, the King of
       Spain, and pressing almost shamefully for a marriage of his
       elder son to the Spanish infanta. The favorites he enriched
       and lavished honors upon were insolent upstarts. His treatment
       of the growing Puritanism in English religious feeling was
       contemptuous. There was scarcely a point on which any
       considerable number of his subjects could feel in agreement
       with him, or entertain towards him a cordial sentiment of
       loyalty or respect. Yet his reign of twenty-two years was
       disturbed by nothing more serious than the fatuous "gunpowder
       plot" (1605) of a few discontented Catholics. But his son had
       to suffer the retarded consequences of a loyalty growing weak,
       on one side, while royalty strained its prerogatives on the
       other.

       The reign of James I. witnessed the effective beginnings of
       English colonization in America,--the planting of a durable
       settlement in Virginia and the migration of the Pilgrim
       Fathers to New England. The latter movement (1620) was one of
       voluntary exile, produced by the hard treatment inflicted on
       those "Separatists" or "Independents" who could not reconcile
       themselves to a state-established Church. Ten years later, the
       Pilgrim movement, of Independents, was followed by the greater
       migration of Puritans--quite different in class, in character
       and in spirit.

    {1075}

    Charles. I.

       James died in 1625, and the troubled reign of his son, Charles
       I., began. Charles took over from his father a full measure of
       popular discontent, along with numerous active springs in
       operation for increasing it. The most productive of these was
       the favorite, Buckingham, who continued to be the sole
       counselor and minister of the young king, as he had been of
       the older one, and who was utterly hateful to England, for
       good reasons of incapacity and general worthlessness. In the
       king himself, though he had virtues, there was a coldness and
       a falsity of nature which were sure to widen the breach
       between him and his people.

       Failing the Spanish marriage, Charles had wedded (1624) a
       French princess, Henrietta Maria, sister of Louis XIII. The
       previous subserviency to Spain had then been followed by a war
       with that country, which came to Charles among his
       inheritances, and which Buckingham mismanaged, to the shame of
       England. In 1627 another war began, but this time with France,
       on account of the Huguenots besieged at La Rochelle. Again the
       meddlesome hand of Buckingham wrought disaster and national
       disgrace, and public indignation was greatly stirred. When
       Parliament endeavored to call the incapable minister to
       account, and to obtain some security for a better management
       of affairs, the king dissolved it. Twice was this done, and
       Charles and his favorite employed every arbitrary and
       questionable device that could be contrived for them, to raise
       money without need of the representatives of the people. At
       length, in 1628, they were driven to face a third Parliament,
       in order to obtain supplies. By this time the Commons of
       England were wrought up to a high and determined assertion of
       their rights, as against the Crown, and the Puritans had
       gained a majority in the popular representation. In the lower
       House of Parliament, therefore, the demands of the king for
       money were met by a counter-demand for guarantees to protect
       the people from royal encroachments on their liberties. The
       Commons were resolute, and Charles gave way to them, signing
       with much reluctance the famous instrument known as the
       "Petition of Right," which pledged the Crown to abstain in
       future from forced loans, from taxes imposed without
       Parliamentary grant, from arbitrary imprisonments, without
       cause shown, and from other despotic proceedings. In return
       for his signature to the Petition of Right, Charles received a
       grant of money; but the Commons refused to authorize his
       collection of certain customs duties, called Tonnage and
       Poundage, beyond a single year, and it began attacks on
       Buckingham,--whereupon the king prorogued it. Shortly
       afterwards Buckingham was assassinated; a second expedition to
       relieve Rochelle failed miserably; and early in 1629
       Parliament was assembled again. This time the Puritan temper
       of the House began to show itself in measures to put a stop to
       some revivals of ancient ceremony which had appeared in
       certain churches. At the same time officers of the king, who
       had seized goods belonging to a member of the House, for
       non-payment of Tonnage and Poundage, were summoned to the bar
       to answer for it. The king protected them, and a direct
       conflict of authority arose. On the 2d of March, the king sent
       an order to the Speaker of the House of Commons for
       adjournment; but the Speaker was forcibly held in his chair,
       and not permitted to announce the adjournment, until three
       resolutions had been read and adopted, denouncing as an enemy
       to the kingdom every person who brought in innovations in
       religion, or who advised the levying of Tonnage and Poundage
       without parliamentary grant, or who voluntarily paid such
       duties, so levied. This done, the members dispersed; the king
       dissolved Parliament immediately, and his resolution was taken
       to govern England thenceforth on his own authority, with no
       assembly of the representatives of the people to question or
       criticise him. He held to that determination for eleven years,
       during which long time no Parliament sat in England, and the
       Constitution was practically obliterated.

       The leaders of the Commons in their recent proceedings were
       arrested and imprisoned. Sir John Eliot, the foremost of them,
       died in harsh confinement within the Tower, and others were
       held in long custody, refusing to recognize the jurisdiction
       of the king's judges over things done in Parliament.

    Wentworth and Laud.

       One man, of great ability, who had stood at the beginning with
       Sir John Eliot, and acted with the party which opposed the
       king, now went over to the side of the latter and rose high in
       royal favor, until he came in the end to be held chiefly
       responsible for the extreme absolutism to which the government
       of Charles was pushed. This was Sir Thomas Wentworth, made
       Earl of Strafford at a later day, in the tardy rewarding of
       his services. But William Laud, Bishop of London, and
       afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, was the evil counselor of
       the king, much more than Wentworth, in the earlier years of
       the decade of tyranny. It was Laud's part to organize the
       system of despotic monarchy on its ecclesiastical side; to
       uproot Puritanism and all dissent, and to cast religion for
       England and for Scotland in one mould, as rigid as that of
       Rome.

       For some years, the English nation seemed terrorized or
       stupefied by the audacity of the complete overthrow of its
       Constitution. The king and his servants might easily imagine
       that the day of troublesome Parliaments and of inconvenient
       laws was passed. At least in those early years of their
       success, it can scarcely have occurred to their minds that a
       time of accounting for broken laws, and for the violated
       pledges of the Petition of Right, might come at the end. At
       all events they went their way with seeming satisfaction, and
       tested, year by year, the patient endurance of a people which
       has always been slow to move. Their courts of Star Chamber and
       of High Commission, finding a paramount law in the will and
       pleasure of the king, imprisoned, fined, pilloried, flogged
       and mutilated in quite the spirit of the Spanish Inquisition,
       though they did not burn.
    {1076}
       They collected Tonnage and Poundage without parliamentary
       consent, and servile judges enforced the payment. They
       invented a claim for "ship-money" (in commutation of an
       ancient demand for ships to serve in the King's navy) from
       inland towns and counties, as well as from the commercial
       ports; and when John Hampden, a squire in Buckinghamshire,
       refused payment of the unlawful tax, their obedient judges
       gave judgment against him. And still the people endured; but
       they were laying up in memory many things, and gathering a
       store of reasons for the action that would by and by begin.

    Rebellion in Scotland.

       At last, it was Scotland, not England, that moved to rebel.
       Laud and the king had determined to break down Presbyterianism
       in the northern kingdom and to force a Prayer Book on the
       Scottish Church. There was a consequent riot at St. Giles, in
       Edinburgh (1637); Jenny Geddes threw her stool at the bishop,
       and Scotland presently was in revolt, signing a National
       Covenant and defying the king. Charles, attempting to frighten
       the resolute Scots with an army which he could not pay, was
       soon driven to a treaty with them (1639) which he had not
       honesty enough to keep. Wentworth, who had been Lord Deputy of
       Ireland since 1632, and who had framed a model of absolutism
       in that island, for the admiration of his colleagues in
       England, now returned to the king's side and became his chief
       adviser. He counselled the calling of a Parliament, as the
       only means by which English help could be got for the
       restoring of royal authority in Scotland. The Parliament was
       summoned and met in April, 1640. At once, it showed a temper
       which alarmed the king and he dissolved it in three weeks.
       Again Charles made the attempt to put down his Scottish
       subjects without help from an English Parliament, and again
       the attempt failed.

    The Long Parliament.

       Then the desperate king summoned another Parliament, which
       concentrated in itself, when it came together, the suppressed
       rebellion that had been in the heart of England for ten years,
       and which broke his flimsy fabric of absolutism, almost at a
       single blow. It was the famous Long Parliament of English
       history, which met in November, 1640, and which ruled England
       for a dozen years, until it gave way to the Cromwellian
       dictatorship. It sent Laud and Strafford to the Tower,
       impeached the latter and brought him to the block, within six
       months from the beginning of its session; and the king gave up
       his minister to the vengeance of the angry Commons with hardly
       one honest attempt to protect him. Laud waited in prison five
       years before he suffered the same fate. The Parliament
       declared itself to be indissoluble by any royal command; and
       the king assented. It abolished the Star Chamber and the Court
       of High Commission; and the king approved. It swept
       ship-money, and forest claims, and all of Charles' lawless
       money-getting devices into the limbo; and he put his signature
       to its bills. But all the time he was intriguing with the
       Scots for armed help to overthrow his masterful English
       Parliament, and he was listening to Irish emissaries who
       offered an army for the same purpose, on condition that
       Ireland' should be surrendered to the Catholics.

    Civil War.

       Charles had arranged nothing on either of these treacherous
       plans, nor had he gained anything yet from the division
       between radicals and moderates that was beginning to show
       itself in the popular party, when he suddenly brought the
       strained situation to a crisis, in January, 1642, by his most
       foolish and arrogant act. He invaded the House of Commons in
       person, with a large body of armed men, for the purpose of
       arresting five members--Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazlerigg and
       Strode--whom he accused of having negotiated treasonably with
       the Scots in 1640. The five members escaped; the House
       appealed to the citizens of London for protection; king and
       Parliament began immediately to raise troops; the nation
       divided and arrayed itself on the two sides,--most of the
       gentry, the Cavaliers, supporting the king, and most of the
       Puritan middle-class, wearing close-cut hair and receiving the
       name Roundheads, being ranged in the party of Parliament. They
       came to blows in October, when the first battle was fought, at
       Edgehill.

       In the early period of the war, the parliamentary forces were
       commanded by the Earl of Essex; and Sir Thomas Fairfax was
       their general at a later stage; but the true leader on that
       side, for war and for politics alike, was soon found in Oliver
       Cromwell, a member of Parliament, whose extraordinary capacity
       was first shown in the military organization of the Eastern
       Counties, from which he came. After 1645, when the army was
       remodeled, with Cromwell as second in rank, his real
       chieftainship was scarcely disguised. The decisive battle of
       the war was fought that year at Naseby, where the king's cause
       suffered an irrecoverable defeat.

       The Presbyterians of Scotland had now allied themselves with
       the English Roundheads, on condition that the Church of
       England should be remodeled in the Presbyterian form. The
       Puritan majority in Parliament being favorable to that form, a
       Solemn League and Covenant between the two nations had been
       entered into, in 1643, and an Assembly of Divines was convened
       at Westminster to frame the contemplated system of the Church.
       But the Independents, who disliked Presbyterianism, and who
       were more tolerantly inclined in their views, had greatly
       increased in numbers, and some of the stronger men on the
       Parliament side, including Cromwell, the strongest of all,
       were among them. This difference brought about a sharp
       struggle within the popular party for the control of the
       fruits of the triumph now beginning to seem secure. Under
       Cromwell, the Army became a powerful organization of religious
       Independency, while Parliament sustained Presbyterianism, and
       the two stood against each other as rival powers in the state.

    {1077}

       At the beginning of the year 1646 the fortunes of Charles had
       fallen very low. His partisan, Montrose, in Scotland, had been
       beaten; his intrigues in Ireland, for the raising of a
       Catholic army, had only alarmed and disgusted his English
       friends; he was at the end of his resources, and he gave
       himself up to the Scots. The latter, in conjunction with the
       Presbyterian majority in Parliament, were willing to make
       terms with him, and restore him to his throne; on conditions
       which included the signing of the Covenant and the
       establishing of Presbyterianism in the Churches of both
       kingdoms. He refused the proposal, being deluded by a belief
       that the quarrel of Independents and Presbyterians would open
       his way to the recovery of power without any concessions at
       all. The Scots then surrendered him to the English, and he was
       held in confinement by the latter for the next two years,
       scheming and pursuing intrigues in many directions, and
       convincing all who dealt with him that his purposes were never
       straightforward--that he was faithless and false to the core.

       Ill-will and suspicion, meanwhile, were widening the breach
       between Parliament and the Army. Political and religious
       agitators were gaining influence in the latter and republican
       ideas were spreading fast. At length (December, 1648), the
       Army took matters into its own hands; expelled from Parliament
       those members who favored a reconciliation with the king, on
       the basis of a Presbyterian establishment of the Church, and
       England passed under military rule. The "purged" Parliament
       (or rather the purged House of Commons, which now set the
       House of Lords aside, declaring itself to be the sole and
       supreme power in the state) brought King Charles to trial in
       the following month, before a High Court of Justice created
       for the occasion. He was convicted of treason, in making war
       upon his subjects, and was beheaded on the 30th of January,
       1649.

    The Commonwealth and the Protectorate.

       The king being thus disposed of, the House of Commons
       proclaimed England a Commonwealth, "without a King or House of
       Lords," took to itself the name of Parliament, and appointed
       an executive Council of State, forty-one in number. The new
       government, in its first year, had a rebellion in Ireland to
       deal with, and sent Cromwell to the scene. He crushed it with
       a merciless hand. The next year Scotland was in arms, for the
       late king's son, now called Charles II., who had entered the
       country, accepted Presbyterianism, and signed the Covenant.
       Again Cromwell was the man for the occasion, and in a campaign
       of two months he ended the Scottish war, with such decision that
       he had no more fighting to do on English or Scottish soil
       while he lived. There was war with the Dutch in 1652, 1653 and
       1654, over questions of trade, and the long roll of English naval
       victories was opened by the great soldier-seaman, Robert
       Blake.

       But the power which upheld and carried forward all things at
       this time was the power of Oliver Cromwell, master of the
       Army, and, therefore, master of the Commonwealth. The
       surviving fragment of the Long Parliament was an anomaly, a
       fiction; men called it "the Rump." In April, 1653, Cromwell
       drove the members of it from their chamber and formally took
       to himself the reins of government which in fact he had been
       holding before. A few months later he received from his
       immediate supporters the title of Lord Protector, and an
       Instrument of Government was framed, which served as a
       constitution during the next three years. Cromwell was as
       unwilling as Charles had been to share the government with a
       freely elected and representative Parliament. The first House
       which he called together was dissolved at the end of five
       months (1655), because it persisted in discussing a revision
       of the constitution. His second Parliament, which he summoned
       the following year, required to be purged by the arbitrary
       exclusion of about a hundred members before it could be
       brought to due submission. This tractable body then made
       certain important changes in the constitution, by an enactment
       called the "Humble Petition and Advice." It created a second
       house, to take the place of the House of Lords, and gave to
       the Lord Protector the naming of persons to be life-members of
       such upper house. It also gave to the Protector the right of
       appointing his own successor, a right which Cromwell exercised
       on his death-bed, in 1658, by designating his son Richard.

       The responsible rule of Cromwell, from the expulsion of the
       Rump and his assumption of the dignity of Lord Protector,
       covered only the period of five years. But in that brief time
       he made the world respect the power of England as it had never
       been respected before. His government at home was as absolute
       and arbitrary as the government of the Stuarts, but it was
       infinitely wiser and more just. Cromwell was a statesman of
       the higher order; a man of vast power, in intellect and will.
       That he did not belong to the yet higher order of commanding
       men, whose statesmanship is pure in patriotism and uncolored
       by selfish aims, is proved by his failure to even plan a more
       promising settlement of the government of England than that
       which left it, an anomalous Protectorate, to a man without
       governing qualities, who happened to be his son.

    Restoration of the Stuarts.

       Richard Cromwell was brushed aside after eight months of an
       absurd attempt to play the part of Lord Protector. The
       officers of the Army and the resuscitated Rump Parliament,
       between them, managed affairs, in a fashion, for almost a
       year, and then they too were pushed out of the way by the army
       which had been stationed in Scotland, under General George
       Monk. By the action of Monk, with the consent, and with more
       than the consent, of England at large, the Stuart monarchy was
       restored. Charles II. was invited to return, and in May, 1660,
       he took his seat on the re-erected throne.

       The nation, speaking generally, was tired of a military
       despotism; tired of Puritan austerity; tired of revolution and
       political uncertainty;--so tired that it threw itself down at
       the feet of the most worthless member of the most worthless
       royal family in its history, and gave itself up to him without
       a condition or a guarantee. For twenty-five years it endured
       both oppression and disgrace at his hands. It suffered him to
       make a brothel of his Court; to empty the national purse into
       the pockets of his shameless mistresses and debauched
       companions; to revive the ecclesiastical tyranny of Laud; to
       make a crime of the religious creeds and the worship of more
       than half his subjects; to sell himself and sell the honor of
       England to the king of France for a secret pension, and to be
       in every possible way as ignoble and despicable as his father
       had been arrogant and false. When he died, in 1685, the
       prospects of the English nation were not improved by the
       accession of his brother, the Duke of York, who became James
       II.
    {1078}
       James had more honesty than his brother or his father; but the
       narrowness and meanness of the Stuart race were in his blood.
       He had made himself intolerable; to his subjects, both English
       and Scotch, by entering the Catholic Church, openly, while
       Charles was believed to have done the same in secret. His
       religion was necessarily bigotry, because of the smallness of
       his nature, and he opposed it to the Protestantism of the
       kingdom with a kind of brutal aggressiveness. In the first
       year of his reign there was a rebellion undertaken, in the
       interest of a bastard son of Charles II., called Duke of
       Monmouth; but it was savagely put down, first by force of
       arms, at Sedgemoor, and afterwards by the "bloody assizes" of
       the ruthless Judge Jeffreys. Encouraged by this success
       against his enemies James began to ignore the "Test Act,"
       which excluded Catholics from office, and to surround himself
       by men of his own religion. The Test Act was an unrighteous
       law, and the "Declaration of Indulgence" which James issued,
       for the toleration of Catholics and Dissenters, was just in
       principle, according to the ideas of later times; but the
       action of the king with respect to both was, nevertheless, a
       gross and threatening violation of law. England had submitted
       to worse conduct from Charles II., but its Protestant temper
       was now roused, and the loyalty of the subject was consumed by
       the fierceness of the Churchman's wrath. James' daughter,
       Mary, and her husband, William, Prince of Orange, were invited
       from Holland to come over and displace the obnoxious father
       from his throne. They accepted the invitation, November, 1688;
       the nation rose to welcome them; James fled,--and the great
       Revolution, which ended arbitrary monarchy in England forever,
       and established constitutional government on clearly defined
       and lasting bases, was accomplished without the shedding of a
       drop of blood.

    The House of Orange and the Dutch Republic.

       William of Orange, who thus acquired a place in the line of
       English kings, held, at the same time, the nearly regal office
       of Stadtholder of Holland; but the office had not remained
       continuously in his family since William the Silent, whose
       great-grandson he was. Maurice, the son of the murdered
       William the Silent, had been chosen to the stadtholdership
       after his father's death, and had carried forward his father's
       work with success, so far as concerned the liberation of the
       United Provinces from the Spanish yoke. He was an abler
       soldier than William, but not his equal as a statesman, nor as
       a man. The greater statesman of the period was John of
       Barneveldt, between whom and the Stadtholder an opposition
       grew up which produced jealousy and hostility, more especially
       on the part of the latter. A shameful religious conflict had
       arisen at this time between the Calvinists, who numbered most
       of the clergy in their ranks, and a dissenting body, led by
       Jacob Hermann, or Arminius, which protested against the
       doctrine of predestination. Barneveldt favored the Arminians.
       The Stadtholder, Maurice, without any apparent theological
       conviction in the matter, threw his whole weight of influence
       on the side of the Calvinists; and was able, with the help of
       the Calvinist preachers, to carry the greater part of the
       common people into that faction. The Arminians were everywhere
       put down as heretics, barred from preaching or teaching, and
       otherwise silenced and ill treated. It is a singular fact
       that, at the very time of this outburst of Calvinistic fury,
       the Dutch were exhibiting otherwise a far more tolerant temper
       in religion than any other people in Europe, and had thrown
       open their country as a place of shelter for the persecuted of
       other lands,--both Christian sectaries and Jews. We infer,
       necessarily, that the bitterness of the Calvinists against the
       Arminians was more political than religious in its source, and
       that the source is really traceable to the fierce ambition of
       Prince Maurice, and the passion of the party which supported
       his suspicious political aims.

       Barneveldt lost influence as the consequence of the
       Calvinistic triumph, and was exposed helplessly to the
       vindictive hatred of Prince Maurice, who did not scruple to
       cause his arrest, his trial and execution (1619), on charges
       which none believed. Maurice, whose memory is blackened by
       this great crime, died in 1625, and was succeeded by his
       half-brother, Frederic Henry. The war with Spain had been
       renewed in 1621, at the end of the twelve years truce, and
       more than willingly renewed; for the merchant class, and the
       maritime interest in the cities which felt secure, preferred
       war to peace. Under a hostile flag they pushed their commerce
       into Spanish and Portuguese seas from which a treaty of peace
       would undoubtedly exclude them; and, so long as Spanish
       American silver fleets were afloat, the spoils of ocean war
       were vastly enriching. It was during these years of war that
       the Dutch got their footing on the farther sides of the world,
       and nearly won the mastery of the sea which their slower but
       stronger English rivals wrested from them in the end. Not
       until the general Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, was a final
       settlement of issues between Spain and the United Provinces
       brought about. The freedom and independence of the Provinces,
       as sovereign states, was then acknowledged by the humbled
       Spaniard, and favorable arrangements of trade were conceded to
       them. The southern, Catholic Provinces, which Spain had held,
       were retained in their subjection to her.

       Frederic Henry, the third Stadtholder, was succeeded in 1647
       by his son, William II. The latter wasted his short career of
       less than four years in foolish plotting to revolutionize the
       government and transform the stadtholdership into a monarchy,
       supported by France, for the help of which country he seemed
       willing to pay any base and treasonable price. Dying suddenly
       in the midst of his scheming, he left an unborn son--the
       future William III. of England--who came into the world a week
       after his father had left it. Under these circumstances the
       stadtholdership was suspended, with strong feelings against
       the revival of it, resulting from the conduct of William II.
       The lesser provinces then fell under the domination of
       Holland--so much so that the name of Holland began soon to be
       applied to the confederation at large, and is very commonly
       used with that meaning for a long subsequent time. The chief
       minister of the Estates of Holland, known as the Grand
       Pensionary, became the practical head of the federal
       government. After 1653 the office of Grand Pensionary was
       filled by a statesman of high ability, John de Witt, the chief
       end of whose policy appears to have been the prevention of the
       return of the House of Orange to power. The government thus
       administered, and controlled by the commercial class, was
       successful in promoting the general prosperity of the
       provinces, and in advancing their maritime importance and
       power.
    {1079}
       It conducted two wars with England--one with the Commonwealth
       and one with the restored monarchy--and could claim at least
       an equal share of the naval glory won in each. But it
       neglected the land defense of the country, and was found
       shamefully unprepared in 1672, when the Provinces were
       attacked by a villainous combination, formed between Louis
       XIV. of France and his servile pensioner, Charles II. of
       England. The republic, humbled and distressed by the rushing
       conquests of the French, fixed its hopes upon the young Prince
       of Orange, heir to the prestige of a great historic name, and
       turned its wrath against the party of De Witt. The Prince was
       made Stadtholder, despite the opposition of John de Witt, and
       the latter, with his brother Cornelius, was murdered by a mob
       at Amsterdam. William of Orange proved both wise and heroic as
       a leader, and the people were roused to a new energy of
       resistance by his appeals and his example. They cut their
       dykes and flooded the land, subjecting themselves to
       unmeasured loss and distress, but peremptorily stopping the
       French advance, until time was gained for awakening public
       feeling in Europe against the aggressions of the unscrupulous
       French king. Then William of Orange began that which was to be
       his great and important mission in life,--the organizing of
       resistance to Louis XIV. Without the foresight and penetration
       of French designs which he evinced,--without his unflagging
       exertions for the next thirty years,--without his diplomatic
       tact, his skill of management, his patience in war, his
       obstinate perseverance,--it seems to be a certainty that the
       ambitious "grand monarch," concentrating the whole power of
       France in himself, would have been able to break the
       surrounding nations one by one, and they would not have
       combined their strength for an effective self-protection. The
       revolution of 1688-9 in England, which gave the crown of that
       kingdom to William, and his wife Mary, contributed greatly to
       his success, and was an event nearly as important in European
       politics at large as it was in the constitutional history of
       Great Britain.

    Germany after the Thirty Years War.

       In a natural order of things, Germany should have supplied the
       main resistance to Louis XIV. and held his unscrupulous
       ambition in check. But Germany had fallen to its lowest state
       of political demoralization and disorder. The very idea of
       nationality had disappeared. The Empire, even collapsed to the
       Germanic sense, and even reduced to a frame and a form, had
       almost vanished from practical affairs. The numerous petty
       states which divided the German people stood apart from one
       another, in substantial independence, and were sundered by
       small jealousies and distrusts. Little absolute principalities
       they were, each having its little court, which aped, in a
       little way, the grand court of the grand monarch of
       France--central object of the admiration and the envy of all
       small souls in its time. Half of them were ready to bow down
       to the splendid being at Versailles, and to be his creatures,
       if he condescended to bestow a nod of patronage and attention
       upon them. The French king had more influence among them than
       their nominal Emperor. More and more distinctly the latter
       drew apart in his immediate dominions as an Austrian
       sovereign; and more and more completely Austrian interests and
       Austrian policy became removed and estranged from the interests
       of the Germanic people. The ambitions and the cares of the
       House of Hapsburg were increasingly in directions most
       opposite to the German side of its relations, tending towards
       Italy and the southeast; while, at the same time, the narrow
       church influence which depressed the Austrian states widened a
       hopeless intellectual difference between them and the northern
       German people.

    Brandenburg.--Prussia.

       The most notable movements in dull German affairs after the
       Peace of Westphalia were those which connected themselves with
       the settling and centering in Brandenburg of a nucleus of
       growing power, around which the nationalizing of Germany has
       been a crystalizing process ever since. The Mark of
       Brandenburg was one of the earliest conquests (tenth century)
       of the Germans from the Wends. Prussia, afterwards united with
       Brandenburg, was a later conquest (thirteenth century) from
       Wendish or Slavonic and other pagan inhabitants, and its
       subjugation was a missionary enterprise, accomplished by the
       crusading Order of Teutonic Knights, under the authority and
       direction of the Pope. The Order, which held the country for
       more than two centuries, and ruled it badly, became
       degenerate, and about the middle of the fifteenth century it
       was overcome in war by Casimir IV. of Poland, who took away
       from it the western part of its territory, and forced it to do
       homage to him for the eastern part, as a fief of the Polish
       crown. Sixty years later, the Reformation movement in Germany
       brought about the extinguishment of the Teutonic Order as a
       political power. The Grand Master of the Order at that time
       was Albert, a Hohenzollern prince, belonging to a younger
       branch of the Brandenburg family. He became a Lutheran, and
       succeeded in persuading the Polish king, Sigismund I., to
       transfer the sovereignty of the East Prussian fief to him
       personally, as a duchy. He transmitted it to his descendants,
       who held it for a few generations; but the line became extinct
       in 1618, and the Duchy of Prussia then passed to the elder
       branch of the family and was united with Brandenburg. The Mark
       of Brandenburg had been raised to the rank of an Electorate in
       1356 and had been acquired by the Hohenzollern family in 1417.
       The superior weight of the Brandenburg electors in northern
       Germany may be dated from their acquisition of the important
       Duchy of Prussia; but they made no mark on affairs until the
       time of Frederick William I., called the Great Elector, who
       succeeded to the Electorate in 1640, near the close of the
       Thirty Years War. In the arrangements of the Peace of
       Westphalia he secured East Pomerania and other considerable
       additions of territory. In 1657 he made his Duchy of Prussia
       independent of Poland, by treaty with the Polish king. In 1672
       and 1674 he had the courage and the independence to join the
       allies against Louis XIV., and when the Swedes, in alliance
       with Louis, invaded his dominions, he defeated and humbled
       them at Fehrbellen, and took from them the greater part of
       their Pomeranian territory. When the Great Elector died, in
       1688, Brandenburg was the commanding North-German power, and
       the Hohenzollern family had fully entered on the great career
       it has since pursued.

    {1080}

       Frederick William's son Frederick, with none of his father's
       talent, had a pushing but shallow ambition. He aspired to be a
       king, and circumstances made his friendship so important to
       the Emperor Leopold I. that the latter, exercising the
       theoretical super-sovereignty of the Cæsars, endowed him with
       the regal title. He was made King of Prussia, not of
       Brandenburg, because Brandenburg stood in vassalage to the
       Empire, while Prussia was an independent state.

    Poland and Russia.

       When Brandenburg and Prussia united began to rise to
       importance, the neighboring kingdom of Poland had already
       passed the climax of its career. Under the Jagellon dynasty,
       sprung from the Duke Jagellon of Lithuania, who married
       Hedwig, Queen of Poland, in 1386, and united the two states,
       Poland was a great power for two centuries, and seemed more
       likely than Russia to dominate the Slavonic peoples of Europe.
       The Russians at that time were under the feet of the Mongols
       or Tartars, whose terrific sweep westwards, from the steppes
       of Asia, had overwhelmed them completely and seemed to bring
       their independent history to an end. Slowly a Russian duchy
       had emerged, having its seat of doubtful sovereignty at
       Moscow, and being subject quite humbly to the Mongol Khan.
       About 1477 the Muscovite duke of that time, Ivan Vasilovitch,
       broke the Tartar yoke and acquired independence. But his
       dominion was limited. The Poles and Lithuanians, now united,
       had taken possession of large and important territories
       formerly Russian, and the Muscovite state was entirely cut off
       from the Baltic. It began, however, in the next century, under
       Ivan the Terrible, first of the Czars, to make conquests
       southward and south-eastward, from the Tartars, until it had
       reached the Caspian Sea. The dominion of the Czar stretched
       northward, at the same time, to the White Sea, at the single
       port of which trade was opened with the Russian country by
       English merchant adventurers in the reign of Elizabeth. Late
       in the sixteenth century the old line of rulers, descended
       from the Scandinavian Ruric, came to an end, and after a few
       years Michael Romanoff established the dynasty which has
       reigned since his time.

       As between the two principal Slavonic nations, Russia was now
       gaining stability and weight, while Poland had begun to lose
       both. It was a fatal day for the Poles when, in 1573, on the
       death of the last of the Jagellons, they made their monarchy
       purely elective, abolishing the restriction to one family
       which had previously prevailed. The election was by the
       suffrage of the nobles, not the people at large (who were
       generally serfs), and the government became an oligarchy of
       the most unregulated kind known in history. The crown was
       stripped of power, and the unwillingness of the nobility to
       submit to any national authority, even that of its own
       assembly, reached a point, about the middle of the seventeenth
       century, at which anarchy was virtually agreed upon as the
       desirable political state. The extraordinary "liberum veto,"
       then made part of the Polish constitution, gave to each single
       member of the assemblies of the nobles, or of the deputies
       representing them, a right to forbid any enactment, or to
       arrest the whole proceedings of the body, by his unsupported
       negative. This amazing prerogative appears to have been
       exercised very rarely in its fullness; but its theoretical
       existence effectually extinguished public spirit and paralyzed
       all rational legislation. Linked with the singular feebleness
       of the monarchy, it leaves small room for surprise at the
       ultimate shipwreck of the Polish state.

       The royal elections at Warsaw came to be prize contests at
       which all Europe assisted. Every Court set up its candidate
       for the paltry titular place; every candidate emptied his
       purse into the Polish capital, and bribed, intrigued,
       corrupted, to the best of his ability. Once, at least (1674),
       when the game was on, a sudden breeze of patriotic feeling
       swept the traffickers out of the diet, and inspired the
       election of a national hero, John Sobieski, to whom Europe
       owes much; for it was he who drove back the Turks, in 1683,
       when their last bold push into central Europe was made, and
       when they were storming at the gates of Vienna. But when
       Sobieski died, in 1696, the old scandalous vendue of a crown
       was re-opened, and the Elector of Saxony was the buyer. During
       most of the last two centuries of its history, Poland sold its
       throne to one alien after another, and allowed foreign states
       to mix and meddle with its affairs. Of real nationality there
       was not much left to extinguish when the time of extinction
       came. There were patriots, and very noble patriots, among the
       Poles, at all periods of their history; but it seems to have
       been the very hopelessness of the state into which their
       country had drifted which intensified their patriotic feeling.

       Russia had acquired magnitude and strength as a barbaric
       power, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; but it was
       not until the reign of Peter the Great, which opened in 1682,
       that the great Slavonic empire began to take on a European
       character, with European interests and influences, and to
       assimilate the civilization of the West. Peter may be said to
       have knotted Russia to Europe at both extremities, by pushing
       his dominions to the Baltic on the north and to the Black Sea
       on the south, and by putting his own ships afloat in both.
       From his day, Russia has been steadily gathering weight in
       each of the two continents over which her vast bulk of empire
       is stretched, and moving to a mysterious great destiny in time
       to come.

    The Turks.

       The Turks, natural enemies of all the Christian races of
       eastern and southeastern Europe, came practically to the end
       of their threatening career of conquest about the middle of
       the sixteenth century, when Suleiman the Magnificent died
       (1566). He had occupied a great part of Hungary; seated a
       pasha in Buda; laid siege to Vienna; taken Rhodes from the
       Knights of St. John; attacked them in Malta; made an alliance
       with the King of France; brought a Turkish fleet into the
       western Mediterranean, and held Europe in positive terror of
       an Ottoman domination for half a century. His son Selim added
       Cyprus to the Turkish conquests; but was humbled in the
       Mediterranean by the great Christian victory of Lepanto, won
       by the combined fleets of Spain, Venice and the Pope, under
       Don John of Austria. After that time Europe had no great fear
       of the Turk; though he still fought hard with the Venetians,
       the Poles, the Russians, the Hungarians, and, once more,
       carried his arms even to Vienna. But, on the whole, it was a
       losing fight; the crescent was on the wane.

    {1081}

    Last glories of Venice.

       In the whole struggle with the Ottomans, through the
       fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, the republic
       of Venice bore a noble part. She contested with them foot by
       foot the Greek islands, Peloponnesus, and the eastern shores
       of the Adriatic. Even after her commerce began to slip from
       her control, and the strength which came from it sank rapidly,
       she gave up her eastern possessions but slowly, one by one,
       and after stout resistance. Crete cost the Turks a war of
       twenty-four years (1645-1669). Fifteen years afterwards the
       Venetians gathered their energies afresh, assumed the
       aggressive, and conquered the whole Peloponnesus, which they
       held for a quarter of a century. Then it was lost again, and
       the Ionian Islands alone remained Venetian territory in the
       East.

    Rise of the House of Savoy.

       Of Italy at large, in the seventeenth century, lying prostrate
       under the heavy hand of Spain, there is no history to claim
       attention in so brief a sketch as this. One sovereign family
       in the northwest, long balanced on the Alps, in uncertainty
       between a cis-Alpine and a trans-Alpine destiny, but now
       clearly committed to Italian fortunes, had begun to win its
       footing among the noticeable smaller powers of the day by
       sheer dexterity of trimming and shifting sides in the
       conflicts of the time. This was the House of Savoy, whose
       first possessions were gathered in the crumbling of the old
       kingdom of Burgundy, and lay on both slopes of the Alps,
       commanding several important passes. On the western and
       northern side, the counts, afterwards dukes, of Savoy had to
       contend, as time went on, with the expanding kingdom of France
       and with the stout-hearted communities which ultimately formed
       the Swiss Confederacy. They fell back before both. At one
       period, in the fifteenth century, their dominion had stretched
       to the Saone, and to the lake of Neufchatel, on both sides of
       it, surrounding the free city of Geneva, which they were never
       able to overcome, and the lake of Geneva entire. After that
       time, the Savoyards gradually lost territory on the Gallic
       side and won compensations on the Italian side, in Piedmont,
       and at the expense of Genoa and the duchy of Milan. The Duke
       Victor Amadeus II. was the most successful winner for his
       house, and he made his gains by remarkable manœuvering on both
       sides of the wars of Louis XIV. One of his acquisitions (1713)
       was the island kingdom of Sicily, which gave him a royal title. A
       few years later he exchanged it with Austria for the island
       kingdom of Sardinia--a realm more desirable to him for
       geographical reasons only. The dukes of Savoy and princes of
       Piedmont thus became kings of Sardinia, and the name of the
       kingdom was often applied to their whole dominion, down to the
       recent time when the House of Savoy attained the grander
       kingship of united Italy.

    First wars of Louis XIV.

       The wars of Louis XIV. gave little opportunity for western and
       central Europe to make any other history than that of struggle
       and battle, invasion and devastation, intrigue and faithless
       diplomacy, shifting of political landmarks and traffic in
       border populations, as though they were pastured cattle, for
       fifty years, in the last part of the seventeenth century and
       the first part of the eighteenth (1665-1715). It will be
       remembered that when this King of France married the Infanta
       of Spain, he joined in a solemn renunciation of all rights on
       her part and on that of her children to such dominions as she
       might otherwise inherit. But such a renunciation, with no
       sentiment of honor behind it, was worthless, of course, and
       Louis XIV., in his own esteem, stood on a height quite above
       the moral considerations that have force with common men. When
       Philip IV. of Spain died, in 1665, Louis promptly began to put
       forward the claims which he had pledged himself not to make.
       He demanded part of the Netherlands, and Franche Comté--the
       old county (not the duchy) of Burgundy--as belonging to his
       queen. It was his good fortune to be served by some of the
       greatest generals, military engineers and administrators of
       the day--by Turenne, Condé, Vauban, Louvois, and others--and
       when he sent his armies of invasion into Flanders and Franche
       Comté they carried all before them. Holland took alarm at
       these aggressions which came so near to her, and formed an
       alliance with England and Sweden to assist Spain. But the
       unprincipled English king, Charles II., was easily bribed to
       betray his ally; Sweden was bought over; Spain submitted to a
       treaty which gave the Burgundian county back to her, and
       surrendered an important part of the Spanish Netherlands to
       France. Louis' first exploit of national brigandage had thus
       been a glorious success, as glory is defined in the vocabulary
       of sovereigns of his class. He had stolen several valuable
       towns, killed some thousands of people, carried misery into
       the lives of some thousands more, and provoked the Dutch to a
       challenge of war that seemed promising of more glory of like
       kind.

       In 1672 he prepared himself to chastise the Dutch, and his
       English pensioner, Charles II., with several German princes,
       joined him in the war. It was this war, as related already,
       which brought about the fall and the death of John de Witt,
       Grand Pensionary of Holland; which raised William of Orange to
       the restored stadtholdership, and which gave him a certain
       leadership of influence in Europe, as against the French king.
       It was this war, likewise, which gave the Hohenzollerns their
       first great battle-triumph, in the defeat of the Swedes,
       allies of the French, at Fehrbellin. For Frederick William,
       the Great Elector, had joined the Emperor Leopold and the King
       of Spain in another league with Holland to resist the
       aggressions of France; while Sweden now took sides with Louis.
       England was soon withdrawn from the contest, by the determined
       action of Parliament, which forced its king to make peace.
       Otherwise the war became general in western Europe and was
       frightful in the death and misery it cost. Generally the
       French had the most success. Turenne was killed in 1675 and
       Condé retired the same year; but able commanders were found in
       Luxemburg and Crequi to succeed them. In opposition to William
       of Orange, the Dutch made peace at Nimegueu, in 1678, and
       Spain was forced to give up Franche Comté, with another
       fraction of her Netherland territories; but Holland lost
       nothing. Again Louis XIV. had beaten and robbed his neighbors
       with success, and was at the pinnacle of his glory. France, it
       is true, was oppressed and exhausted, but her king was a
       "grand monarch," and she must needs be content.

    {1082}

       For a few years the grand monarch contented himself with small
       filchings of territory, which kept his conscience supple and
       gave practice to his sleight-of-hand. On one pretext and
       another he seized town after town in Alsace, and, at last,
       1681, surprised and captured the imperial free city of
       Strasburg, in a time of entire peace. He bombarded Genoa, took
       Avignon from the Pope, bullied and abused feeble Spain, made
       large claims on the Palatinate in the name of his
       sister-in-law, but against her will, and did nearly what he
       was pleased to do, without any effective resistance, until
       after William of Orange had been called to the English throne.
       That completed a great change in the European situation.

    Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

       The change had already been more than half brought about by a
       foul and foolish measure which Louis had adopted in his
       domestic administration. Cursed by a tyrant's impatience at
       the idea of free thought and free opinion among his subjects,
       he had been persuaded by Catholic zealots near his person to
       revoke the Edict of Nantes and revive persecution of the
       Huguenots. This was done in 1685. The fatal effects within
       France resembled those which followed the persecution of the
       Moriscoes of Spain. The Huguenots formed a large proportion of
       the best middle class of the kingdom,--its manufacturers, its
       merchants, its skilled and thrifty artisans. Infamous efforts
       were made to detain them in the country and there force them
       to apostacy or hold them under punishment if they withstood.
       But there was not power enough in the monarchy, with all its
       absolutism, to enclose France in such a wall. Vast numbers
       escaped--half a million it is thought--carrying their skill,
       their knowledge, their industry and their energy into Holland,
       England, Switzerland, all parts of Protestant Germany, and
       across the ocean to America. France was half ruined by the
       loss.

    The League of Augsburg.

       At the same time, the Protestant allies in Germany and the
       North, whom Louis had held in subserviency to himself so long,
       were angered and alarmed by his act. They joined a new
       defensive league against him, formed at Augsburg, in 1686,
       which embraced the Emperor, Spain, Holland, and Sweden, at
       first, and afterwards took in Savoy and other Italian states,
       along with Germany almost entire. But the League was miserably
       unprepared for war, and hardly hindered the march of Louis'
       armies when he suddenly moved them into the Rhenish
       electorates in 1688. For the second time in his reign, and
       under his orders, the Palatinate was fearfully devastated with
       fire and sword. But this attack on Germany, occupying the arms
       of France, gave William of Orange his opportunity to enter
       England unopposed and take the English crown. That
       accomplished, he speedily brought England into the League,
       enlarging it to a "grand alliance" of all western Europe
       against the dangerous monarch of France, and inspiring it with
       some measure of his own energy and courage. France had now to
       deal with enemies on every side. They swarmed on all her
       frontiers, and the strength and valor with which she met them
       were amazing. For three years the French more than held their
       own, not only in land-fighting, but on the sea, where they
       seemed likely, for a time, to dispute the supremacy of the
       English and the Dutch with success. But the frightful draft
       made on the resources of the nation, and the strain on its
       spirit, were more than could be kept up. The obstinacy of the
       king, and his indifference to the sufferings of his people,
       prolonged the war until 1697, but with steady loss to the
       French of the advantages with which they began. Two years
       before the end, Louis had bought over the Duke of Savoy, by
       giving back to him all that France had taken from his Italian
       territories since Richelieu's time. When the final peace was
       settled, at Ryswick, like surrenders had to be made in the
       Netherlands, Lorraine, and beyond the Rhine; but Alsace, with
       Strasburg, was kept, to be a German graft on France, until the
       sharp Prussian pruning knife, in our own time, cut it away.

    War of the Spanish Succession.

       There were three years of peace after the treaty of Ryswick,
       an then a new war--longer, more bitter, and more destructive
       than those before it--arose out of questions connected with
       the succession to the crown of Spain. Charles II., last of the
       Austro-Spanish or Spanish-Hapsburg kings, died in 1700,
       leaving no heir. The nearest of his relatives to the throne
       were the descendants of his two sisters, one of whom had
       married Louis XIV. and the other the Emperor Leopold, of the
       Austrian House. Louis XIV., as we know, had renounced all the
       Spanish rights of his queen and her issue; but that
       renunciation had been shown already to be wasted paper.
       Leopold had renounced nothing; but he had required a
       renunciation of her Spanish claims from the one daughter,
       Maria, of his Spanish wife, and he put forward claims to the
       Spanish succession, on his own behalf, because his mother had
       been a princess of that nation, as well as his wife. He was
       willing, however, to transfer his own rights to a younger son,
       fruit of a second marriage, the Archduke Charles.

       The question of the Spanish succession was one of European
       interest and importance, and attempts had been made to settle
       it two years before the death of the Spanish king, in 1698, by
       a treaty, or agreement, between France, England, and Holland.
       By that treaty these outside powers (consulting Spain not at
       all) undertook a partition of the Spanish monarchy, in what
       they assumed to be the interest of the European balance of
       power. They awarded Naples, Sicily, and some lesser Italian
       possessions to a grandson of Louis XIV., the Milanese
       territory to the Archduke Charles, and the rest of the Spanish
       dominions to an infant son of Maria, the Emperor's daughter,
       who was married to the elector of Bavaria. But the infant so
       selected to wear the crown of Spain died soon afterwards, and
       a second treaty of partition was framed. This gave the
       Milanese to the Duke of Lorraine, in exchange for his own
       duchy, which he promised to cede to France, and the whole
       remainder of the Spanish inheritance was conceded to the
       Austrian archduke, Charles. In Spain, these arrangements were
       naturally resented, by both people and king, and the latter
       was persuaded to set against them a will, bequeathing all that
       he ruled to the younger grandson of Louis XIV., Philip of
       Anjou, on condition that the latter renounce for himself and
       for his heirs all claims to the crown of France. The
       inducement to this bequest was the power which the King of
       France possessed to enforce it, and so to preserve the unity
       of the Spanish realm. That the argument and the persuasion
       came from Louis' own agents, while other agents amused
       England, Holland and Austria with treaties of partition, is
       tolerably clear.

    {1083}

       Near the end of the year 1700, the King of Spain died; his
       will was disclosed; the treaties were as coolly ignored as the
       prior renunciation had been, and the young French prince was
       sent pompously into Spain to accept the proffered crown. For a
       time, there was indignation in Europe, but no more. William of
       Orange could persuade neither England nor Holland to war, and
       Austria could not venture hostilities without their help. But
       that submissiveness only drew from the grand monarch fresh
       displays of his dishonesty and his insolence. Philip of
       Anjou's renunciation of a possible succession to the French
       throne, while occupying that of Spain, was practically
       annulled: The government of Spain was guided from Paris like
       that of a dependency of France. Dutch and English commerce was
       injured by hostile measures. Movements alarming to Holland
       were made on the frontiers of the Spanish Netherlands.
       Finally, when the fugitive ex-king of England, James II., died
       at St. Germains, in September, 1701, Louis acknowledged James'
       son, the Pretender, as King of England. This insult roused the
       war spirit in England which King William had striven so hard
       to evoke. He had already arranged the terms of a new defensive
       Grand Alliance with Holland, Austria, and most of the German
       states. There was no difficulty now in making it an offensive
       combination.

       But William, always weak in health, and worn by many cares and
       harassing troubles, died in March, 1702, before the war which
       he desired broke out. His death made no pause in the movement
       of events. Able statesmen, under Queen Anne, his successor,
       carried forward his policy and a great soldier was found, in
       the person of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, to command
       the armies of England and the Dutch. Another commander, of
       remarkable genius, Prince Eugene of Savoy, took service with
       the Emperor, and these two, acting cordially together, humbled
       the overweening pride of Louis XIV. in the later years of his
       reign. He had worn out France by his long exactions. His
       strong ministers, Colbert, Louvois and others, were dead, and
       he did not find successors for them. He had able generals, but
       none equal to Turenne, Condé or Luxemburg,--none to cope with
       Marlborough and Prince Eugene. The war was widespread, on a
       stupendous scale, and it lasted for twelve years. Its
       campaigns were fought in the Low Countries, in Germany, in
       Italy and in Spain. It glorified the reign of Anne, in English
       history, by the shining victories of Blenheim, Ramilies,
       Oudenarde and Malplaquet, and by the capture of Gibraltar, the
       padlock of the Mediterranean. The misery to which France was
       reduced in the later years of the war was probably the
       greatest that the much suffering nation ever knew.

    The Peace of Utrecht.

       Louis sought peace, and was willing to go far in surrenders to
       obtain it. But the allies pressed him too hard in their
       demands. They would have him not only abandon the Bourbon
       dynasty that he had set up in Spain, but join them in
       overthrowing it. He refused to negotiate on such terms, and
       Fortune approved his resolution, by giving decisive victories
       to his arms in Spain, while dealing, out disaster and defeat
       in every other field. England grew weary of the war when it
       came to appear endless, and Marlborough and the Whigs, who had
       carried it on, were ousted from power. The Tories, under
       Harley and Bolingbroke, came into office and negotiated the
       famous Peace of Utrecht (1713), to which all the belligerents
       in the war, save the Emperor, consented. The Emperor yielded
       to a supplementary treaty, signed at Rastadt the next year.
       These treaties left the Bourbon King of Spain, Philip V., on
       his throne, but bound him, by fresh renunciations, not to be
       likewise King of France. They gave to England Gibraltar and
       Minorca, at the expense of Spain, and Nova Scotia,
       Newfoundland and Hudson's Bay at the expense of France. They
       took much more from Spain. They took Sicily, which they gave
       to the Duke of Savoy, with the title of King; they took
       Naples, Milan, Mantua and Sardinia, which they gave to
       Austria, or, more strictly speaking, to the Emperor; and they
       took the Spanish Netherlands, which they gave to Austria in
       the main, with some barrier towns to the Dutch. They took from
       France her conquests on the right bank of the Rhine; but they
       left her in possession of Alsace, with Strasburg and Landau.
       The great victim of the war was Spain.

    France at the death of Louis XIV.

       Louis XIV. was near the end of his reign when this last of the
       fearful wars which he caused was brought to a close. He died
       in September, 1715, leaving a kingdom which had reasons to
       curse his memory in every particular of its state. He had
       foiled the exertions of as wise a minister, Jean Colbert, as
       ever strove to do good to France. He had dried the sources of
       national life as with a searching and monstrous sponge. He had
       repressed everything which he could not absorb in his
       flaunting court, in his destroying armies, and in himself. He
       had dealt with France as with a dumb beast that had been given
       him to bestride; to display himself upon, before the gaze of an
       envious world; to be bridled, and spurred at his pleasure, and
       whipped; to toil for him and bear burdens as he willed; to
       tread upon his enemies and trample his neighbors' fields. It
       was he, more than all others before or after, who made France
       that dumb creature which suffered and was still for a little
       longer time, and then began thinking and went mad.

    {1084}

    Charles XII. of Sweden.

       While the Powers of western Europe were wrestling in the great
       war of the Spanish Succession, the nations of the North and
       East were tearing each other, at the same time, with equal
       stubbornness and ferocity. The beginning of their conflict was
       a wanton attack from Russia, Poland and Denmark, on the
       possessions of Sweden. Sweden, in the past century, had made
       extensive, conquests, and her territories, outside of the
       Scandinavian peninsula, were thrust provokingly into the sides
       of all these three neighbors. There had been three Charleses
       on the Swedish throne in succession, following Christina, the
       daughter of Gustavus Adolphus. Queen Christina, an eccentric
       character, had abdicated in 1654, in order to join the
       Catholic Church, and had been succeeded by her cousin, Charles
       X. The six years reign of this Charles was one of constant war
       with the Danes and the Poles, and almost uniformly he was the
       aggressor. His son and successor, Charles XI., suffered the
       great defeat at Fehrbellin which gave prestige to Brandenburg;
       but he was shielded by the puissant arm of Louis XIV., his
       ally, and lost no territory. More successful in his domestic
       policy than in his wars, he, both practically and formally,
       established absolutism in the monarchy. Inheriting from his
       father that absolute power, while inheriting at the same time
       the ruthless ambition of his grandfather, Charles XII. came to
       the throne in 1697.

       In the first two years of his reign, this extraordinary young
       autocrat showed so little of his character that his royal
       neighbors thought him a weakling, and Peter the Great, of
       Russia, conspired with Augustus of Poland and Frederick IV. of
       Denmark to strip him of those parts of his dominion which they
       severally coveted. The result was like the rousing of a lion
       by hunters who went forth to pursue a hare. The young Swede,
       dropping, instantly and forever, all frivolities, sprang at
       his assailants before they dreamed of finding him awake, and
       the game was suddenly reversed. The hunters became the hunted,
       and they had no rest for nine years from the implacable
       pursuit of them which Charles kept up. He defeated the Danes
       and the Russians in the first year of the war (1700). In 1702
       he invaded Poland and occupied Warsaw; in 1704 he forced the
       deposition of the Saxon King of Poland, Augustus, and the
       election of Stanislaus Leczinski. Not yet satisfied, he
       followed Augustus into his electorate of Saxony, and compelled
       him there to renounce the Polish crown and the Russian
       alliance. In 1708 he invaded Russia, marching on Moscow, but
       turning aside to meet an expected ally, Mazeppa the Cossack.
       It was the mistake which Napoleon repeated a century later.
       The Swedes exhausted themselves in the march, and the Russians
       bided their time. Peter the Czar had devoted eight years,
       since Charles defeated him at Narva, to making soldiers,
       well-trained, out of the mob which that fight scattered. When
       Charles had worn his army down to a slender and disheartened
       force, Peter struck and destroyed it at Pultowa. Charles
       escaped from the wreck and took refuge, with a few hundreds of
       is guards, in the Turkish province of Bessarabia, at Bender. In
       that shelter, which the Ottomans hospitably accorded to him,
       he remained for five years, intriguing to bring the Porte into
       war with his Muscovite enemy, while all the fruits of his nine
       years of conquest in the North were stripped from him by the
       old league revived. Augustus returned to Poland and recovered
       his crown. Peter took possession of Livonia, Ingria, and a
       great part of Finland. Frederick IV., of Denmark, attacked
       Sweden itself. The kingless kingdom made a valiant defense
       against the crowd of eager enemies; but Charles had used the
       best of its energies and its resources, and it was not strong.

       Near the end of 1710, Charles succeeded in pushing the Sultan
       into war with the Czar, and the latter, advancing into
       Moldavia, rashly placed himself in a position of great peril,
       where the Turks had him really at their mercy. But Catherine,
       the Czarina, who was present, found means to bribe the Turkish
       vizier in command, and Peter escaped with no loss more serious
       than the surrender of Azov. That ended the war, and the hopes
       of the Swedish king. But still the stubborn Charles wearied
       the Porte with his importunities, until he was commanded to
       quit the country. Even then he refused to depart,--resisted
       when force was used to expel him, and did not take his leave
       until late in November, 1714, when he received intelligence
       that his subjects were preparing to appoint his sister regent
       of the kingdom and to make peace with the Czar. That news
       hurried him homeward; but only for continued war. He was about
       to make terms with Russia, and to secure her alliance against
       Denmark, Poland and Hanover, when he was killed during an
       invasion of Norway, in the siege of Friedrickshall (December,
       1718). The crown of Sweden was then conferred upon his sister,
       but shorn of absolute powers, and practically dependent upon
       the nobles. All the wars in which Charles XII. had involved
       his kingdom were brought to an end by great sacrifices, and
       Russia rose to the place of Sweden as the chief power in the
       North. The Swedes paid heavily for the career of their
       "Northern Alexander."

    Alliance against Spain.

       Before the belligerents in the North had quieted themselves,
       those of the West were again in arms. Spain had fallen under
       the influence of two eager and restless ambitions, that of the
       queen, Elizabeth of Parma, and an Italian minister, Cardinal
       Alberoni; and the schemes into which these two drew the
       Bourbon king, Philip V., soon ruptured the close relations
       with France which Louis XIV. had ruined his kingdom to bring
       about. To check them, a triple alliance was formed (1717)
       between France, England and Holland,--enlarged the next year
       to a quadruple alliance by the adhesion of Austria. At the
       outset of the war, Spain made a conquest of Sardinia, and
       almost accomplished the same in Sicily; but the English
       crushed her navy and her rising commerce, while the French
       crossed the Pyrenees with an army which the Spaniards could
       not resist. A vast combination which Alberoni was weaving, and
       which took in Charles XII., Peter the Great, the Stuart
       pretender, the English Jacobites, and the opponents of the
       regency in France, fell to pieces when the Swedish king fell.
       Alberoni was driven from Spain and all his plans were given
       up. The Spanish king withdrew from Sicily and surrendered
       Sardinia. The Emperor and the Duke of Savoy exchanged islands,
       as stated before, and the former (holding Naples already)
       revived the old Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, while the latter
       became King of Sardinia.

    {1085}

    War of the Polish Succession.

       These disturbances ended, there were a few years of rest in
       Europe, and then another war, of the character peculiar to the
       eighteenth century, broke out. It had its cause in the Polish
       election of a king to succeed Augustus II. As usual, the
       neighboring nations formed a betting ring of onlookers, so to
       speak, and "backed" their several candidates heavily. The
       deposed and exiled king, Stanislaus Leczinski, who received
       his crown from Charles XII. and lost it after Pultowa, was the
       French candidate; for he had married his daughter to Louis XV.
       Frederick Augustus of Saxony, son of the late King Augustus,
       was the Russian and Austrian candidate. The contest resulted
       in a double election (1733), and out of that came war. Spain
       and Sardinia joined France, and the Emperor had no allies.
       Hence the House of Austria suffered greatly in the war, losing
       the Two Sicilies, which went to Spain, and were conferred on a
       younger son of the king, creating a third Bourbon monarchy.
       Part of the duchy of Milan was also yielded by Austria to the
       King of Sardinia; and the Duke of Lorraine, husband of the
       Emperor's daughter, Maria Theresa, gave up his duchy to
       Stanislaus, who renounced therefor his claim on the crown of
       Poland. The Duke of Lorraine received as compensation a right
       of succession to the grand duchy of Tuscany, where the
       Medicean House was about to expire. These were the principal
       consequences, humiliating to Austria, of what is known as the
       First Family Compact of the French and Spanish Bourbons.

    War of Jenkins' Ear.

       This alliance between the two courts gave encouragement to
       hostile demonstrations in the Spanish colonies against English
       traders, who were accused of extensive smuggling, and the
       outcome was a petty war (1739), called "the War of Jenkins'
       Ear."

    War of the Austrian Succession.

       Before these hostilities were ended, another "war of
       succession," more serious than any before it, was wickedly
       brought upon Europe. The Emperor, Charles VI., died in 1740,
       leaving no son, but transmitting his hereditary dominions to
       his eldest daughter, the celebrated Maria Theresa, married to
       the ex-Duke of Lorraine. Years before his death he had sought
       to provide against any possible disputing of the succession,
       by an instrument known as the Pragmatic Sanction, to which he
       obtained, first, the assent of the estates of all the
       provinces and kingdoms of the Austrian realm, and, secondly,
       the guaranty by solemn treaty of almost every European Power.
       He died in the belief that he had established his daughter
       securely, and left her to the enjoyment of a peaceful reign.
       It was a pitiful illusion. He was scarcely in his grave before
       half the guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction were putting
       forward claims to this part and that part of the Austrian
       territories. The Elector of Bavaria, the Elector of Saxony (in
       his wife's name) and the King of Spain, claimed the whole
       succession; the two first mentioned on grounds of collateral
       lineage, the latter (a Bourbon cuckoo in the Spanish-Hapsburg
       nest) as being the heir of the Hapsburgs of Spain.

       While these larger pretensions were still jostling each other
       in the diplomatic stage, a minor claimant, who said little but
       acted powerfully, sent his demands to the Court of Vienna with
       an army following close at their heels. This was Frederick II.
       of Prussia, presently known as Frederick the Great, who
       resuscitated an obsolete claim on Silesia and took possession
       of the province (1740-41) without waiting for debate. If,
       anywhere, there had been virtuous hesitations before, his bold
       stroke ended them. France could not see her old Austrian rival
       dismembered without hastening to grasp a share. She contracted
       with the Spanish king and the Elector of Bavaria to enforce
       the latter's claims, and to take the Austrian Netherlands in
       prospect for compensation, while Spain should find indemnity
       in the Austro-Italian states. Frederick of Prussia, having
       Silesia in hand, offered to join Maria Theresa in the defense
       of her remaining dominions; but his proposals were refused,
       and he entered the league against her. Saxony did the same.
       England and Sardinia were alone in befriending Austria, and
       England was only strong at sea. Maria Theresa found her
       heartiest support in Hungary, where she made a personal appeal
       to her subjects, and enlarged their constitutional privileges.
       In 1742 the Elector of Bavaria was elected Emperor, as Charles
       VII. In the same year, Maria Theresa, acting under pressure
       from England, gave up the greater part of Silesia to
       Frederick, by treaty, as a price paid, not for the help he had
       offered at first, but barely for his neutrality. He abandoned
       his allies and withdrew from the war. His retirement produced
       an immense difference in the conditions of the contest. Saxony
       made peace at the same time, and became an active ally on the
       Austrian side. So rapidly did the latter then recover their
       ground and the French slip back that Frederick, after two
       years of neutrality, became alarmed, and found a pretext to
       take up arms again. The scale was now tipped to the side on
       which he threw himself, but not immediately; and when, in
       1745, the Emperor, Charles VII., died suddenly, Maria Theresa
       was able to secure the election of her husband, Francis of
       Lorraine (or Tuscany), which founded the Hapsburg-Lorraine
       dynasty on the imperial throne. This was in September. In the
       following December Frederick was in Dresden, and Saxony--the
       one effective ally left to the Austrians, since England had
       withdrawn from the war in the previous August--was at his
       feet. Maria Theresa, having the Spaniards and the French still
       to fight in Italy and the Netherlands, could do nothing but make
       terms with the terrible Prussian king. The treaty, signed at
       Dresden on Christmas Day, 1745, repeated the cession of
       Silesia to Frederick, with Glatz, and restored Saxony to the
       humbled Elector.

    Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

       France and Spain, deserted the second time by their faithless
       Prussian ally, continued the war until 1748, when the
       influence of England and Holland brought about a treaty of
       peace signed at Aix-la-Chapelle. France gained nothing from
       the war, but had suffered a loss of prestige, distinctly.
       Austria, besides giving up Silesia to Frederick of Prussia,
       was required to surrender a bit of Lombardy to the King of
       Sardinia, and to make over Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla to
       Don Philip of Spain, for a hereditary principality. Under the
       circumstances, the result to Maria Theresa was a notable
       triumph, and she shared with her enemy, Frederick, the
       fruitage of fame harvested in the war. But antagonism between
       these two, and between the interests and ambitions which they
       respectively represented--dynastic on one side and national
       on the other--was henceforth settled and irreconcilable, and
       could leave in Germany no durable peace.

    {1086}

    Colonial conflicts of France and England.

       The peace was broken, not for Germany alone, but for Europe
       and for almost the world at large, in six years after the
       signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. The rupture occurred
       first very far from Europe--on the other sides of the globe,
       in America and Hindostan, where England and France were eager
       rivals in colonial conquest. In America, they had quarreled
       since the Treaty of Utrecht over the boundaries of Acadia, or
       Nova Scotia, which that treaty transferred to England.
       Latterly, they had come to a more serious collision in the
       interior of the continent. The English, rooting their
       possession of the Atlantic seaboard by strong and stable
       settlements, had been tardy explorers and slow in passing the
       Alleganies to the region inland. On the other hand, the
       French, nimble and enterprising in exploration, and in
       military occupation, but superficial and artificial in
       colonizing, had pushed their way by a long circuit from
       Canada, through the great lakes to the head waters of the
       Ohio, and were fortifying a line in the rear of the British
       colonies, from the valley of the St. Lawrence to the valley of
       the Mississippi, before the English were well aware of their
       intent. Then the colonists, Virginians and Pennsylvanians,
       took arms, and the career of George Washington was begun as
       leader of an expedition in 1754 to drive the French from the
       Ohio. It was not successful, and a strong force of regular
       troops was sent over next year by the British government,
       under Braddock, to repeat the attempt. A frightful
       catastrophe, worse than failure, came of this second
       undertaking, and open war between France and England, which
       had not yet been declared, followed soon. This colonial
       conflict of England and France fired the train, so to speak,
       which caused a great explosion of suppressed hostilities in
       Europe.

    The House of Hanover in England.

       If the English crown had not been worn by a German king,
       having a German principality to defend, the French and English
       might have fought out their quarrel on the ocean, and in the
       wilderness of America, or on the plains of the Carnatic,
       without disturbing their continental neighbors. But England
       was now under a new, foreign-bred line of sovereigns,
       descended from that daughter of James I., the princess
       Elizabeth, who married the unfortunate Elector Palatine and
       was queen of Bohemia for a brief winter term. After William of
       Orange died, his wife, Queen Mary, having preceded him to the
       grave, and no children having been born to them, Anne, the
       sister of Mary, had been called to the throne. It was in her
       reign that the brilliant victories of Marlborough were won,
       and in her reign that the Union of Scotland with England,
       under one parliament as well as one sovereign, was brought
       about. On Anne's death (1714), her brother, the son of James
       II., called "the Pretender," was still excluded from the
       throne, because of his religion, and the next heir was sought
       and summoned, in the person of the Elector George, of Hanover,
       whose remote ancestress was Elizabeth Stuart. George I. had
       reigned thirteen years, and his son, George II., had been
       twenty-seven years on the throne, when these quarrels with
       France arose. Throughout the two reigns, until 1742, the
       English nation had been kept mostly at peace, by the potent
       influence of a great minister, Sir Robert Walpole, and had
       made a splendid advance in material prosperity and strength;
       while the system of ministerial government, responsible to
       Parliament and independent of the Crown, which has been in
       later times the peculiar feature of the British constitution,
       was taking shape. In 1742, Walpole fell from power, and the
       era of peace for England was ended. But her new dynasty had
       been firmly settled, and politically, industrially, and
       commercially, the nation was so sound in its condition as to
       be well prepared for the series of wars into which it plunged.
       In the War of the Austrian Succession England had taken a limited
       part, and with small results to herself. She was now about to
       enter, under the lead of the high spirited and ambitious Pitt,
       afterwards Earl of Chatham, the greatest career of conquest in
       her history.

    The Seven Years War.

       As before said, it was the anxiety of George II. for his
       electorate of Hanover which caused an explosion of hostilities
       in Europe to occur, as consequence of the remote fighting of
       French and English colonists in America. For the strengthening
       of Hanover against attacks from France, he sought an alliance
       with Frederick of Prussia. This broke the long-standing
       anti-French alliance of England with Austria, and Austria
       joined fortunes with her ancient Bourbon enemy, in order to be
       helped to the revenge which Maria Theresa now promised herself
       the pleasure of executing upon the Prussian king. As the
       combination finally shaped itself on the French side, it
       embraced France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Poland, Saxony, and
       the Palatinate, and its inspiring purpose was to break Prussia
       down and partition her territories, rather than to support
       France against England. The agreements to this end were made
       in secret; but Frederick obtained knowledge of them, and
       learned that papers proving the conspiracy against him were in
       the archives of the Saxony government, at Dresden. His action was
       decided with that promptitude which so often disconcerted his
       enemies. He did not wait to be attacked by the tremendous
       league formed against him, nor waste time in efforts to
       dissolve it, but defiantly struck the first blow. He poured
       his army into Saxony (August, 1756), seized Dresden by
       surprise, captured the documents he desired, and published
       them to the world in vindication of his summary precipitation
       of war. Then, blockading the Saxon army in Pirna, he pressed
       rapidly into Bohemia, defeated the Austrians at Lowositz, and
       returned as rapidly, to receive the surrender of the Saxons
       and to enlist most of them in his own ranks. This was the
       European opening of the Seven Years War, which raged, first
       and last, in all quarters of the globe. In the second year of
       the war, Frederick gained an important victory at Prague and
       suffered a serious reverse at Kolin, which threw most of
       Silesia into the hands of the Austrians. Close following that
       defeat came crushing news from Hanover, where the incompetent
       Duke of Cumberland, commanding for his father, the English
       King George, had allowed the French to force him to an
       agreement which disbanded his army, and left Prussia alone in
       the terrific fight. Frederick's position seemed desperate; but
       his energy retrieved it.
    {1087}
       He fought and defeated the French at Rossbach, near Lützen, on
       the 5th of November, and the Austrians, at Leuthen, near
       Breslau, exactly one month later. In the campaigns of 1758, he
       encountered the Russians at Zorndorf, winning a bloody
       triumph, and he sustained a defeat at Hochkirk, in battle with
       the Austrians. But England had repudiated Cumberland's
       convention and recalled him; English and Hanoverian forces
       were again put into the field, under the capable command of
       Prince Frederick of Brunswick, who turned the tide in that
       quarter against the French, and the results of the year were
       generally favorable to Frederick. In 1759, the Hanoverian
       army, under Prince Ferdinand, improved the situation on that
       side; but the prospects of the King of Prussia were clouded by
       heavy disasters. Attempting to push a victory over the
       Russians too far, at Kunersdorf, he was terribly beaten. He
       lost Dresden, and a great part of Saxony. In the next year he
       recovered all but Dresden, which he wantonly and inhumanly
       bombarded. The war was now being carried on with great
       difficulty by all the combatants. Prussia, France and Austria
       were suffering almost equally from exhaustion; the misery
       among their people was too great to be ignored; the armies of
       each had dwindled. The opponents of Pitt's war policy in
       England overcame him, in October, 1761, whereupon he resigned,
       and the English subsidy to Frederick was withdrawn. But that
       was soon made up to him by the withdrawal of Russia from the
       war, at the beginning of 1762, when Peter of Holstein, who
       admired Frederick, became Czar. Sweden made peace a little
       later. The remainder of the worn and wearied fighters went on
       striking at each other until near the end of the year.

       Meantime, on the colonial and East Indian side of it, this
       prodigious Seven Years War, as a great struggle for
       world-empire between England and France, had been adding
       conquest to conquest and triumph to triumph for the former. In
       1759, Wolfe had taken Quebec and died on the Heights of
       Abraham in the moment of victory. Another twelve months saw
       the whole of Canada clear of Frenchmen in arms. In the East,
       to use the language of Macaulay, "conquests equalling in
       rapidity and far surpassing in magnitude those of Cortes and
       Pizarro, had been achieved." "In the space of three years the
       English had founded a mighty empire. The French had been
       defeated in every part of India. Chandernagore had yielded to
       Clive, Pondicherry to Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa,
       and the Carnatic, the authority of the East India Company was
       more absolute than that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been."

    Treaties of Paris and Hubertsburg.

       In February, 1763, two treaties of peace were concluded, one
       at Paris, on the 10th, between England, France and Spain (the
       latter Power having joined France in the war as late as
       January, 1762); the other at Hubertsburg, on the 15th, between
       Prussia and Austria. France gave up to England all her
       possessions in North America, except Louisiana (which passed
       to Spain,), and yielded Minorca, but recovered the
       Philippines. She surrendered, moreover, considerable interests
       in the West Indies and in Africa. The colonial aspirations of
       the French were cast down by a blow that was lasting in its
       effect. As between Prussia and Austria, the triumphs of the
       peace and the glories of the war were won entirely by the
       former. Frederick came out of it, "Frederick the Great," the
       most famous man of his century, as warrior and as statesman,
       both. He had defended his little kingdom for seven years
       against three great Powers, and yielded not one acre of its
       territory. He had raised Prussia to the place in Germany from
       which her subsequent advance became easy and almost
       inevitable. But the great fame he earned is spotted with many
       falsities and much cynical indifference to the commonest
       ethics of civilization. His greatness is of that character
       which requires to be looked at from selected standpoints.

    Russia.

       Another character, somewhat resembling that of Frederick, was
       now drawing attention on the eastern side of Europe. Since the
       death of Peter the Great, the interval in Russian history had
       been covered by six reigns, with a seventh just opening, and
       the four sovereigns who really exercised power were women.
       Peter's widow, Catherine I., had succeeded him (1725) for two
       years. His son, Alexis, he had put to death; but Alexis left a
       son, Peter, to whom Catherine bequeathed the crown. Peter II.
       died after a brief reign, in 1730; and the nearest heirs were
       two daughters of Peter the Great, Anne and Elizabeth. But they
       were set aside in favor of another Anne--Anne of
       Courland--daughter of Peter the Great's brother. Anne's reign
       of ten years was under the influence of German favorites and
       ministers, and nearly half of it was occupied with a Turkish
       War, in cooperation with Austria. For Austria the war had most
       humiliating results, costing her Belgrade, all of Servia, part
       of Bosnia and part of Wallachia. Russia won back Asov, with
       fortifications forbidden, and that was all. Anne willed her
       crown to an infant nephew, who appears in the Russian annals
       as Ivan VI.; but two regencies were overthrown by palace
       revolutions within little more than a year, and the second one
       carried to the throne that Princess Elizabeth, younger
       daughter of Peter the Great, who had been put aside eleven
       years before. Elizabeth, a woman openly licentious and
       intemperate, reigned for twenty-one years, during the whole
       important period of the War of the Austrian Succession, and
       almost to the end of the Seven Years War. She was bitterly
       hostile to Frederick the Great, whose sharp tongue had
       offended her, and she joined Maria Theresa with eagerness in
       the great effort of revenge, which failed. In the early part
       of her reign, war with Sweden had been more successful and had
       added South Finland to the Russian territories. It is claimed
       for her domestic government that the general prosperity of the
       country was advanced.

    {1088}

    Catherine II.

       On the death of Elizabeth, near the end of the year 1761, the
       crown passed to her nephew, Peter of Holstein, son of her
       eldest sister, Anne, who had married the Duke of Holstein.
       This prince had been the recognized heir, living at the
       Russian court, during the whole of Elizabeth's reign. He was
       an ignorant boor, and he had become a besotted drunkard. Since
       1744 he had been married to a young German princess, of the
       Anhalt Zerbst family, who took the baptismal name of Catherine
       when she entered the Greek Church. Catherine possessed a superior
       intellect and a strong character; but the vile court into
       which she came as a young girl, bound to a disgusting husband,
       had debauched her in morals and lowered her to its own
       vileness. She gained so great an ascendancy that the court was
       subservient to her, from the time that her incapable husband,
       Peter III., succeeded to the throne. He reigned by sufferance
       for a year and a half, and then (July, 1762) he was easily
       deposed and put to death. In the deposition, Catherine was the
       leading actor. Of the subsequent murder, some historians are
       disposed to acquit her. She did not scruple, at least, to
       accept the benefit of both deeds, which raised her, alone, to
       the throne of the Czars.

    Partition of Poland.

       Peter III., in his short reign, had made one important change
       in Russian policy, by withdrawing from the league against
       Frederick of Prussia, whom he greatly admired. Catherine found
       reasons, quite aside from those of personal admiration, for
       cultivating the friendship of the King of Prussia, and a close
       understanding with that astute monarch was one of the earliest
       objects of her endeavor. She had determined to put an end to
       the independence of Poland. As she first entertained the
       design, there was probably no thought of the partitioning
       afterwards contrived. But her purpose was to keep the Polish
       kingdom in disorder and weakness, and to make Russian
       influence supreme in it, with views, no doubt, that looked
       ultimately to something more. On the death of the Saxon king
       of Poland, Augustus III., in 1763, Catherine put forward a
       native candidate for the vacant throne, in the person of
       Stanislaus Poniatowsky, a Russianized Pole and a former lover
       of her own. The King of Prussia supported her candidate, and
       Poniatowsky was duly elected, with 10,000 Russian troops in
       Warsaw to see that it was properly done. The Poles were
       submissive to the invasion of their political independence;
       but when Catherine, who sought to create a Russian party in
       Poland by protecting the members of the Greek Church and the
       Protestants, against the intolerance of the Polish Catholics,
       forced a concession of civil equality to the former (1768),
       there was a wide-spread Catholic revolt. In the fierce war
       which followed, a band of Poles was pursued across the Turkish
       border, and a Turkish town was burned by the Russian pursuers.
       The Sultan, who professed sympathy with the Poles, then
       declared war against Russia. The Russo-Turkish war, in turn,
       excited Austria, which feared Russian conquests from the
       Turks, and another wide disturbance of the peace of Europe
       seemed threatening. In the midst of the excitement there came
       a whispered suggestion, to the ear of the courts of Vienna and
       St. Petersburg, that they severally satisfy their territorial
       cravings and mutually assuage each other's jealousy, at the
       expense of the crumbling kingdom of Poland. The whisper may
       have come from Frederick II. of Prussia, or it may not. There
       are two opinions on the point. From whatever source it came,
       it found favorable consideration at Vienna and St. Petersburg,
       and between February and August, 1772, the details of the
       partition were worked out.

       Poland was not yet extinguished. The kingdom was only shorn of
       some 160,000 square miles of territory, more than half of
       which went to Russia, a third to Austria, and the remainder,
       less than 10,000 square miles, to Prussia. This last mentioned
       annexation was the old district of West Prussia which the
       Polish king, Casimir IV., had wrested from the Teutonic
       Knights in 1466, before Brandenburg had aught to do with
       Prussian lands or name. After three centuries, Frederick
       reclaimed it.

       The diminished kingdom of Poland showed more signs of a true
       national life, of an earnest national feeling, of a sobered
       and rational patriotism, than had appeared in its former
       history. The fatal powers monopolized by the nobles, the
       deadly "liberum veto," the corrupting elective kingship, were
       looked at in their true light, and in May, 1791, a new
       constitution was adopted which reformed those evils. But a few
       nobles opposed the reformation and appealed to Russia,
       supplying a pretext to Catherine on which she filled Poland
       with her troops. It was in vain that the patriot Kosciusko led
       the best of his countrymen in a brave struggle with the
       invader. They were overborne (1793-1794); the unhappy nation
       was put in fetters, while Catherine and a new King of Prussia,
       Frederick William II., arranged the terms of a second
       partition. This gave to Prussia an additional thousand square
       miles, including the important towns of Danzig and Thorn,
       while Russia took four times as much. A year later, the small
       remainder of Polish territory was dismembered and divided
       between Russia, Prussia and Austria, and thus Poland
       disappeared from the map of Europe as a state.

    Russia as left by Catherine II.

       Meantime, in her conflicts with the Turks, Catherine was
       extending her vast empire to the Dneister and the Caucasus,
       and opening a passage for her fleets from the Black Sea to the
       Mediterranean. By treaty in 1774 she placed the Tartars of the
       Crimea in independence of the Turks, and so isolated them for
       easy conquest. In 1783 the conquest was made complete. By the
       same treaty she secured a right of remonstrance on behalf of
       the Christian subjects of the Sultan, in the Danubian
       principalities and in the Greek Church at Constantinople,
       which opened many pretexts for future interference and for war
       at Russian convenience. The aggressions of the strong-willed
       and powerful Czarina, and their dazzling success, filled her
       subjects with pride, and effaced all remembrance of her
       foreign origin and her want of right to the seat which she
       filled. She was ambitious to improve the empire, as well as to
       expand it; for her liberal mind took in the large ideas of that
       speculative age and was much moved by them. She attempted many
       reforms; but most things that she tried to do for the
       bettering of civilization and the lifting of the people were
       done imperiously, and spoiled by the autocratic method of the
       doing. In her later years, her inclination towards liberal
       ideas was checked, and the French Revolution put an end to it.

    {1089}

    State of France in the Eighteenth Century.

       In tracing the destruction of Poland and the aggrandizement of
       Russia, we have passed the date of that great catastrophe in
       France which ended the old modern order of things, and
       introduced a new one, not for France only, but for Europe at
       large. It was a catastrophe toward which the abused French
       people had been slowly slipping for generations, pushed
       unrelentingly to it by blind rulers and a besotted
       aristocracy. By nature a people ardent and lively in temper,
       hopeful and brave in spirit, full of intelligence, they had
       been held down in dumb repression: silenced in voice, even for
       the uttering of their complaints; the national meeting of
       their representative States suppressed for nearly two
       centuries; taxes wrung from them on no measure save the will
       of a wanton-minded and ignorant king; their beliefs
       prescribed, their laws ordained, their courts of justice
       commanded, their industries directed, their trade hedged
       round, their rights and permissions in all particulars meted
       out to them by the same blundering and irresponsible
       autocracy. How long would they bear it? and would their
       deliverance come by the easing of their yoke, or by the
       breaking of it?--were the only questions.

       Their state was probably at its worst in the later years of
       Louis XIV. That seems to be the conclusion which the deepest
       study has now reached, and the picture formerly drawn by
       historians, of a society continually sinking into lower
       miseries, is mostly put aside. The worst state, seemingly, was
       passed, or nearly so, when Louis XIV. died. It began to mend
       under his despicable successor, Louis XV. (1715-1774),--
       perhaps even during the regency of the profligate Orleans
       (1715-1723). Why it mended, no historian has clearly
       explained. The cause was not in better government; for the
       government grew worse. It did not come from any rise in
       character of the privileged classes; for the privileged
       classes abused their privileges with increasing selfishness.
       But general influences were at work in the world at large,
       stimulating activities of all kinds,--industry, trade,
       speculation, combination, invention, experiment, science,
       philosophy,--and whatever improvement occurred in the material
       condition and social state of the common people of France may
       find its explanation in these. There was an augmentation of
       life in the air of the eighteenth century, and France took
       some invigoration from it, despite the many maladies in its
       social system and the oppressions of government under which it
       bent.

       But the difference between the France of Louis XIV. and the
       France of Louis XVI. was more in the people than in their
       state. If their misery was a little less, their patience was
       less, and by not a little. The stimulations of the age, which
       may have given more effectiveness to labor and more energy to
       trade, had likewise set thinking astir, on the same practical
       lines. Men whose minds in former centuries would have labored
       on riddles dialectical, metaphysical and theological, were now
       bent on the pressing problems of daily life. The mysteries of
       economic science began to challenge them. Every aspect of
       surrounding society thrust questions upon them, concerning its
       origin, its history, its inequalities, its laws and their
       principles, its government and the source of authority in it.
       The so-called "philosophers" of the age, Rousseau, Voltaire
       and the encyclopædists--were not the only questioners of the
       social world, nor did the questioning all come from what they
       taught. It was the intellectual epidemic of the time, carried
       into all countries, penetrating all classes, and nowhere with
       more diffusion than in France.

       After the successful revolt of the English colonies in
       America, and the conspicuous blazoning of the doctrines of
       political equality and popular self-government in their
       declaration of independence and their republican constitution,
       the ferment of social free-thinking in France was naturally
       increased. The French had helped the colonists, fought side by
       side with them, watched their struggle with intense interest,
       and all the issues involved in the American revolution were
       discussed among them, with partiality to the republican side.
       Franklin, most republican representative of the young
       republic, came among them and captivated every class. He
       recommended to them the ideas for which he stood, perhaps more
       than we suspect.

    Louis XVI. and his reign.

       And thus, by many influences, the French people of all classes
       except the privileged nobility, and even in that class to some
       small extent, were made increasingly impatient of their
       misgovernment and of the wrongs and miseries going with it.
       Louis XVI., who came to the throne in 1774, was the best in
       character of the Bourbon kings. He had no noxious vices and no
       baleful ambitions. If he had found right conditions prevailing
       in his kingdom he would have made the best of them. But he had
       no capacity for reforming the evils that he inherited, and no
       strength of will to sustain those who had. He accepted an
       earnest reforming minister with more than willingness, and
       approved the wise measures of economy, of equitable taxation,
       and of emancipation for manufactures and trade, which Turgot
       proposed. But when protected interests, and the privileged
       order which fattened on existing abuses, raised a storm of
       opposition, he weakly gave way to it, and dismissed the man
       (1776) who might possibly have made the inevitable revolution
       a peaceful one. Another minister, the Genevan banker, Necker,
       who aimed at less reform, but demanded economy, suffered the
       same overthrow (1781). The waste, the profligate expenditure,
       the jobbery, the leeching of the treasury by high-born
       pensioners and sinecure office-holders, went on, scarcely
       checked, until the beginnings of actual bankruptcy had
       appeared.

    The States-General.

       Then a cry, not much heeded before, for the convocation of the
       States-general of the kingdom--the ancient great legislature
       of France, extinct since the year 1614--became loud and
       general. The king yielded (1788). The States-general was
       called to meet on the 1st of May, 1789, and the royal summons
       decreed that the deputies chosen to it from the third
       estate--the common people--should be equal in number to the
       deputies of the nobility and the clergy together. So the dumb
       lips of France as a nation were opened, its tongue unloosed,
       its common public opinion, and public feeling made articulate,
       for the first time in one hundred and seventy-five years. And
       the word that it spoke was the mandate of Revolution.

       The States-general assembled at Versailles on the 5th of May,
       and a conflict between the third estate and the nobles
       occurred at once on the question between three assemblies and
       one. Should the three orders deliberate and vote together as
       one body, or sit and act separately and apart. The commons
       demanded the single assembly. The nobles and most of the
       clergy refused the union, in which their votes would be
       overpowered.

    {1090}

    The National Assembly.

       After some weeks of dead-lock on this fundamental issue, the
       third estate brought it to a summary decision, by boldly
       asserting its own supremacy, as representative of the mass of
       the nation, and organizing itself in the character of the
       "National Assembly" of France. Under that name and character
       it was joined by a considerable part of the humbler clergy,
       and by some of the nobles,--additional to a few, like
       Mirabeau, who sat from the beginning with the third estate, as
       elected representatives of the people. The king made a weak
       attempt to annul this assumption of legislative sufficiency on
       the part of the third estate, and only hurried the exposure of
       his own powerlessness. Persuaded by his worst advisers to
       attempt a stronger demonstration of the royal authority, he
       filled Paris with troops, and inflamed the excitement, which
       had risen already to a passionate heat.

    Outbreak of the Revolution.

       Necker, who had been recalled to the ministry when the meeting
       of the States-general was decided upon, now received his
       second dismissal (July 11), and the news of it acted on Paris
       like a signal of insurrection. The city next day was in
       tumult. On the 14th the Bastile was attacked and taken. The
       king's government vanished utterly. His troops fraternized
       with the riotous people. Citizens of Paris organized
       themselves as a National Guard, on which every hope of order
       depended, and Lafayette took command. The frightened nobility
       began flight, first from Paris, and then from the provinces,
       as mob violence spread over the kingdom from the capital. In
       October there were rumors that the king had planned to follow
       the "émigrés" and take refuge in Metz. Then occurred the
       famous rising of the women; their procession to Versailles;
       the crowd of men which followed, accompanied but not
       controlled by Lafayette and his National Guards; the
       conveyance of the king and royal family to Paris, where they
       remained during the subsequent year, practically in captivity,
       and at the mercy of the Parisian mob.

       Meanwhile, the National Assembly, negligent of the dangers of
       the moment, while actual anarchy prevailed, busied itself with
       debates on constitutional theory, with enactments for the
       abolition of titles and privileges, and with the creating of
       an inconvertible paper money, based on confiscated church
       lands, to supply the needs of the national treasury. Meantime,
       too, the members of the Assembly and their supporters outside
       of it were breaking into parties and factions, divided by
       their different purposes, principles and aims, and forming
       clubs,--centers of agitation and discussion,--clubs of the
       Jacobins, the Cordeliers, the Feuillants and the like,--where
       fear, distrust and jealousy were soon engendering ferocious
       conflicts among the revolutionists themselves. And outside of
       France, on the border where the fugitive nobles lurked,
       intrigue was always active, striving to enlist foreign help
       for King Louis against his subjects.

    The First Constitution.

       In April, 1791, Mirabeau, whose influence had been a powerful
       restraint upon the Revolution, died. In June, the king made an
       attempt to escape from his durance in Paris, but was captured
       at Varennes and brought back. Angry demands for his deposition
       were now made, and a tumultuous republican demonstration
       occurred, on the Champ de Mars, which Lafayette and the mayor
       of Paris, Bailly, dispersed, with bloodshed. But republicanism
       had not yet got its footing. In the constitution, which the
       Assembly completed at this time, the throne was left
       undisturbed. The king accepted the instrument, and a
       constitutional monarchy appeared to have quietly taken the
       place of the absolute monarchy of the past.

    The Girondists.

       It was an appearance not long delusive. The Constituent
       National Assembly being dissolved, gave way to a Legislative
       Assembly (October, 1791) elected under the new constitution.
       In the Legislative Assembly the republicans appeared with a
       strength which soon gave them control of it. They were divided
       into various groups; but the most eloquent and energetic of
       these, coming from Bordeaux and the department of the Gironde,
       fixed the name of Girondists upon the party to which they
       belonged. The king, as a constitutional sovereign, was forced
       presently to choose ministers from the ranks of the
       Girondists, and they controlled the government for several
       months in the spring of 1792. The earliest use they made of
       their control was to hurry the country into war with the
       German powers, which were accused of giving encouragement to
       the hostile plans of the émigrés on the border. It is now a
       well-determined fact that the Emperor Leopold was strongly
       opposed to war with France, and used all his influence for the
       preservation of peace. It was revolutionary France which
       opened the conflict, and it was the Girondists who led and
       shaped the policy of war.

    Overthrow of the Monarchy.

       In the first encounters of the war, the undisciplined French
       troops were beaten, and Paris was in panic. Measures were
       adopted which the king refused to sanction, and he dismissed
       his Girondist ministers. Lafayette, who was commanding one
       division of the army in the field, approved the king's course,
       and wrote an unwise letter to the Assembly, intimating that
       the army would not submit to a violation of the constitution.
       The republicans were enraged. Everything seemed proof to them
       of a treasonable connivance with the enemies of France, to
       bring about the subjugation of the country, and a forcible
       restoration of the old regime, absolutism, aristocratic
       privilege and all. On the 20th of June there was another
       rising of the Paris mob, unchecked by those who could, as yet,
       have controlled it. The rioters broke into the Tuileries and
       humiliated the king and queen with insults, but did no
       violence. Lafayette came to Paris and attempted to reorganize
       his old National Guard, for the defense of the constitution
       and the preservation of order, but failed. The extremists then
       resolved to throw down the toppling monarchy at once, by a
       sudden blow. In the early morning of August 10, they expelled
       the Council-General of the Municipality of Paris from the
       Hotel de Ville, and placed the government of the city under
       the control of a provisional Commune, with Danton at its head.
    {1091}
       At the same hour, the mob which these conspirators held in
       readiness, and which they directed, attacked the Tuileries and
       massacred the Swiss guard, while the king and the royal family
       escaped for refuge to the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly,
       near at hand. There, in the king's presence, on a formal
       demand made by the new self-constituted Municipality or
       Commune of Paris, the Assembly declared his suspension from
       executive functions, and invited the people to elect without
       delay a National Convention for the revising of the
       Constitution. Commissioners, hastily sent out to the provinces
       and the armies in the field, were received everywhere with
       submission to the change of government, except by Lafayette
       and his army, in and around Sedan. The Marquis placed them
       under arrest and took from his soldiers a new oath of fidelity
       to the constitution and the king. But he found himself
       unsupported, and, yielding to the sweep of events, he obeyed a
       dismissal by the new government from his command, and left
       France, to wait in exile for a time when he might serve his
       Country with a conscience more assured.

    The Paris Commune.

       Pending the meeting of the Convention, the Paris Commune,
       increased in number to two hundred and eighty-eight, and
       dominated by Danton and Robespierre, became the governing
       power in France. The Legislative Assembly was subservient to
       it; the kingless Ministry, which had Danton in association
       with the restored Girondists, was no less so. It was the
       fierce vigor of the Commune which caused the king and the
       royal family to be imprisoned in the Temple; which instituted
       a special tribunal for the summary trial of political
       prisoners; which searched Paris for "suspects," on the night
       of August 29-30, gathered three thousand men and women into
       the prisons and convents of the city, planned and ordered the
       "September Massacres" of the following week, and thus thinned
       the whole number of these "suspects" by a half.

    Fall of the Girondists.

       On the 22d of September the National Convention assembled. The
       Jacobins who controlled the Commune were found to have carried
       Paris overwhelmingly and all France largely with them, in the
       election of representatives. A furious, fanatical democracy, a
       bloodthirsty anarchism, was in the ascendant. The republican
       Girondists were now the conservative party in the Convention.
       They struggled to hold their ground, and very soon they were
       struggling for their lives. The Jacobin fury was tolerant of
       no opposition. What stood in its path, with no deadlier weapon
       than an argument or an appeal, must be, not merely overcome,
       but destroyed. The Girondists would have saved the king from
       the guillotine, but they dared not adopt his defense, and
       their own fate was sealed when they gave votes, under fear,
       which sent him in January to his death. Five months longer
       they contended irresolutely, as a failing faction, with their
       terrible adversaries, and then, in June, 1793, they were
       proscribed and their arrest decreed. Some escaped and raised
       futile insurrections in the provinces. Some stayed and faced
       the death which awaited them in the fast approaching "reign of
       terror."

    "The Mountain" and "the Terror."

       The fall of the Girondists left the Jacobin "Mountain"
       (so-called from the elevation of the seats on which its
       deputies sat in the Convention) unopposed. Their power was not
       only absolute in fact, but unquestioned, and they inevitably
       ran to riot in the exercise of it. The same madness overcame
       them in the mass which overcame Nero, Caligula, Caracalla, as
       individuals; for it is no more strange that the unnatural and
       awful feeling of unlimited dominion over one's fellows should
       turn the brain of a suddenly triumphant faction, than that it
       should madden a single shallow-minded man. The men of "the
       Mountain" were not only masters of France--except in La Vendée
       and the neighboring region south of the Loire, where an obstinate
       insurrection had broken out--but the armies which obeyed them
       had driven back the invading Germans, had occupied the
       Austrian Netherlands and taken possession of Savoy and Nice.
       Intoxicated by these successes, the Convention had proclaimed
       a crusade against all monarchical government, offering the
       help of France to every people which would rise against
       existing authorities, and declaring enmity to those who
       refused alliance with the Revolution. Holland was attacked and
       England forced to war. The spring of 1793 found a great
       European coalition formed against revolutionary France, and
       justified by the aggressions of the Jacobinical government.

       For effective exercise of the power of the Jacobins, the
       Convention as a whole proved too large a body, even when it
       had been purged of Girondist opposition. Its authority was now
       gathered into the hands of the famous Committee of Public
       Safety, which became, in fact, the Revolutionary Government,
       controlling the national armies, and the whole administration
       of domestic and foreign affairs. Its reign was the Reign of
       Terror, and the fearful Revolutionary Tribunal, which began
       its bloody work with the guillotine in October, 1793, was the
       chief instrument of its power. Robespierre, Barère, St. Just,
       Couthon, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d' Herbois and Carnot--the
       latter devoted to the business of the war--were the
       controlling members of the Committee. Danton withdrew from it,
       refusing to serve.

       In September, the policy of terrorism was avowedly adopted,
       and, in the language of the Paris Commune, "the Reign of
       Terror" became "the order of the day." The arraignment of
       "suspects" before the Revolutionary Tribunal began. On the
       14th of October Marie Antoinette was put on trial; on the 16th
       she met her death. On the 31st the twenty-one imprisoned
       Girondist deputies were sent to the guillotine; followed on
       the 10th of November by the remarkable woman, Madame Roland,
       who was looked upon as the real leader of their party. From
       that time until the mid-summer following, the blood-madness
       raged; not in Paris alone, but throughout France, at Lyons,
       Marseilles, Toulon, Bordeaux, Nantes, and wherever a show of
       insurrection and resistance had challenged the ferocity of the
       Commissioners of the Revolutionary Government, who had been
       sent into the provinces with unlimited death-dealing powers.

    {1092}

       But when Jacobinism had destroyed all exterior opposition, it
       began very soon to break into factions within itself. There
       was a pitch in its excesses at which even Danton and
       Robespierre became conservatives, as against Hébert and the
       atheists of his faction. A brief struggle ensued, and the
       Hébertists, in March, 1794, passed under the knife of the
       guillotine. A month later Danton's enemies had rallied and he,
       with his followers, went down before their attack, and the
       sharp knife in the Place de la Revolution silenced his bold
       tongue. Robespierre remained dominant for a few weeks longer
       in the still reigning Committee of Public Safety; but his
       domination was already undermined by many fears, distrusts and
       jealousies among his colleagues and throughout his party. His
       downfall came suddenly on the 27th of July. On the morning of
       that day he was the dictator of the Convention and of its
       ruling committee; at night he was a headless corpse, and Paris
       was shouting with joy.

       On the death of Robespierre the Reign of Terror came quickly
       to an end. The reaction was sudden and swift. The Committee of
       Public Safety was changed; of the old members only Carnot,
       indispensable organizer of war, remained. The Revolutionary
       Tribunal was remodeled. The Jacobin Club was broken up. The
       surviving Girondist deputies came back to the Convention.
       Prosecution of the Terrorists for their crimes began. A new
       struggle opened, between the lower elements in Parisian and
       French society, the sansculotte elements, which had controlled
       the Revolution thus far, and the middle class, the
       bourgeoisie, long cowed and suppressed, but now rallying to
       recover its share of power. Bourgeoisie triumphed in the
       contest. The Sansculottes made their last effort in a rising
       on the 1st Prairial (May 20, 1795) and were put down. A new
       constitution was framed which organized the government of the
       Republic under a legislature in two chambers,--a Council of
       Five Hundred and a Council of Ancients,--with an executive
       Directory of Five. But only one third of the legislature first
       assembled was to be freely elected by the people. The
       remaining two thirds were to be taken from the membership of
       the existing Convention. Paris rejected this last mentioned
       feature of the constitution, while France at large ratified
       it. The National Guard of Paris rose in insurrection on the
       13th Vendémiare (October 5), and it was on this occasion that
       the young Corsican officer, Napoleon Bonaparte, got his foot
       on the first round of the ladder by which he climbed
       afterwards to so great a height. Put in command of the regular
       troops in Paris, which numbered only 5,000, against 30,000 of the
       National Guards, he crushed the latter in an action of an
       hour. That hour was the opening hour of his career.

       The government of the Directory was instituted on the 27th of
       October following. Of its five members, Carnot and Barras were
       the only men of note, then or afterwards.

    The war with the Coalition.

       While France was cowering under "the Terror," its armies,
       under Jourdan, Hoche, and Pichegru, had withstood the great
       European combination with astonishing success. The allies were
       weakened by ill feeling between Prussia and Austria over the
       second partition of Poland, and generally by a want of concert
       and capable leadership in their action. On the other side, the
       democratic military system of the Republic, under Carnot's
       keen eyes, was continually bringing forward fresh soldierly
       talent to the front. The fall of the Jacobins made no change
       in that vital department of the administration, and the
       successes of the French were continued. In the summer of 1794
       they carried the war into Germany, and expelled the allies
       from the Austrian Netherlands. Thence they invaded Holland,
       and before the end of January, 1795, they were masters of the
       country; the Stadtholder had fled to England, and a Batavian
       Republic had been organized. Spain had suffered losses in
       battle with them along the Pyrenees, and the King of Sardinia
       had yielded to them the passes of the Maritime Alps. In April
       the King of Prussia made peace with France. Before the close
       of the year 1795 the revolt in La Vendée was at an end; Spain
       had made peace; Pichegru had attempted a great betrayal of the
       armies on the Rhine, and had failed.

    Napoleon in Italy.

       This in brief was the situation at the opening of the year
       1796, when the "little Corsican officer," who won the
       confidence of the new government of the Directory by saving
       its constitution on the 13th Vendemiare, planned the campaign
       of the year, and received the command of the army sent to
       Italy. He attacked the Sardinians in April, and a single month
       sufficed to break the courage of their king and force him to a
       treaty of peace. On the 10th of May he defeated the Austrians
       at Lodi; on the 15th he was in Milan. Lombardy was abandoned
       to him; all central Italy was at his mercy, and he began to
       act the sovereign conqueror in the peninsula, with a contempt
       for the government at Paris which he hardly concealed. Two
       ephemeral republics were created under his direction, the
       Cisalpine, in Lombardy, and the Cispadane, embracing Modena,
       Ferrara and Bologna. The Papacy was shorn of part of its
       territories.

       Every attempt made by the Austrians to shake the hold which
       Bonaparte had fastened on the peninsula only fixed it more
       firmly. In the spring he began movements beyond the Alps, in
       concert with Hoche on the Rhine, which threatened Vienna
       itself and frightened Austria into proposals of peace.
       Preliminaries, signed in April, foreshadowed the hard terms of
       the treaty concluded at Campo Formio in the following October.
       Austria gave up her Netherland provinces to France, and part
       of her Italian territories to the Cisalpine Republic; but
       received, in partial compensation, the city of Venice and a
       portion of the dominions of the Venetian state; for, between
       the armistice and the treaty, Bonaparte had attacked and
       overthrown the venerable republic, and now divided it with his
       humbled enemy.

    France under the Directory.

       The masterful Corsican, who handled these great matters with
       the airs of a sovereign, may have known himself already to be
       the coming master of France. For the inevitable submission
       again of the many to one was growing plain to discerning eyes.
       The frightful school-teaching of the Revolution had not
       impressed practical lessons in politics on the mind of the
       untrained democracy, so much as suspicions, distrusts, and
       alarms. All the sobriety of temper, the confidence of feeling,
       the constraining habit of public order, without which the
       self-government of a people is impracticable, were yet to be
       acquired. French democracy was not more prepared for
       republican institutions in 1797 than it had been in 1789.
    {1093}
       There was no more temperance in its factions, no more balance
       between parties, no more of a steadying potency in public
       opinion. But it had been brought to a state of feeling that
       would prefer the sinking of all factions under some vigorous
       autocracy, rather than another appeal of their quarrels to the
       guillotine. And events were moving fast to a point at which
       that choice would require to be made. The summer of 1797 found
       the members of the Directory in hopeless conflict with one
       another and with the legislative councils. On the 4th of
       September a "coup d' état," to which Bonaparte contributed
       some help, purged both the Directory and the Councils of men
       obnoxious to the violent faction, and exiled them to Guiana.
       Perhaps the moment was favorable then for a soldier, with the
       great prestige that Bonaparte had won, to mount to the seat of
       power; but he did not so judge.

    The Expedition to Egypt.

       He planned, instead, an expedition to Egypt, directed against
       the British power in the East,--an expedition that failed in
       every object it could have, except the absence in which it
       kept him from increasing political disorders at home. He was
       able to maintain some appearance of success, by his
       subjugation of Egypt and His invasion of Syria; but of harm
       done to England, or of gain to France in the Mediterranean,
       there was none; since Nelson, at the battle of the Nile,
       destroyed the French fleet, and Turkey was added to the
       Anglo-Austrian coalition. The blunder of the expedition, as
       proved by its whole results, was not seen by the French people
       so plainly, however, as they saw the growing hopelessness of
       their own political state, and the alarming reverses which
       their armies in Italy and on the Rhine had sustained since
       Bonaparte went away.

    French Aggressions.--The new Coalition.

       Continued aggressions on the part of the French had provoked a
       new European coalition, formed in 1798. In Switzerland they
       had overthrown the ancient constitution of the confederacy,
       organizing a new Helvetic Republic on the Gallic model, but
       taking Geneva to themselves. In Italy they had set up a third
       republic, the Roman, removing the Pope forcibly from his
       sovereignty and from Rome. Every state within reach had then
       taken fresh alarm, and even Russia, undisturbed in the
       distance, was now enlisted against the troublesome democracy
       of France.

       The unwise King of Naples, entering rashly into the war before
       his allies could support him, and hastening to restore the
       Pope, had been driven (December, 1798) from his kingdom, which
       underwent transformation into a fourth Italian republic, the
       Parthenopeian. But this only stimulated the efforts of the
       Coalition, and in the course of the following year the French
       were expelled from all Italy, saving Genoa alone, and the
       ephemeral republics they had set up were extinguished. On the
       Rhine they had lost ground; but they had held their own in
       Switzerland, after a fierce struggle with the Russian forces
       of Suwarrow.

    Napoleon in power.

       When news of these disasters, and of the ripeness of the
       situation at Paris for a new coup d' état, reached Bonaparte,
       in Egypt, he deserted his army there, leaving it, under
       Kléber, in a helpless situation, and made his way back to
       France. He landed at Fréjus on the 9th of October. Precisely a
       month later, by a combination with Sieyès, a veteran
       revolutionist and maker of constitutions, he accomplished the
       overthrow of the Directory. Before the year closed, a fresh
       constitution was in force, which vested substantially
       monarchical powers in an executive called the First Consul,
       and the chosen First Consul was Napoleon Bonaparte. Two
       associate Consuls, who sat with him, had no purpose but to
       conceal for a short time the real absoluteness of his rule.

       From that time, for fifteen years, the history of France--it
       is almost possible to say the history of Europe--is the story
       of the career of the extraordinary Corsican adventurer who
       took possession of the French nation, with unparalleled
       audacity, and who used it, with all that pertained to
       it--lives, fortunes, talents, resources--in the most
       prodigious and the most ruthless undertakings of personal
       ambition that the modern world has ever seen. He was
       selfishness incarnate; and he was the incarnation of genius in
       all those modes of intellectual power which bear upon the
       mastery of momentary circumstances and the mastery of men. But
       of the higher genius that might have worthily employed such
       vast powers,--that might have enlightened and inspired a
       really great ambition in the man, to make himself an enduring
       builder of civilization in the world, he had no spark. The
       soul behind his genius was ignoble, the spirit was mean. And
       even on the intellectual side, his genius had its narrowness.
       His projects of selfishness were extraordinary, but never
       sagacious, never far-sighted, thoughtfully studied, wisely
       planned. There is no appearance in any part of his career of a
       pondered policy, guiding him to a well-determined end in what
       he did. The circumstances of any moment, whether on the
       battle-field or in the political arena, he could handle with a
       swift apprehension, a mastery and a power that may never have
       been surpassed. But much commoner men have apprehended and
       have commanded in a larger and more successful way the general
       sweep of circumstances in their lives. It is that fact which
       belittles Napoleon in the comparison often made between him
       and Cæsar. He was probably Cæsar's equal in war. But who can
       imagine Cæsar in Napoleon's place committing the blunders of
       blind arrogance which ruined the latter in Germany and Spain,
       or making his fatuous attempt to shut England, the great naval
       power, out of continental Europe?

       His domestic administration was beneficial to France in many
       ways. He restored order, and maintained it, with a powerful
       hand. He suppressed faction effectually, and eradicated for
       the time all the political insanities of the Revolution. He
       exploited the resources of the country with admirable success;
       for his discernment in such matters was keen and his practical
       judgment was generally sound. But he consumed the nation
       faster than he gave it growth. His wars--the wars in which
       Europe was almost unceasingly kept by the aggression of his
       insolence and his greed--were the most murderous, the most
       devouring, that any warrior among the civilized races of
       mankind has ever been chargeable with.
    {1094}
       His blood-guiltiness in these wars is the one glaring fact
       which ought to be foremost in every thought of them. But it is
       not. There is a pitiable readiness in mankind to be dazzled
       and cheated by red battle-lights, when it looks into history
       for heroes; and few figures have been glorified more
       illusively in the world's eye than the marvelous warrior, the
       vulgar-minded adventurer, the prodigy of self-exalting genius,
       Napoleon Bonaparte.

       In the first year of his Consulate, Bonaparte recovered Italy,
       by the extraordinary Marengo campaign, while Moreau won the
       victory of Hohenlinden, and the Treaty of Luneville was
       brought about. Austria obtained peace again by renewing the
       concessions of Campo Formio, and by taking part in a
       reconstruction of Germany, under Bonaparte's dictation, which
       secularized the ecclesiastical states, extinguished the
       freedom of most of the imperial cities, and aggrandized
       Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden and Saxony, as protégés and
       dependencies of France. England was left alone in the war,
       with much hostile feeling raised against her in Europe and
       America by the arrogant use she had made of her mastery of the
       sea. The neutral powers had all been embittered by her
       maritime pretensions, and Bonaparte now brought about the
       organization among them of a Northern League of armed
       neutrality. England broke it with a single blow, by Nelson's
       bombardment of Copenhagen. Napoleon, however, had conceived
       the plan of starving English industries and ruining British
       trade by a "continental system" of blockade against them,
       which involved the compulsory exclusion of British ships and
       British goods from all European countries. This impossible
       project committed him to a desperate struggle for the
       subjugation of Europe. It was the fundamental cause of his
       ruin.

    The First Empire.

       In 1802 the First Consul advanced his restoration of
       absolutism in France a second step, by securing the Consulate
       for life. A short interval of peace with England was arranged,
       but war broke out anew the following year, and the English for
       a time had no allies. The French occupied Hanover, and the
       Germans were quiescent. But in 1804, Bonaparte shocked Europe
       by the abduction and execution of the Bourbon prince, Duc
       d'Enghien, and began to challenge again the interference of
       the surrounding powers by a new series of aggressive measures.
       His ambition had thrown off all disguises; he had transformed
       the Republic of France into an Empire, so called, and himself,
       by title, into an Emperor, with an imposing crown. The
       Cisalpine or Italian Republic received soon afterwards the
       constitution of a kingdom, and he took the crown to himself as
       King of Italy. Genoa and surrounding territory (the Ligurian
       Republic) were annexed, at nearly the same time, to France;
       several duchies were declared to be dependencies, and an
       Italian principality was given to Napoleon's elder sister. The
       effect produced in Europe by such arbitrary and admonitory
       proceedings as these enabled Pitt, the younger, now at the
       head of the English government, to form an alliance (1805),
       first with Russia, afterwards with Austria, Sweden and Naples,
       and finally with Prussia, to break the yoke which the French
       Emperor had put upon Italy, Holland, Switzerland and Hanover,
       and to resist his further aggressions.

    Austerlitz and Trafalgar.

       The amazing energy and military genius of Napoleon never had
       more astonishing proof than in the swift campaign which broke
       this coalition at Ulm and Austerlitz. Austria was forced to
       another humiliating treaty, which surrendered Venice and
       Venetia to the conqueror's new Kingdom of Italy; gave up Tyrol
       to Bavaria; yielded other territory to Würtemberg, and raised
       both electors to the rank of kings, while making Baden a grand
       duchy, territorially enlarged. Prussia was dragged by force
       into alliance with France, and took Hanover as pay. But
       England triumphed at the same time on her own element, and
       Napoleon's dream of carrying his legions across the Channel,
       as Cæsar did, was forever dispelled by Nelson's dying victory
       at Trafalgar. That battle, which destroyed the combined navies
       of France and Spain, ended hope of contending successfully
       with the relentless Britons at sea.

    End of the Holy Roman Empire.

       France was never permitted to learn the seriousness of
       Trafalgar, and it put no check on the vaulting ambition in
       Napoleon which now began to o'erleap itself. He gave free rein
       to his arrogance in all directions. The King of Naples was
       expelled from his kingdom and the crown conferred on Joseph
       Bonaparte. Louis Bonaparte was made King of Holland. Southern
       Germany was suddenly reconstructed again. The little kingdoms
       of Napoleon's creation and the small states surrounding them
       were declared to be separated from the ancient Empire, and
       were formed into a Confederation of the Rhine, under the
       protection of France. Warned by this rude announcement of the
       precarious tenure of his imperial title as the head of the
       Holy Roman Empire, Francis II. resigned it, and took to
       himself, instead, a title as meaningless as that which
       Napoleon had assumed,--the title of Emperor of Austria. The
       venerable fiction of the Holy Roman Empire disappeared from
       history on the 6th of August, 1806.

    Subjugation of Prussia.

       But while Austria had become submissive to the offensive
       measures of Napoleon, Prussia became now fired with
       unexpected, sudden wrath, and declared war in October, 1800.
       It was a rash explosion of national resentment, and the
       rashness was dearly paid for. At Jena and Auerstadt, Prussia
       sank under the feet of the merciless conqueror, as helplessly
       subjugated as a nation could be. Russia, attempting her
       rescue, was overcome at Eylau and Friedland; and both the
       vanquished powers came to terms with the victor at Tilsit
       (July, 1807). The King of Prussia gave up all his kingdom west
       of the Elbe, and all that it had acquired in the second and
       third partitions of Poland. A new German kingdom, of
       Westphalia, was constructed for Napoleon's youngest brother,
       Jerome. A free state of Danzig, dependent on France, and a
       Grand Duchy of Warsaw, were created. The Russian Czar, bribed
       by some pieces of Polish Prussia, and by prospective
       acquisitions from Turkey and Sweden, became an ally of
       Napoleon and an accomplice in his plans for the subjection of
       Europe. He enlisted his empire in the "continental system"
       against England, and agreed to the enforcement of the decree
       which Napoleon issued from Berlin, declaring the British
       islands in a state of blockade, and prohibiting trade with
       them. The British government retorted by its "orders in
       council," which blockaded in the like paper-fashion all ports
       of France and of the allies and dependencies of France. And so
       England and Napoleon fought one another for years in the
       peaceful arena of commerce, to the exasperation of neutral
       nations and the destruction of the legitimate trade of the
       world.

    {1095}

    The crime against Spain.

       And now, having prostrated Germany, and captivated the Czar,
       Napoleon turned toward another field, which had scarcely felt,
       as yet, his intrusive hand. Spain had been in servile alliance
       with France for ten years, while Portugal adhered steadily to
       her friendship with Great Britain, and now refused to be
       obedient to the Berlin Decree. Napoleon took prompt measures
       for the punishment of so bold a defiance. A delusive treaty
       with the Spanish court, for the partition of the small kingdom
       of the Braganzas, won permission for an army under Junot to
       enter Portugal, through Spain. No resistance to it was made.
       The royal family of Portugal quitted Lisbon, setting sail for
       Brazil, and Junot took possession of the kingdom. But this
       accomplished only half of Napoleon's design. He meant to have
       Spain, as well; and he found, in the miserable state of the
       country, his opportunity to work out an ingenious,
       unscrupulous scheme for its acquisition. His agents set on
       foot a revolutionary movement, in favor of the worthless crown
       prince, Ferdinand, against his equally worthless father, Charles
       IV., and pretexts were obtained for an interference by French
       troops. Charles was first coerced into an abdication; then
       Ferdinand was lured to an interview with Napoleon, at Bayonne,
       was made prisoner there, and compelled in his turn to
       relinquish the crown. A vacancy on the Spanish throne having
       been thus created, the Emperor gathered at Bayonne a small
       assembly of Spanish notables, who offered the seat to Joseph
       Bonaparte, already King of Naples. Joseph, obedient to his
       imperial brother's wish, resigned the Neapolitan crown to
       Murat, his sister's husband, accepted the crown of Spain, and
       was established at Madrid with a French army at his back.

       This was one of the two most ruinous of the political blunders
       of Napoleon's life. He had cheated and insulted the whole
       Spanish nation, in a way too contemptuous to be endured even
       by a people long cast down. There was a revolt which did not
       spring from any momentary passion, but which had an obstinacy
       of deep feeling behind that made effective suppression of it
       impossible. French armies could beat Spanish armies, and
       disperse them, but they could not keep them dispersed; and
       they could not break up the organization of a rebellion which
       organized itself in every province, and which went on, when
       necessary, without any organization at all. England sent
       forces to the peninsula, under Wellington, for the support of
       the insurgent Spaniards and Portuguese; and thenceforward, to
       the end of his career, the most inextricable difficulties of
       Napoleon were those in which he had entangled himself on the
       southern side of the Pyrenees.

    The chastening of Germany.

       The other cardinal blunder in Napoleon's conduct, which proved
       more destructive to him than the crime in Spain, was his
       exasperating treatment of Germany. There was neither
       magnanimity on the moral side of him nor real wisdom on the
       intellectual side, to restrain him from using his victory with
       immoderate insolence. He put as much shame as he could invent
       into the humiliations of the German people. He had Prussia
       under his heel, and he ground the heel upon her neck with the
       whole weight of his power. The consequence was a pain and a
       passion which wrought changes like a miracle in the temper and
       character of the abused nation. There were springs of feeling
       opened and currents of national life set in motion that might
       never have been otherwise discovered. Enlightened men and
       strong men from all parts of Germany found themselves called
       to Prussia and to the front of its affairs, and their way made
       easy for them in labors of restoration and reform. Stein and
       Hardenburg remodeled the administration of the kingdom,
       uprooted the remains of serfdom in it, and gave new freedom to
       its energies. Scharnhorst organized the military system on
       which rose in time the greatest of military powers. Humboldt
       planned the school system which educated Prussia beyond all
       her neighbors, in the succeeding generations. Even the
       philosophers came out of their closets and took part, as
       Fichte did, in the stirring and uplifting of the spirit of
       their countrymen. So it was that the outrages of Napoleon in
       Germany revenged themselves, by summoning into existence an
       unsuspected energy that would be turned against him to destroy
       him in the end.

       But the time of destruction was not yet come. He had a few
       years of triumph still before him,--of triumph everywhere
       except in Portugal and Spain. Austria, resisting him once more
       (1809), was once more crushed at Wagram, and to such
       submissiveness that it gave a daughter of the imperial house
       in marriage to the parvenu sovereign of France, next year,
       when he divorced his wife Josephine. He was at the summit of
       his renown that year, but already declining from the greatest
       height of his power. In 1811 there was little to change the
       situation.

    The fall of Napoleon.

       In 1812 the downfall of Napoleon was begun by his fatal
       expedition to Russia. The next year Prussia, half regenerated
       within the brief time since Jena and Tilsit, went into
       alliance with Russia, and the War of Liberation was begun.
       Austria soon joined the alliance; and at Leipzig (Oct. 18,
       1813) the three nations shattered at last the yoke of
       oppression that had bound Europe so long. At the same time,
       the French armies in Spain were expelled, and Wellington
       entered France through the Pyrenees, to meet the allies who
       pursued Napoleon across the Rhine. Forced to abdicate and
       retire to the little island of Elba (the sovereignty of which
       was ceded to him), he remained there in quiet from May, 1814,
       until March, 1815, when he escaped and reappeared in France.
       Army and people welcomed him. The Bourbon monarchy, which had
       been restored by the allies, fell at his approach. The king,
       Louis XVIII., fled. Napoleon recovered his throne and occupied
       it for it few weeks. But the alliance which had expelled him from
       it refused to permit his recovery of power. The question was
       settled finally at Waterloo, on the 18th of June, when a
       British army under Wellington and a Prussian army under
       Blücher won a victory which left no hope to the beaten
       Emperor. He surrendered himself to the commander of a British
       vessel of war, and was sent to confinement for the remainder
       of his life on the remote island of St. Helena.

    {1096}

    The Congress of Vienna.

       But Europe, delivered from one tyrannical master, was now
       given over to several of them, in a combination which
       oppressed it for a generation. The sovereigns who had united
       to dethrone Napoleon, with the two emperors, of Austria and
       Russia, at their head, and with the Austrian minister,
       Metternich, for their most trusted counselor, assumed first,
       in the Congress of Vienna, a general work of political
       rearrangement, to repair the Revolutionary and Napoleonic
       disturbances, and then, subsequently, an authoritative
       supervision of European politics which proved as meddlesome as
       Napoleon's had been. Their first act, as before stated, was to
       restore the Bourbon monarchy in France, indifferent to the
       wishes of the people. In Spain, Ferdinand had already taken
       the throne, when Joseph fled. In Italy, the King of Sardinia
       was restored and Genoa transferred to him; Lombardy and
       Venetia were given back to Austria; Tuscany, Modena and some
       minor duchies received Hapsburg princes; the Pope recovered
       his States, and the Bourbons returned to Naples and Sicily. In
       Germany, the Prussian kingdom was enlarged again by several
       absorptions, including part of Saxony, but some of its Polish
       territory was given to the Czar; Hanover became a kingdom;
       Austria resumed the provinces which Napoleon had conveyed to
       his Rhenish proteges; and, finally, a Germanic Confederation
       was formed, to take the place of the extinct Empire, and with
       no more efficiency in its constitution. In the Netherlands, a
       new kingdom was formed, to bear the Netherland name, and to
       embrace Holland and Belgium in union, with the House of Orange
       on the throne.

    The Holy Alliance.

       Between the Czar, the Emperor of Austria, and the King of
       Prussia, there was a personal agreement that went with these
       arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, and which was
       prolonged for a number of years. In the public understanding,
       this was associated, perhaps wrongly, with a written
       declaration, known as the Holy Alliance, in which the three
       sovereigns set forth their intention to regulate their foreign
       and domestic policy by the precepts of Christianity, and
       invited all princes to join their alliance for the maintenance
       of peace and the promotion of brotherly love. Whether
       identical as a fact with this Holy Alliance or secreted behind
       it, there was, and long continued to be, an undoubted league
       between these sovereigns and others, which had aims very
       different from the promotion of brotherly love. It was wholly
       reactionary, hostile to all political liberalism, and
       repressive of all movements in the interest of the people.
       Metternich was its skilful minister, and the deadly, soulless
       system of beaureaucratic absolutism which he organized in
       Austria was the model of government that it strove to
       introduce.

       In Italy, the governments generally were reduced to the
       Austrian model, and the political state of the peninsula, for
       forty years, was scarcely better, if at all, than it had been
       under the Spanish rule in the sixteenth and seventeenth
       centuries.

       Germany, as divided as ever, under a federal constitution
       which federated nothing else so much as the big and little
       courts and their reactionary ideas, was profoundly depressed
       in political spirit, while prospering materially and showing
       notable signs of intellectual life.

       France was not slow in finding that the restored Bourbons and
       the restored émigrés had forgotten nothing and learned
       nothing, in the twenty-five years of their exile. They put all
       their strength into the turning back of the clock, trying to
       make it strike again the hours in which the Revolution and
       Napoleon had been so busy. It was futile work; but it sickened
       and angered the nation none the less. After all the stress and
       struggle it had gone through, there was a strong nation yet to
       resist the Bourbonism brought back to power. It recovered from
       the exhaustion of its wars with a marvellous quickness. The
       millions of peasant land-owners, who were the greatest
       creation of the Revolution, dug wealth from its soil with
       untiring free arms, and soon made it the most prosperous land
       in Europe. Through country and city, the ideas of the
       Revolution were in the brains of the common people, while its
       energies were in their brawn, and Bourbonism needed more
       wisdom than it ever possessed to reconcile them to its
       restoration.

    Revolutions of 1820-1821.

       It was not in France, however, but in Spain, that the first
       rising against the restored order of things occurred.
       Ferdinand VII., when released from his French imprisonment in
       1814, was warmly received in Spain, and took the crown with
       quite general consent. He accepted the constitution under
       which the country had been governed since 1812, and made large
       lying promises of a liberal rule. But when seated on the
       throne, he suppressed the constitution, restored the
       Inquisition, revived the monasteries, called back the expelled
       Jesuits, and opened a deadly persecution of the liberals in
       Spanish politics. No effective resistance to him was organized
       until 1820, when a revolutionary movement took form which
       forced the king, in March, to reestablish the constitution and
       call different men to his council. Portugal, at the same time,
       adopted a similar constitution, and the exiled king, John VI.,
       returning now from Brazil, accepted it.

       The revolution in Spain set fire to the discontent that had
       smouldered in Italy. The latter broke forth, in the summer of
       1820, at Naples, where the Bourbon king made no resistance to
       a sudden revolt of soldiers and citizens, but yielded the
       constitution they demanded at once. Sardinia followed, in the
       next spring, with a rising of the Piedmontese, requiring
       constitutional government. The king, Victor Emmanuel I., who
       was very old, resigned the crown to his brother, Charles
       Felix. The latter refused the demands of the
       constitutionalists and called upon Austria for help.

    {1097}

       These outbreaks of the revolutionary spirit were alarming to
       the sovereigns of the Holy Alliance and excited them to a
       vigorous activity. They convened a Congress, first at Troppau,
       in October, 1820, afterwards at Laybach, and finally at
       Verona, to plan concerted action for the suppressing of the
       popular movements of the time. As the result of these
       conferences, the congenial duty of restoring absolutism in the
       Two Sicilies, and of helping the King of Sardinia against his
       subjects, was imposed upon Austria and willingly performed;
       while the Bourbon court of France was solicited to put an end
       to the bad example of constitutional government in Spain. Both
       commissions were executed with fidelity and zeal. Italy was
       flung down and fettered again; French troops occupied Spain
       from 1823 until 1827. England, alone, protested against this
       flagrant policing of Europe by the Holy Alliance. Canning, its
       spirited minister, "called in the New World," as he described
       his policy, "to redress the balance of the old," by
       recognizing the independence of the Spanish colonies in
       America, which, Cuba excepted, were now separated forever from
       the crown of Spain. Brazil in like manner was cut loose from
       the Portuguese crown, and assumed the constitution of an
       empire, under Dom Pedro, the eldest son of John VI.

    Greek War of Independence.

       These stifled revolutions in western Europe failed to
       discourage a more obstinate insurrection which began in the
       East, among the Christian subjects of the Turks, in 1821. The
       Ottoman government had been growing weaker and more vicious
       for many years. The corrupted and turbulent Janissaries were
       the masters of the empire, and a sultan who attempted, as
       Selim III. (1789-1807) had done, to introduce reforms, was
       put to death. Russia, under Alexander I., had been continuing
       to gain ground at the expense of the Turks, and assuming more
       and more of a patronage of the Christian subjects of the
       Porte. There seems to be little doubt that the rising begun in
       1821, which had its start in Moldavia, and its first leader in a
       Greek, Ypsilanti, who had been an officer in the Russian
       service, received encouragement from the Czar. But Alexander
       turned his back on it when the Greeks sprang to arms and
       seriously appealed to Europe for help in a war of national
       independence. The Congress of Verona condemned the Greek
       rising, in common with that of Spain. Again, England alone
       showed sympathy, but did nothing as a government, and left the
       struggling Greeks to such help as they might win from
       individual friends. Lord Byron, with others, went to Greece,
       carrying money and arms; and, generally, these volunteers lost
       much of their ardor in the Greek cause when they came into
       close contact with its native supporters. But the Greeks,
       however lacking in high qualities, made an obstinate fight,
       and held their ground against the Turks, until the feeling of
       sympathy with them had grown too strong in England and in
       France for the governments of those countries to be heedless
       of it. Moreover, in Russia, Alexander I. had been succeeded
       (1825) by the aggressive Nicholas, who had not patience to
       wait for the slow crumbling of the Ottoman power, but was
       determined to break it as summarily as he could. He joined
       France and England, therefore, in an alliance and in a naval
       demonstration against the Turks (1827), which had its result
       in the battle of Navarino. The allies of Nicholas went no
       farther; but he pursued the undertaking, in a war which lasted
       until the autumn of 1829. Turkey at the end of it conceded the
       independence of Greece, and practically that of Wallachia and
       Moldavia. In 1830, a conference at London established the
       Greek kingdom, and in 1833 a Bavarian prince, Otho I., was
       settled on the throne.

    Revolutions of 1830.

       Before this result was reached, revolution in western Europe,
       arrested in 1821-23, had broken out afresh. Bourbonism had
       become unendurable to France. Charles X., who succeeded his
       brother Louis XVIII; in 1824, showed not only a more arbitrary
       temper, but a disposition more deferential to the Church than
       his predecessor. He was fond of the Jesuits, whom his subjects
       very commonly distrusted and disliked. He attempted to put
       shackles on the press, and when elections to the chamber of
       deputies went repeatedly against the government, he undertook
       practically to alter the suffrage by ordinances of his own. A
       revolution seemed then to be the only remedy that was open to
       the nation, and it was adopted in July, 1830, the veteran
       Lafayette taking the lead. Charles X. was driven to
       abdication, and left France for England. The crown was
       transferred to Louis Philippe, of the Orleans branch of the
       Bourbon family,--son of the Philip Égalité who joined the
       Jacobins in the Revolution.

       The July Revolution in France proved a signal for more
       outbreaks in other parts of Europe than had followed the
       Spanish rising of ten years before.

       Belgium broke away from the union with Holland, which had
       never satisfied its people, and, after some struggle, won
       recognized independence, as a new kingdom, with Leopold of
       Saxe Coburg raised to the throne.

       Russian Poland, bearing the name of a constitutional kingdom
       since 1815, but having the Czar for its king and the Czar's
       brother for viceroy, found no lighter oppression than before,
       and made a hopeless, brave attempt to escape from its bonds.
       The revolt was put down with unmerciful severity, and
       thousands of the hapless patriots went to exile in Siberia.

       In Germany, there were numerous demonstrations in the smaller
       states, which succeeded more or less in extorting
       constitutional concessions; but there was no revolutionary
       movement on a larger scale.

       Italy remained quiet in both the north and the south, where
       disturbances had arisen before; but commotions occurred in the
       Papal states, and in Modena and Parma, which required the arms
       of Austria to suppress.

       In England, the agitations of the continent hastened forward a
       revolution which went far beyond all other popular movements
       of the time in the lasting importance of its effects, and
       which exhibited in their first great triumph the peaceful
       forces of the Platform and the Press.

    {1098}

    England under the last two Georges.

       But we have given little attention to affairs in Great Britain
       during the past half century or more, and need to glance
       backward.

       Under the third of the Georges, there was distinctly a check
       given to the political progress which England had been making
       since the Revolution of 1688. The wilfulness of the king
       fairly broke down, for a considerable period, the system of
       responsible cabinet government which had been taking shape and
       root under the two earlier Hanoverians, and ministers became
       again, for a time, mere mouthpieces of the royal will. The
       rupture with the American colonies, and the unsuccessful war
       which ended in their independence, brought in another
       influence, adverse, for the time being, to popular claims in
       government. For it was not King George, alone, nor Lord North,
       nor any small Tory faction, that prosecuted and upheld the
       attempt to make the colonists in America submissive to
       "taxation without representation." The English nation at large
       approved the war; English national sentiment was hostile to
       the Americans in their independent attitude, and the
       Whigs--the liberals then in English politics--were a
       discredited and weakened party for many years because of their
       leaning to the American side of the questions in dispute.
       Following close upon the American war, came the French
       Revolution, which frightened into Toryism great numbers of
       people who did not by nature belong there. In England, as
       everywhere else, the reaction lasted long, and government was
       more arbitrary and repressive than it could possibly have
       continued to be under different circumstances.

       Meantime extraordinary social changes had taken place, which
       tended to mark more strongly the petrifying of things in the
       political world. The great age of mechanical invention had
       been fully opened. Machines had begun to do the work of human
       hands in every industry, and steam had begun to move the
       machines. The organization of labor, too, had assumed a new
       phase. The factory system had arisen; and with it had appeared
       a new growth of cities and towns. Production was accelerated;
       wealth was accumulating more rapidly, and the distribution of
       wealth was following different lines. The English middle class
       was rising fast as a money-power and was gathering the
       increased energies of the kingdom into its hands.

    Parliamentary Reform in England.

       But while the tendency of social changes had been to increase
       vastly the importance of this powerful middle class, the
       political conditions had actually diminished its weight in
       public affairs. In Parliament, it had no adequate
       representation. The old boroughs, which sent members to the
       House of Commons as they had sent them for generations before,
       no longer contained a respectable fraction of the "commons of
       England," supposed to be represented in the House, and those
       who voted in the boroughs were not at all the better class of
       the new England of the nineteenth century. Great numbers of
       the boroughs were mere private estates, and the few votes
       polled in them were cast by tenants who elected their
       landlords' nominees. On the other hand, the large cities and
       the numerous towns of recent growth had either no
       representation in Parliament, or they had equal representation
       with the "rotten boroughs" which cast two or three or
       half-a-dozen votes.

       That the commons of England, with all the gain of substantial
       strength they had been making in the last half of the
       eighteenth century and the first quarter of the nineteenth,
       endured this travesty of popular representation so long as
       until 1832, is proof of the potency of the conservatism which
       the French Revolution induced. The subject of parliamentary
       reform had been now and then discussed since Chatham's time;
       but Toryism had always been able to thrust it aside and bring
       the discussion to naught. At last there came the day when the
       question would no longer be put down. The agitations of 1830,
       combined with a very serious depression of industry and trade,
       produced a state of feeling which could not be defied. King and
       Parliament yielded to the public demand, and the First Reform
       Bill was passed. It widened the suffrage and amended very
       considerably the inequities of the parliamentary
       representation; but both reforms have been carried much
       farther since, by two later bills.

    Repeal of the English Corn Laws.

       The reform of Parliament soon brought a broader spirit into
       legislation. Its finest fruits began to ripen about 1838, when
       an agitation for the repeal of the foolish and wicked English
       "corn-laws" was opened by Cobden and Bright. In the day of the
       "rotten boroughs," when the landlords controlled Parliament,
       they imagined that they had "protected" the farming interest,
       and secured higher rents to themselves, by laying heavy duties
       on the importation of foreign bread-stuffs. A famous "sliding
       scale" of such duties had been invented, which raised the
       duties when prices in the home market dropped, and lowered
       them proportionately when home prices rose. Thus the consumers
       were always deprived, as much as possible, of any cheapening
       of their bread which bountiful Nature might offer, and paid a
       heavy tax to increase the gains of the owners and cultivators
       of land.

       Now that other "interests" besides the agricultural had a
       voice in Parliament, and had become very strong, they began to
       cry out against this iniquity, and demand that the "corn laws"
       be done away with. The famous "anti-corn-law league,"
       organized mainly by the exertions of Richard Cobden, conducted
       an agitation of the question which brought about the repeal of
       the laws in 1846.

       But the effect of the agitation did not end there. So thorough
       and prolonged a discussion of the matter had enlightened the
       English people upon the whole question between "protection"
       and free trade. The manufacturers and mechanics, who had led
       the movement against protective duties on food-stuffs, were
       brought to see that they were handicapped more than protected
       by duties on imports in their own departments of production.
       So Cobden and his party continued their attacks on the theory
       of "protection" until every vestige of it was cleared from the
       English statute books.

    The Revolutions of 1848.

       Another year of revolutions throughout Europe came in 1848,
       and the starting point of excitement was not, this time, at
       Paris, but, strangely enough, in the Vatican, at Rome. Pius
       IX. had been elected to the papal chair in 1846, and had
       immediately rejoiced the hearts and raised the hopes of the
       patriots in misgoverned Italy by his liberal measures of
       reform and his promising words. The attitude of the Pope gave
       encouragement to popular demonstrations in various Italian
       states during the later part of 1847; and in January 1848 a
       formidable rising occurred in Sicily, followed in February by
       another in Naples. King Ferdinand II. was compelled to change
       his ministers and to concede a constitution, which he did not
       long respect.

    {1099}

       Lombardy was slow this time in being kindled; but when the
       flame of revolution burst out it was very fierce. The
       Austrians were driven first from Milan (March, 1848), and then
       from city after city, until they seemed to be abandoning their
       Italian possessions altogether. Venice asserted its republican
       independence under the presidency of Daniel Manin. Charles
       Albert, King of Sardinia, thought the time favorable for
       recovering Lombardy to himself, and declared war against
       Austria. The expulsion of the Austrians became the demand of
       the entire peninsula, and even the Pope, the Grand Duke of
       Tuscany, and the King of Naples were forced to join the
       patriotic movement in appearance, though not with sincerity.
       But the King of Sardinia brought ruin on the whole
       undertaking, by sustaining a fatal defeat in battle at
       Custozza, in July, 1848.

       France had been for some time well prepared for revolt, and
       was quick to be moved by the first whisper of it from Italy.
       The short-lived popularity of Louis Philippe was a thing of
       the past. There was widespread discontent with many things,
       and especially with the limited suffrage. The French people
       had the desire and the need of something like that grand
       measure of electoral reform which England secured so
       peacefully in 1832; but they could not reach it in the
       peaceful way. The aptitude and the habit of handling and
       directing the great forces of public opinion effectively in
       such a situation were alike wanting among them. There was a
       mixture, moreover, of social theories and dreams in their
       political undertaking, which heated the movement and made it
       more certainly explosive. The Parisian mob took arms and built
       barricades on the 23d of February. The next day Louis Philippe
       signed an abdication, and a week later he was an exile in
       England. For the remainder of the year France was strangely
       ruled: first by a self-constituted provisional government,
       Lamartine at its head, which opened national workshops, and
       attempted to give employment and pay to 125,000 enrolled
       citizens in need; afterwards by a Constituent National
       Assembly, and an Executive Commission, which found the
       national workshops a devouring monster, difficult to control
       and hard to destroy. Paris got rid of the shops in June, at
       the cost of a battle which lasted four days, and in which more
       than 8,000 people were wounded or slain. In November a
       republican constitution, framed by the Assembly, was adopted,
       and on the 10th of December Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, son of
       Louis Bonaparte, once King of Holland, and of Hortense
       Beauharnais, daughter of the Empress Josephine, was elected
       President of the Republic by an enormous popular vote.

       The revolutionary shock of 1848 was felt in Germany soon after
       the fall of the monarchy in France. In March there was rioting
       in Berlin and a collision with the troops, which alarmed the
       king so seriously that he yielded promises to almost every
       demand. Similar risings in other capitals had about the same
       success. At Vienna, the outbreak was more violent and drove
       both Metternich and the Emperor from the city. In the first
       flush of these popular triumphs there came about a most
       hopeful-looking election of a Germanic National Assembly,
       representative of all Germany, and gathered at Frankfort, on
       the invitation of the Diet, for a revision of the constitution
       of the Confederation. But the Assembly contained more learned
       scholars than practical statesmen, and its constitutional work
       was wasted labor. A Constituent Assembly elected in Prussia
       accomplished no more, and was dispersed in the end without
       resistance; but the king granted a constitution of his own
       framing. The revolutionary movement in Germany left its
       effects, in a general loosening of the bonds of harsh
       government, a general broadening of political ideas, a final
       breaking of the Metternich influence, even in Austria; but it
       passed over the existing institutions of the much-divided
       country with a very light touch.

       In Hungary the revolution, stimulated by the eloquence of
       Kossuth, was carried to the pitch of serious war. The
       Hungarians had resolved to be an independent nation, and in
       the struggle which ensued they approached very near the
       attainment of their desire; but Russia came to the help of the
       Hapsburgs, and the armies of the two despotisms combined were
       more than the Hungarians could resist. Their revolt was
       abandoned in August, 1849, and Kossuth, with other leaders,
       escaped through Turkish territory to other lands.

       The suppression of the Hungarian revolt was followed by a
       complete restoration of the despotism and domination of the
       Austrians in Italy. Charles Albert, of Sardinia, had taken
       courage from the struggle in Hungary and had renewed
       hostilities in March, 1849. But, again, he was crushingly
       defeated, at Novara, and resigned, in despair, the crown to
       his son, Victor Emmanuel II. Venice, which had resisted a long
       siege with heroic constancy, capitulated in August of the same
       year. The whole of Lombardy and Venetia was bowed once more
       under the merciless tyranny of the Austrians, and savage
       revenges were taken upon the patriots who failed to escape.
       Rome, whence the Pope--no longer a patron of liberal
       politics--had fled, and where a republic had been once more
       set up, with Garibaldi and Mazzini in its constituent
       assembly, was besieged and taken, and the republic overturned,
       by troops sent from republican France. The Neapolitan king
       restored his atrocious absolutism without help, by measures of
       the greatest brutality.

       A civil war in Switzerland, which occurred simultaneously with
       the political collisions in surrounding countries, is hardly
       to be classed with them. It was rather a religious conflict,
       between the Roman Catholics and their opponents. The Catholic
       cantons, united in a League, called the Sonderbund, were
       defeated in the war; the Jesuits were expelled from
       Switzerland in consequence, and, in September, 1848, a new
       constitution for the confederacy was adopted.

    {1100}

    The Second Empire in France.

       The election of Louis Napoleon to the Presidency of the French
       Republic was ominous of a disposition among the people to
       bring back a Napoleonic regime, with all the falsities that it
       might imply. He so construed the vote which elected him, and
       does not seem to have been mistaken. Having surrounded himself
       with unprincipled adventurers, and employed three years of his
       presidency in preparations for the attempt, he executed a coup
       d' état on the 2d of December, dispersing the National
       Assembly, arresting influential republicans, and submitting to
       popular vote a new constitution which prolonged his presidency
       to ten years. This was but the first step. A year later he
       secured a "plébiscite" which made him hereditary Emperor of
       the French. The new Empire--the Second Empire in France--was
       more vulgar, more false, more fraudulent, more swarmingly a
       nest of self-seeking and dishonest adventurers, than the First
       had been, and with nothing of the saving genius that was in
       the First. It rotted for eighteen years, and then it fell,
       France with it.

    The Crimean War.

       A certain respectability was lent to this second Napoleonic
       Empire by the alliance of England with it in 1854, against
       Russia. The Czar, Nicholas, had determined to defy resistance
       in Europe to his designs against the Turks. He first
       endeavored to persuade England to join him in dividing the
       possessions of "the sick man," as he described the Ottoman,
       and, that proposal being declined, he opened on his own
       account a quarrel with the Porte. France and England joined
       forces in assisting the Turks, and the little kingdom of
       Sardinia, from motives of far-seeing policy, came into the
       alliance. The principal campaign of the war was fought in the
       Crimea, and its notable incident was the long siege of
       Sebastopol, which the Russians defended until September, 1855.
       An armistice was concluded the following January, and the
       terms of peace were settled at a general conference of powers
       in Paris the next March. The results of the war were a check
       to Russia, but an improvement of the condition of the Sultan's
       Christian subjects. Moldavia and Wallachia were soon
       afterwards united under the name of Roumania, paying tribute
       to the Porte, but otherwise independent.

    Liberation and Unification of Italy.

       The part taken by Sardinia in the Crimean War gave that
       kingdom a standing in European politics which had never been
       recognized before. It was a measure of sagacious policy due to
       the able statesman, Count Cavour, who had become the trusted
       minister of Victor Emmanuel, the Sardinian king. The king and
       his minister were agreed in one aim--the unification of Italy
       under the headship of the House of Savoy. By her participation
       in the war with Russia, Sardinia won a position which enabled
       her to claim and secure admission to the Congress of Paris,
       among the greater powers. At that conference, Count Cavour
       found an opportunity to direct attention to the deplorable
       state of affairs in Italy, under the Austrian rule and
       influence. No action by the Congress was taken; but the
       Italian question was raised in importance at once by the
       discussion of it, and Italy was rallied to the side of
       Sardinia as the necessary head of any practicable movement
       toward liberation. More than that: France was moved to
       sympathy with the Italian cause, and Louis Napoleon was led to
       believe that his throne would be strengthened by espousing it.
       He encouraged Cavour and Victor Emmanuel, therefore, in an
       attitude toward Austria which resulted in war (1859), and when
       the Sardinians were attacked he went to their assistance with
       a powerful force. At Magenta and Solferino the Austrians were
       decisively beaten, and the French emperor then abruptly closed
       the war, making a treaty which ceded Lombardy alone to
       Sardinia, leaving Venetia still under the oppressor, and the
       remainder of Italy unchanged in its state. For payment of the
       service he had rendered, Louis Napoleon exacted Savoy and
       Nice, and Victor Emmanuel was compelled to part with the
       original seat of his House.

       There was bitter disappointment among the Italian patriots
       over the meagerness of the fruit yielded by the splendid
       victories of Magenta and Solferino. Despite the treaty of
       Villafranca, they were determined to have more, and they did.
       Tuscany, Parma, Modena and Romagna demanded annexation to
       Sardinia, and, after a plébiscite, they were received (March,
       1860) into the kingdom and represented in its parliament. In
       the Two Sicilies there was an intense longing for deliverance
       from the brutalities of the Neapolitan Bourbons. Victor
       Emmanuel could not venture an attack upon the rotten kingdom,
       for fear of resentments in France and elsewhere. But the
       adventurous soldier, Garibaldi, now took on himself the task
       of completing the liberation of Italy. With an army of
       volunteers, he first swept the Neapolitans out of Sicily, and
       then took Naples itself, within the space of four months,
       between May and September, 1860. The whole dominion was
       annexed to what now became the Kingdom of Italy, and which
       embraced the entire peninsula except Rome, garrisoned for the
       Pope by French troops, and Venetia, still held in the clutches
       of Austria. In 1862, Garibaldi raised volunteers for an attack
       on Rome; but the unwise movement was suppressed by Victor
       Emmanuel. Two years later, the King of Italy brought about an
       agreement with the French emperor to withdraw his garrison
       from Rome, and, after that had been done, the annexation of
       Rome to the Italian kingdom was a mere question of time. It
       came about in 1870, after the fall of Louis Napoleon, and
       Victor Emmanuel transferred his capital to the Eternal City.
       The Pope's domain was then limited to the precincts of the
       Vatican.

    The Austro-Prussian War.

       The unification of Italy was the first of a remarkable series
       of nationalizing movements which have been the most
       significant feature of the history of the last half of the
       nineteenth century. The next of these movements to begin was
       in Germany--the much divided country of one peculiarly
       homogeneous and identical race. Influences tending toward
       unification had been acting on the Germans since Prussia rose
       to superiority in the north. By the middle of the century, the
       educated, military Prussia that was founded after 1806 had
       become a power capable of great things in capable hands; and
       the capable hands received it. In 1861, William I. succeeded
       his brother as king; in 1862, Otto von Bismarck became his
       prime minister. It was a remarkable combination of qualities
       and talents, and remarkable results came from it.

    {1101}

       In 1864, Prussia and Austria acted together in taking
       Schleswig and Holstein, as German states, from Denmark. The
       next year they quarreled over the administration of the
       duchies. In 1866, they fought, and Austria was entirely
       vanquished in a "seven weeks war." The superiority of Prussia,
       organized by her great military administrator and soldier,
       Moltke, was overpowering. Her rival was left completely at her
       mercy. But Bismarck and his king were wisely magnanimous. They
       refrained from inflicting on the Austrians a humiliation that
       would rankle and keep enmities alive. They foresaw the need of
       future friendship between the two powers of central Europe, as
       against Russia on the one side and France on the other, and
       they shaped their policy to secure it. It sufficed them to
       have put Austria out of the German circle, forever; to have
       ended the false relation in which the Hapsburgs--rulers of an
       essentially Slavonic and Magyar dominion--had stood towards
       Germany so long.

       Prussia now dominated the surrounding German states so
       commandingly that the mode and the time of their unification
       may be said to have been within her own control. Hanover,
       Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, Schleswig-Holstein, and Frankfort were
       incorporated in the Prussian kingdom at once. Saxony and the
       other states of the north were enveloped in a North German
       Confederation, with the King of Prussia for its hereditary
       president and commander of its forces. The states of southern
       Germany were left unfederated for the time being, but bound
       themselves by treaty to put their armies at the disposal of
       Prussia. Thus Germany as a whole was already made practically
       one power, under the control of King William and his great
       minister.

    Final Expulsion of Austria from Italy.

       The same war which unified Germany carried forward the
       nationalization of Italy another step. Victor Emmanuel had
       shrewdly entered into an alliance with Prussia before the war
       began, and attacked Austria in Venetia simultaneously with the
       German attack on the Bohemian side. The Italians were beaten
       at Custozza, and their navy was defeated in the Adriatic; but
       the victorious Prussians exacted Venetia for them in the
       settlement of peace, and Austria had no more footing in the
       peninsula.

    Austria-Hungary.

       It is greatly to the credit of Austria, long blinded and
       stupefied by the narcotic of absolutism, that the lessons of
       the war of 1866 sank deep into her mind and produced a very
       genuine enlightenment. The whole policy of the court of Vienna
       was changed, and with it the constitution of the Empire. The
       statesmen of Hungary were called into consultation with the
       statesmen of Austria, and the outcome of their discussions was
       an agreement which swept away the old Austria, holding Hungary
       in subjection, and created in its place a new power--a federal
       Austria-Hungary--equalized in its two principal parts, and
       united under the same sovereign with distinct constitutions.

    The Franco-German War.

       The surprising triumph of Prussia in the Seven Weeks War stung
       Louis Napoleon with a jealousy which he could not conceal. He
       was incapable of perceiving what it signified,--of perfection
       in the organization of the Prussian kingdom and of power in
       its resources. He was under illusions as to the strength of
       his own Empire. It had been honeycombed by the rascalities
       that attended and surrounded him, and he did not know it. He
       imagined France to be capable of putting a check on Prussian
       aggrandizement; and he began very early after Sadowa to pursue
       King William with demands which were tolerably certain to end
       in war. When the war came, in July, 1870, it was by his own
       declaration; yet Prussia was prepared for it and France was
       not. In six weeks time from the declaration of war,--in one
       month from the first action,--Napoleon himself was a prisoner
       of war in the hands of the Germans, surrendered at Sedan, with
       the whole army which he personally commanded; the Empire was in
       collapse, and a provisional government had taken the direction
       of affairs. On the 20th of September Paris was invested; on
       the 28th of October Baznine, with an army of 150,000 men,
       capitulated at Metz. A hopeless attempt to rally the nation to
       fresh efforts of defence in the interior, on the Loire, was
       valiantly made under the lead of Gambetta; but it was too
       late. When the year closed, besieged Paris was at the verge of
       starvation and all attempts to relieve the city had failed. On
       the 28th of January, 1871, an armistice was sought and
       obtained; on the 30th, Paris was surrendered and the Germans
       entered it. The treaty of peace negotiated subsequently ceded
       Alsace to Germany, with a fifth of Lorraine, and bound France
       to pay a war indemnity of five milliards of francs.

    The Paris Commune.

       In February, 1871, the provisional "Government of National
       Defense" gave way to a National Assembly, duly elected under
       the provisions of the armistice, and an executive was
       instituted at Bordeaux, under the presidency of M. Thiers.
       Early in March, the German forces were withdrawn from Paris,
       and control of the city was immediately seized by that
       dangerous element--Jacobinical, or Red Republican, or
       Communistic, as it may be variously described--which always
       shows itself with promptitude and power in the French capital,
       at disorderly times. The Commune was proclaimed, and the
       national government was defied. From the 2d of April until the
       28th of May Paris was again under siege, this time by forces
       of the French government, fighting to overcome the
       revolutionists within. The proceedings of the latter were more
       wantonly destructive than those of the Terrorists of the
       Revolution, and scarcely less sanguinary. The Commune was
       suppressed in the end with great severity.

    The Third French Republic.

       M. Thiers held the presidency of the Third Republic in France
       until 1873, when he resigned and was succeeded by Marshal
       MacMahon. In 1875 the constitution which has since remained,
       with some amendments, in force, was framed and adopted. In
       1878 Marshal MacMahon gave place to M. Jules Grévy, and the
       latter to M. Sadi Carnot in 1887. Republican government seems
       to be firmly and permanently established in France at last.
       The country is in a prosperous state, and nothing but its
       passionate desire to recover Alsace and to avenge Sedan
       appears threatening to its future.

    {1102}

    The new German Empire.

       While the army of the Germans was still besieging Paris, and
       King William and Prince Bismarck were at Versailles, in
       January, 1871, the last act which completed the unification
       and nationalization of Germany was performed. This was the
       assumption of the title of Emperor by King William, in
       response to the prayer of the princes of Germany and of the
       North German Parliament. On the 16th of the following April, a
       constitution for the German Empire was proclaimed.

       The long and extraordinary reign of the Emperor William I. was
       ended by his death in 1888. His son, Frederick III., was dying
       at the time of an incurable disease, and survived his father
       only three months. The son of Frederick III., William II.,
       signalized the beginning of his reign by dismissing, after a
       few months, the great minister, Count Bismarck, on whom his
       strong grandfather had leaned, and who had wrought such
       marvels of statesmanship and diplomacy for the German race.
       What may lie at the end of the reign which had this
       self-sufficient beginning is not to be foretold.

    The Russo-Turkish War.

       Since the Franco-German War of 1870-1871, the peace of Europe
       has been broken but once by hostilities within the European
       boundary. In 1875 a rising against the unendurable misrule of
       the Turks began in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and was imitated
       the next year in Bulgaria. Servia and Montenegro declared war
       against Turkey and were overcome. Russia then espoused the
       cause of the struggling Slavs, and opened, in 1877, a most
       formidable new attempt to crush the Ottoman power, and to
       accomplish her coveted extension to the Mediterranean. From
       May until the following January the storm of war raged
       fiercely along the Balkans. The Turks fought stubbornly, but
       they were beaten back, and nothing but a dangerous opposition
       of feeling among the other powers in Europe stayed the hand of
       the Czar from being laid upon Constantinople. The powers
       required a settlement of the peace between Russia and Turkey
       to be made by a general Congress, and it was held at Berlin in
       June, 1878. Bulgaria was divided by the Congress into two
       states, one tributary to the Turk, but freely governed, the
       other subject to Turkey, but under a Christian governor. This
       arrangement was set aside seven years later by a bloodless
       revolution, which formed one Bulgaria in nominal relations of
       dependence upon the Porte. This was the third important
       nationalizing movement within a quarter of a century, and it
       is likely to go farther in southeastern Europe, until it
       settles, perhaps, "the Eastern question," so far as the
       European side of it is concerned.

       Bosnia and Herzegovina were given to Austria by the Congress
       of Berlin; the independence of Roumania, Servia, and
       Montenegro was made more complete; the island of Cyprus was
       turned over to Great Britain for administration.

    Spain in the last half Century.

       A few words will tell sufficiently the story of Spain since
       the successor of Joseph Bonaparte quitted the scene. Ferdinand
       VII. died in 1833, and his infant daughter was proclaimed
       queen, as Isabella II., with her mother, Christina, regent.
       Isabella's title was disputed by Don Carlos, the late king's
       brother, and a civil war between Carlists and Christinos went
       on for years. When Isabella came of age she proved to be a
       dissolute woman, with strong proclivities toward arbitrary
       government. A liberal party, and even a republican party, had
       been steadily gaining ground in Spain, and the queen placed
       herself in conflict with it. In 1868 a revolution drove her
       into France. The revolutionists offered the crown to a prince
       distantly related to the royal family of Prussia. It was this
       incident that gave Louis Napoleon a pretext for quarreling
       with the King of Prussia in 1870 and declaring war. Declined
       by the Hohenzollern prince, the Spanish crown was then offered
       to Amadeo, son of the King of Italy, who accepted it, but
       resigned it again in 1873, after a reign of two years, in
       disgust with the factions which troubled him. Castelar, the
       distinguished republican orator, then formed a republican
       government which held the reins for a few months, but could
       not establish order in the troubled land. The monarchy was
       restored in December, 1874, by the coronation of Alfonso XII.,
       son of the exiled Isabella. Since that time Spain has
       preserved a tolerably peaceful and contented state.

    England and Ireland.

       In recent years, the part which Great Britain has taken in
       Continental affairs has been slight; and, indeed, there has
       been little in those affairs to bring about important
       international relations. In domestic politics, a single series
       of questions, concerning Ireland and the connection of Ireland
       with the British part of the United Kingdom, has mastered the
       field, overriding all others and compelling the statesmen of
       the day to take them in hand. The sudden imperiousness of
       these questions affords a peculiar manifestation of the
       political conscience in nations which the nineteenth century
       has wakened and set astir. Through all the prior centuries of
       their subjection, the treatment of the Irish people by the
       English was as cruel and as heedless of justice and right as
       the treatment of Poles by Russians or of Greeks by Turks. They
       were trebly oppressed: as conquered subjects of an alien race,
       as religious enemies, as possible rivals in production and
       trade. They were deprived of political and civil rights; they
       were denied the ministrations of their priests; the better
       employments and more honorable professions were closed to
       them; the industries which promised prosperity to their
       country were suppressed. A small minority of Protestant
       colonists became the recognized nation, so far as a
       nationality in Ireland was recognized at all. When Ireland was
       said to have a Parliament, it was the Parliament of the
       minority alone. No Catholic sat in it; no Catholic was
       represented in it. When Irishmen were permitted to bear arms,
       they were Protestant Irishmen only who formed the privileged
       militia. Seven-tenths of the inhabitants of the island were
       politically as non-existent as actual serfdom could have made
       them. For the most part they were peasants and their state as
       such scarcely above the condition of serfs. They owned no
       land; their leases were insecure; the laws protected them in
       the least possible degree; their landlords were mostly of the
       hostile creed and race. No country in Europe showed conditions
       better calculated to distress and degrade a people.

    {1103}

       This was the state of things in Ireland until nearly the end
       of the eighteenth century. In 1782 legislative independence
       was conceded; but the independent legislature was still the
       Parliament in which Protestants sat alone. In 1793 Catholics
       were admitted to the franchise; but seats in Parliament were
       still denied to them and they must elect Protestants to
       represent them. In 1800 the Act of Union, creating the United
       Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, extinguished the
       Parliament at Dublin and provided for the introduction of
       Irish peers and members to represent Irish constituencies in
       the greater Parliament at London; but still no Catholic could
       take a seat in either House. Not until 1829, after eighteen
       years of the fierce agitation which Daniel O'Connell stirred
       up, were Catholic disabilities entirely removed and the people
       of that faith placed on an equal footing with Protestants in
       political and civil rights. O'Connell's agitation was not for
       Catholic emancipation alone, but for the repeal of the Act of
       Union and the restoration of legislative independence and
       national distinctness to Ireland. That desire has been hot in
       the Irish heart from the day the Union was accomplished. After
       O'Connell's death, there was quiet on the subject for a time.
       The fearful famine of 1845-7 deadened all political feeling.
       Then there was a recurrence of the passionate animosity to
       British rule which had kindled unfortunate rebellions in 1798
       and 1803. It produced the Fenian conspiracies, which ran their
       course from about 1858 to 1867. But soon after that time Irish
       nationalism resumed a more politic temper, and doubled the
       energy of its efforts by confining them to peaceful and lawful
       ways. The Home Rule movement, which began in 1873, was aimed
       at the organization of a compact and well-guided Irish party
       in Parliament, to press the demand for legislative
       independence and to act with united weight on lines of Irish
       policy carefully laid down. This Home Rule party soon acquired
       a powerful leader in Mr. Charles Parnell, and was successful
       in carrying questions of reform in Ireland to the forefront of
       English politics.

       Under the influence of its great leader, Mr. Gladstone, the
       Liberal party had already, before the Home Rule party came
       into the field, begun to adopt measures for the redress of
       Irish wrongs. In 1869, the Irish branch of the Church of
       England, calling itself the Church of Ireland, was
       disestablished. The membership of that church was reckoned to
       be one-tenth of the population; but it had been supported by
       the taxation of the whole. The Catholics, the Presbyterians
       and other dissenters were now released from this unjust
       burden. In 1870, a Land Bill--the first of several, which
       restrict the power of Irish landlords to oppress their
       tenants, and which protect the latter, while opening
       opportunities of land-ownership to them--was passed. The land
       question became for a time more prominent than the Home Rule
       question, and the party of Mr. Parnell was practically
       absorbed in an Irish National Land League, formed to force
       landlords to a reduction of rents. The methods of coercion
       adopted brought the League into collision with the Liberal
       Government, notwithstanding the general sympathy of the latter
       with Irish complaints. For a time the Irish Nationalists went
       into alliance with the English Conservatives; but in 1886 Mr.
       Gladstone became convinced, and convinced the majority of his
       party, that just and harmonious relations between Ireland and
       Great Britain could never be established without the
       concession of Home Rule to the former. A bill which he
       introduced to that end was defeated in the House of Commons
       and Mr. Gladstone resigned. In 1892 he was returned to power,
       and in September of the following year he carried in the House
       of Commons a bill for the transferring of Irish legislation to
       a distinct Parliament at Dublin. It was defeated, however, in
       the House of Lords, and the question now rests in an unsettled
       state. Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the premiership and
       from the leadership of his party, which occurred in March,
       1894, may affect the prospects of the measure; but the English
       Liberals are committed to its principle, and it appears to be
       certain that the Irish question will attain some solution
       within no very long time.

    Conclusion.

       The beginning of the year 1894, when this is written, finds
       Europe at peace, as it has been for a number of years. But the
       peace is not of friendship, nor of honorable confidence, nor
       of good will. The greater nations are lying on their arms, so
       to speak, watching one another with strained eyes and with
       jealous hearts. France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, are
       marshaling armies in the season of peace that, not many years
       ago, would have seemed monstrous for war. Exactions of
       military service and taxation for military expenditure are
       pressed upon their people to the point of last endurance. The
       preparation for battle is so vast in its scale, so unceasing,
       so increasing, so far in the lead over all other efforts among
       men, that it seems like a new affirmation of belief that war
       is the natural order of the world.

       And yet, the dread of war is greater in the civilized world
       than ever before. The interests and influences that work for
       peace are more powerful than at any former time. The wealth
       which war threatens, the commerce which it interrupts, the
       industry which it disturbs, the intelligence which it offends,
       the humanity which it shocks, the Christianity which it
       grieves, grow stronger to resist it, year by year. The
       statesman and the diplomatist are under checks of
       responsibility which a generation no older than Palmerston's
       never felt. The arbitrator and the tribunal of arbitration
       have become familiar within a quarter of a century. The spirit
       of the age opposes war with rising earnestness and increasing
       force; while the circumstance and fact of the time seem
       arranged for it as the chief business of mankind. It is a
       singular and a critical situation; the outcome from it is
       impenetrably hidden.

       Within itself, too, each nation is troubled with hostilities
       that the world has not known before. Democracy in politics is
       bringing in, as was inevitable, democracy in the whole social
       system; and the period of adjustment to it, which we are
       passing through, could not fail to be a period of trial and of
       many dangers. The Anarchist, the Nihilist, the Socialist in
       his many variations--what are they going to do in the time
       that lies before us?

       Europe, at the present stage of its history, is in the thick
       of many questions; and so we leave it.

    {1104}

    EURYMEDON, Battles of the (B. C. 466).

          See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

    EUSKALDUNAC.

          See BASQUES.

    EUTAW SPRINGS, Battle of(1781).

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

    EUTHYNI, The.

          See LOGISTÆ.

    EUTYCHIAN HERESY.

          See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

    EUXINE, The.

       Euxinus Pontus, or Pontus Euxinus, the Black Sea,
       as named by the Greeks.

    EVACUATION DAY.
       The anniversary of the evacuation of New York by
       the British, Nov. 25, 1783.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    EVANGELICAL UNION OF GERMANY, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

    EVER VICTORIOUS ARMY, The.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

    EVESHAM, Battle of (1265).

       The battle which finished the civil war in England known as
       the Barons' War. It was fought Aug. 3, 1265, and Earl Simon de
       Montfort, the soul of the popular cause, was slain, with most
       of his followers. Prince Edward, afterwards Edward I.,
       commanded the royal forces.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

    EVICTIONS, Irish.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

    EXARCHS OF RAVENNA.

          See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

    EXARCHS OF THE DIOCESE.

          See PRIMATES.

    EXCHEQUER.--EXCHEQUER ROLLS.--EXCHEQUER TALLIES.

       "The Exchequer of the Norman kings was the court in which the
       whole financial business of the country was transacted, and as
       the whole administration of justice, and even the military
       organisation, was dependent upon the fiscal officers, the
       whole framework of society may be said to have passed annually
       under its review. It derived its name from the chequered cloth
       which covered the table at which the accounts were taken, a
       name which suggested to the spectator the idea of a game at
       chess between the receiver and the payer, the treasurer and
       the sheriff. ... The record of the business was preserved in
       three great rolls; one kept by the Treasurer, another by the
       Chancellor, and a third by an officer nominated by the king,
       who registered the matters of legal and special importance.
       The rolls of the Treasurer and Chancellor were duplicates;
       that of the former was called from its shape the great roll of
       the Pipe, and that of the latter the roll of the Chancery. These
       documents are mostly still in existence. The Pipe Rolls are
       complete from the second year of Henry II. and the
       Chancellor's Rolls nearly so. Of the preceding period only one
       roll, that of the thirty-first year of Henry I., is preserved,
       and this with Domesday book is the most valuable store of
       information which exists for the administrative history of the
       age. The financial reports were made to the barons by the
       sheriffs of the counties. At Easter and Michælmas each of
       these magistrates produced his own accounts and paid in to the
       Exchequer such an instalment or proffer as he could afford,
       retaining in hand sufficient money for current expenses. In
       token of receipt a tally was made; a long piece of wood in
       which a number of notches were cut, marking the pounds,
       shillings, and pence received; this stick was then split down
       the middle, each half contained exactly the same number of
       notches, and no alteration could of course be made without
       certain detection. ... The fire which destroyed the old Houses
       of Parliament is said to have originated in the burning of the
       old Exchequer tallies."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 11, section 126.

       "The wooden 'tallies' on which a large notch represented
       £1,000, and smaller notches other sums, while a halfpenny was
       denoted by a small round hole, were actually in use at the
       Exchequer until the year 1824."--

          Sir J. Lubbock,
          Preface to Hall's "Antiquities and
          Curiosities of the Exchequer."

          ALSO IN: E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
          book 1, number 5.

          See, also, CURIA REGIS and CHESS.

    EXCHEQUER, Chancellor of the.

       In the reign of Henry III., of England, "was created the
       office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom the Exchequer
       seal was entrusted, and who with the Treasurer took part in
       the equitable jurisdiction of the Exchequer, although not in
       the common law jurisdiction of the barons, which extended
       itself as the legal fictions of pleading brought common pleas
       into this court."

          W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 15, section 237.

    EXCLUSION BILL, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679-1681.

    EXCOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERDICTS.

       "Excommunication, whatever opinions may be entertained as to
       its religious efficacy, was originally nothing more in
       appearance than the exercise of a right which every society
       claims, the expulsion of refractory members from its body. No
       direct temporal disadvantages attended this penalty for
       several ages; but as it was the most severe of spiritual
       censures, and tended to exclude the object of it, not only
       from a participation in religious rites, but in a considerable
       degree from the intercourse of Christian society, it was used
       sparingly and upon the gravest occasions. Gradually, as the
       church became more powerful and more imperious,
       excommunications were issued upon every provocation, rather as
       a weapon of ecclesiastical warfare than with any regard to its
       original intention. ... Princes who felt the inadequacy of
       their own laws to secure obedience called in the assistance of
       more formidable sanctions. Several capitularies of Charlemagne
       denounce the penalty of excommunication against incendiaries
       or deserters from the army. Charles the Bald procured similar
       censures against his revolted vassals. Thus the boundary
       between temporal and spiritual offences grew every day less
       distinct; and the clergy were encouraged to fresh
       encroachments, as they discovered the secret of rendering them
       successful. ... The support due to church censures by temporal
       judges is vaguely declared in the capitularies of Pepin and
       Charlemagne. It became in later ages a more established
       principle in France and England, and, I presume, in other
       countries. By our common law an excommunicated person is
       incapable of being a witness or of bringing an action; and he
       may be detained in prison until he obtains absolution. By the
       Establishments of St. Louis, his estate or person might be
       attached by the magistrate. These actual penalties were
       attended by marks of abhorrence and ignominy still more
       calculated to make an impression on ordinary minds. They were
       to be shunned, like men infected with leprosy, by their
       servants, their friends, and their families. ...
    {1105}
       But as excommunication, which attacked only one and perhaps a
       hardened sinner, was not always efficacious, the church had
       recourse to a more comprehensive punishment. For the offence
       of a nobleman she put a county, for that of a prince his
       entire kingdom, under an interdict or suspension of religious
       offices. No stretch of her tyranny was perhaps so outrageous
       as this. During an interdict the churches were closed, the
       bells silent, the dead unburied, no rite but those of baptism
       and extreme unction performed. The penalty fell upon those who
       had neither partaken nor could have prevented the offence; and
       the offence was often but a private dispute, in which the
       pride of a pope or bishop had been wounded. Interdicts were so
       rare before the time of Gregory VII., that some have referred
       them to him as their author; instances may however be found of
       an earlier date."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 7, part 1.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Gosselin,
          The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
          part 2, chapter 1, article 3.

          H. C. Lea,
          Studies in Church History,
          part 3.

          P. Schaff,
          History of the Christian Church,
          volume 4, chapter 8, section 86.

    EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

          See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED SESSIONS.

    EXEGETÆ, The.

       A board of three persons in ancient Athens "to whom
       application might be made in all matters relating to sacred
       law, and also, probably, with regard to the significance of
       the Diosemia, or celestial phenomena and other signs by which
       future events were foretold."

          G. F. Schömann,
          Antiquities of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 3.

    EXETER, Origin of.

       "Isca Damnoniorum, Caer Wisc, Exanceaster, Exeter, keeping
       essentially the same name under all changes, stands
       distinguished as the one great English city which has, in a
       more marked way than any other, kept its unbroken being and
       its unbroken position throughout all ages. The City on the
       Exe, in all ages and in all tongues keeping its name as the
       City on the Exe, allows of an easy definition. ... It is the
       one city [of England] in which we can feel sure that human
       habitation and city life have never ceased from the days of
       the early Cæsars to our own." At the Norman conquest, Exeter
       did not submit to William until after a siege of 18 days, in
       1068.

          E. A. Freeman,
          Exeter,
          chapters 1-2.

    EXILARCH, The.

          See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

    EXODUS FROM EGYPT, The.

          See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

    EYLAU, Battle of (1807).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

    EYRE, Governor, and the Jamaica insurrection.

          See JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.

    EYSTEIN I., King of Norway, A. D. 1116-1122.
       Eystein II., 1155--1157.

    EZZELINO, OR ECCELINO DI ROMANO,
       The tyranny of, and the crusade against.

          See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

    F.

    FABIAN POLICY.-FABIAN TACTICS.

       The policy pursued by Q. Fabius Maximus, the Roman Dictator,
       called "the Cunctator" or Lingerer, in his campaigns against
       Hannibal.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

    FACTORY LEGISLATION, English.

       "During the 17th and 18th centuries, when the skill of the
       workmen had greatly improved, and the productiveness of labour
       had increased, various methods were resorted to for the
       purpose of prolonging the working day. The noontide nap was
       first dispensed with, then other intervals of rest were
       curtailed, and ultimately artificial light was introduced,
       which had the effect of abolishing the difference between the
       short days of winter and the long days of summer, thus
       equalising, the working day throughout the year. The opening
       of the 19th century was signalised by a new cry, namely, for a
       reduction in the hours of labour; this was in consequence of
       the introduction of female and child labour into the
       factories, and the deterioration of the workers as a result of
       excessive overwork. ... The overwork of the young, and
       particularly the excessive hours in the factories, became such
       crying evils that in 1801 the first Act was passed to restrict
       the hours of labour for apprentices, who were prohibited from
       working more than 12 hours a day, between six A. M. and nine
       P. M., and that provision should be made for teaching them to
       read and write, and other educational exercises. This Act
       further provided that the mills should be whitewashed at least
       once a year; and that doors and windows should be made to
       admit fresh air. This Act was followed by a series of
       commissions and committees of inquiry, the result being that
       it was several times amended. The details of the evidence
       given before the several commissions and committees of inquiry
       are sickening in the extreme; the medical testimony was
       unanimous in its verdict that the children were physically
       ruined by overwork; those who escaped with their lives were so
       crippled and maimed that they were unable to maintain
       themselves in after life, and became paupers. It was proven
       that out of 4,000 who entered the factory before they were 30
       years of age, only 600 were to be found in the mills after
       that age. By Sir Robert Peel's Bill in 1819 it was proposed to
       limit the hours to 11 per day with one and a half for meals,
       for those under 16 years of age. But the mill-owners
       prophesied the ruin of the manufacturers of the country--they
       could not compete with the foreign markets, it was an
       interference with the freedom of labour, the spare time given
       would be spent in debauchery and riot, and that if passed,
       other trades would require the same provisions. The Bill was
       defeated, and the hours fixed at 72 per week; the justices,
       that is to say the manufacturers, were entrusted with the
       enforcement of the law. In 1825 a new law was passed defining
       the time when breakfast and dinner was to be taken, and fixing
       the time to half an hour for the first repast, and a full hour
       for dinner; the traditional term of apprentices was dropped
       and the modern classification of children and young persons
       was substituted, and children were once more prohibited from
       working more than 12 hours a day. But every means was adopted
       to evade the law. ... After thousands of petitions, and
       numerous angry debates in Parliament, the Act of 1833 was
       passed, which limited the working hours of children to 48
       hours per week, and provided that each child should have a
       certain amount of schooling, and with it factory inspectors
       were appointed to enforce the law.
    {1106}
       But the law was not to come into operation until March 1,
       1836, during which time it had to be explained and defended in
       one session, amended in a second, and made binding in a third.
       After several Royal Commissions and inquiries by select
       committees, this Act has been eight times amended, until the
       working hours of children are now limited to six per day, and
       for young persons and women to 56 per week; these provisions
       with certain modifications are now extended to workshops, and
       the whole law is being consolidated and amended. ... The whole
       series of the Factory Acts, dating from 42 George III., c. 73,
       to the 37 and 38 Victoria 1874, forms a code of legislation,
       in regard to working people, unexampled in any age and
       unequalled in any country in the world. . . . Outside
       Parliament efforts have been constantly made to further reduce
       the working hours."

          G. Howell,
          The Conflicts of Capital and Labour,
          pages 298-301.

       "The continental governments, of course, have been obliged to
       make regulations covering kindred subjects, but rarely have
       they kept pace with English legislation. America has enacted
       progressive laws so far as the condition of factory workers
       has warranted. It should be remembered that the abuses which
       crept into the system in England never existed in this country
       in any such degree as we know they did in the old country. Yet
       there are few States in America where manufactures predominate
       or hold an important position in which law has not stepped in
       and restricted either the hours of labor, or the conditions of
       labor, and insisted upon the education of factory children,
       although the laws are usually silent as to children of
       agricultural laborers. It is is not wholly in the passage of
       purely factory acts that the factory system has influenced the
       legislation of the world. England may have suffered
       temporarily from the effects of some of her factory
       legislation, and the recent reduction of the hours of labor to
       nine and one-half per day, less than in any other country, has
       had the effect of placing her works at a disadvantage; but, in
       the long run, England will be the gainer on account of all the
       work she has done in the way of legislative restrictions upon
       labor. In this she has changed her whole policy. Formerly
       trade must be restricted and labor allowed to demoralize
       itself under the specious plea of being free; now, trade must
       be free and labor restricted in the interests of society,
       which means in the interest of good morals. The factory system
       has not only wrought this change, but has compelled the
       economists to recognize the distinction between commodities
       and services. There has been greater and greater freedom of
       contract in respect to commodities, but the contracts which
       involve labor have become more and more completely under the
       authority and supervision of the State. 'Seventy-five years
       ago scarcely a single law existed in any country for
       regulating the contract for services in the interest of the
       laboring classes. At the same time the contract for
       commodities was everywhere subject to minute and incessant
       regulations' [Hon. F. A. Walker]. Factory legislation in
       England, as elsewhere, has had for its chief object the
       regulation of the labor of children and women; but its scope
       has constantly increased by successive and progressive
       amendments until they have attempted to secure the physical
       and moral well-being of the working-man in all trades, and to
       give him every condition of salubrity and of personal safety
       in the workshops. The excellent effect of factory legislation
       has been made manifest throughout the whole of Great Britain.
       'Physically, the factory child can bear fair comparison with
       the child brought up in the fields,' and, intellectually,
       progress is far greater with the former than with the latter.
       Public opinion, struck by these results, has demanded the
       extension of protective measures for children to every kind of
       industrial labor, until parliament has brought under the
       influence of these laws the most powerful industries. To carry
       the factory regulations and those relative to schooling into
       effect, England has an efficient corps of factory inspectors.
       The manufacturers of England are unanimous in acknowledging
       that to the activity, to the sense of impartiality, displayed
       by these inspectors, is due the fact that an entire
       application of the law has been possible without individual
       interests being thereby jeopardized to a very serious extent.
       ... In no other country is there so elaborate a code of
       factory laws as the 'British factory and workshop act' of 1878
       (41 Vict., chapter 16), it being an act consolidating all the
       factory acts since Sir Robert Peel's act of 1802."

          C. D. Wright,
          Factory Legislation
          (Tenth Census of the United States, volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          First annual Report of the Factory Inspectors of
          the State of New York, 1886, appendix.

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          volume 8, chapters 22 and 27.

          H. Martineau,
          History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
          volume 2, pages 512-515.

          See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

    FADDILEY, Battle of.

       Fought successfully by the Britons with the West Saxons, on
       the border of Cheshire, A. D. 583.

          J. R. Green,
          The Making of England,
          page 206.

    FAENZA, Battle of (A. D. 542).

          See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

    FÆSULÆ.

          See FLORENCE, ORIGIN AND NAME.

    FAGGING.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
          ENGLAND.--THE GREAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

    FAGGIOLA, Battle of (1425).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    FAINÉANT KINGS.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

    FAIR OAKS, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

    FAIRFAX AND THE PARLIAMENTARY ARMY.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL),
          and (JUNE); 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST);
          1648 (NOVEMBER); 1649 (FEBRUARY).

    FALAISE.

       "The Castle [in Normandy] where legend fixes the birth of
       William of Normandy, and where history fixes the famous homage
       of William of Scotland, is a vast donjon of the eleventh or
       twelfth century. One of the grandest of those massive square
       keeps which I have already spoken of as distinguishing the
       earliest military architecture of Normandy crowns the summit
       of a precipitous rock, fronted by another mass of rock, wilder
       still, on which the cannon of England were planted during
       Henry's siege. To these rocks, these 'felsen,' the spot owes
       its name of Falaise. ... Between these two rugged heights lies
       a narrow dell. ... The den is crowded with mills and
       tanneries, but the mills and tanneries of Falaise have their
       share in the historic interest of the place. ... In every from
       which the story has taken in history or legend, the mother of
       the Conqueror appears as the daughter of a tanner of Falaise."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Norman Conquest,
          chapter 8, section 1.

    {1107}

    FALAISE, Peace of (1175).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.

    FALK LAWS, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

    FALKIRK, Battles of (1298 and 1746).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305;
          and 1745-1746.

    FAMAGOSTA: A. D. 1571. Taken by the Turks.

       See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

    FAMILIA.

       The slaves belonging to a master were collectively called
       familia among the Romans.

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 100.

    FAMILY COMPACT,

       The First Bourbon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

       The Second.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

       The Third.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

    FAMILY COMPACT IN CANADA, The.

          See CANADA: A. D.1820-1837.

    FAMINE, The Cotton.

          See, ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865,

    FAMINE, The Irish.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1845-1847.

    FANARIOTS.

          See PHANARIOTS.

    FANEUIL HALL.

       "The fame of Faneuil Hall [Boston, Mass.] is as wide as the
       country itself. It has been called the 'Cradle of Liberty,'
       because dedicated by that early apostle of freedom, James
       Otis, to the cause of liberty, in a speech delivered in the
       hall in March, 1763. ... Its walls have echoed to the voices
       of the great departed in times gone by, and in every great
       public exigency the people, with one accord, assembled
       together to take counsel within its hallowed precincts. ...
       The Old Market-house ... existing in Dock Square in 1734, was
       demolished by a mob in 1736-37. There was contention among the
       people as to whether they would be served at their houses in
       the old way, or resort to fixed localities, and one set of
       disputants took this summary method of settling the question.
       ... In 1740, the question of the Market-house being revived,
       Peter Faneuil proposed to build one at his own cost on the
       town's land in Dock Square, upon condition that the town
       should legally authorize it, enact proper regulations, and
       maintain it for the purpose named. Mr. Faneuil's noble offer
       was courteously received, but such was the division of opinion
       on the subject that it was accepted by a majority of only
       seven votes, out of 727 persons voting. The building was
       completed in September, 1742, and three days after, at a
       meeting of citizens, the hall was formally accepted and a vote
       of thanks passed to the donor. ... The town voted that the
       hall should be called Faneuil Hall forever. ... The original
       size of the building was 40 by 100 feet, just half the present
       width; the hall would contain 1,000 persons. At the fire of
       January 13, 1763, the whole interior was destroyed, but the
       town voted to rebuild in March, and the State authorized a
       lottery in aid of the design. The first meeting after the
       rebuilding was held on the 14th March, 1763, when James Otis
       delivered the dedicatory address. In 1806 the Hull was
       enlarged in width to 80 feet, and by the addition of a third
       story."

          S. A. Drake,
          Old Landmarks of Boston,
          chapter 4.

    FANNIAN LAW, The.

          See ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

    FARM.

          See FERM.

    FARMERS' ALLIANCE.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

    FARMER'S LETTERS, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.

    FARNESE, Alexander, Duke of Parma, in the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, to 1588-1593.

    FARNESE, The House of.

          See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

    FARRAGUT, Admiral David G.
       Capture of New Orleans.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

       Attack on Vicksburg.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

       Victory in Mobile Bay.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D.1864 (AUGUST: ALABAMA).

    FARSAKH, OR FARSANG, The.

          See PARASANG.

    FASCES.

          See LICTORS.

    FASTI.

       "Dies Fasti were the days upon which the Courts of Justice [in
       ancient Rome] were open, and legal business could be
       transacted before the Praetor; the Dies Nefasti were those
       upon which the Courts were closed. ... All days consecrated to
       the worship of the Gods by sacrifices, feasts or games, were
       named Festi. ... For nearly four centuries and a-half after
       the foundation of the city the knowledge of the Calendar was
       confined to the Pontifices alone. ... These secrets which
       might be, and doubtless often were, employed for political
       ends, were at length divulged in the year B. C. 314, by Cn.
       Flavius, who drew up tables embracing all this
       carefully-treasured information, and hung them up in the Forum
       for the inspection of the public. From this time forward
       documents of this description were known by the name of Fasti.
       ... These Fasti, in fact, corresponded very closely to a
       modern Almanac. ... The Fasti just described have, to prevent
       confusion, been called Calendaria, or Fasti Calendares, and
       must be carefully distinguished from certain compositions also
       named Fasti by the ancients. These were regular chronicles in
       which were recorded each year the names of the Consuls and
       other magistrates, together with the remarkable events, and
       the days on which they occurred. The most important were the
       Annales Maximi, kept by the Pontifex Maximus."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquities,
          chapter 11.

    FATIMITE CALIPHS, The.

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171;

          Also, ASSASSINS.

    FAVILA, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 737-739.

    FEAST OF LIBERTY.

          See GREECE: B. C. 479:
          PERSIAN WARS.
          PLATÆA.

    FEAST OF REASON, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).

    FEAST OF THE FEDERATION, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791.

    FEAST OF THE SUPREME BEING, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

    FECIALES.--FETIALES.

          See FETIALES.

    FEDELI.

          See CATTANI.

    FEDERAL CITY, The.

          See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.

    FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

          See CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION.

    {1108}

    FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

          See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

    FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.--FEDERATIONS.

       "Two requisites seem necessary to constitute a Federal
       Government in ... its most perfect form. On the one hand, each
       of the members of the Union must be wholly independent in
       those matters which concern each member only. On the other
       hand, all must be subject to a common power in those matters
       which concern the whole body of members collectively. Thus
       each member will fix for itself the laws of its criminal
       jurisprudence, and even the details of its political
       constitution. And it will do this, not as a matter of
       privilege or concession from any higher power, but as a matter
       of absolute right, by virtue of its inherent powers as an
       independent commonwealth. But in all matters which concern the
       general body, the sovereignty of the several members will
       cease. Each member is perfectly independent within its own
       sphere; but there is another sphere in which its independence,
       or rather its separate existence, vanishes. It is invested
       with every right of sovereignty on one class of subjects, but
       there is another class of subjects on which it is as incapable
       of separate political action as any province or city of a
       monarchy or of an indivisible republic. ... Four Federal
       Commonwealths ... stand out, in four different ages of the
       world, as commanding, above all others, the attention of
       students of political history. Of these four, one belongs to
       what is usually known as 'ancient,' another to what is
       commonly called 'mediæval' history; a third arose in the
       period of transition between mediæval and modern history; the
       creation of the fourth may have been witnessed by some few of
       those who are still counted among living men, ... These four
       Commonwealths are, First, the Achaian League [see GREECE: B.
       C. 280-146] in the later days of Ancient Greece, whose most
       flourishing period comes within the third century before our
       era. Second, the Confederation of the Swiss Cantons [see
       CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION], which, with many
       changes in its extent and constitution, has lasted from the
       thirteenth century to our own day. Third, the Seven United
       Provinces of the Netherlands [see NETHERLANDS: A. D.
       1577-1581, and after], whose Union arose in the War of
       Independence against Spain, and lasted, in a republican form,
       till the war of the French Revolution. Fourth, the United
       States of North America [see CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
       OF AMERICA], which formed a Federal Union after their revolt
       from the British Crown under George the Third, and whose
       destiny forms one of the most important, and certainly the
       most interesting, of the political problems of our own time.
       Of these four, three come sufficiently near to the full
       realization of the Federal idea to be entitled to rank among
       perfect Federal Governments. The Achaian League, and the
       United States since the adoption of the present Constitution,
       are indeed the most perfect developments of the Federal
       principle which the world has ever seen. The Swiss
       Confederation, in its origin a Union of the loosest kind, has
       gradually drawn the Federal bond tighter and tighter, till,
       within our own times, it has assumed a form which fairly
       entitles it to rank beside Achaia and America. The claim of
       the United Provinces is more doubtful; their union was at no
       period of their republican being so close as that of Achaia,
       America, and modern Switzerland."

          E. A. Freeman,
          History of Federal Government,
          volume 1, pages 3-6.

    FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
       Classification of Federal Governments.

       "To the classification of federal governments publicists have
       given great attention with unsatisfactory results. History
       shows a great variety of forms, ranging from the lowest
       possible organization, like that of the Amphictyonic Council
       [see AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL] to the highly centralized and
       powerful German Empire. Many writers deny that any fixed
       boundaries can be described. The usual classification is,
       however, into three divisions,--the Staatenstaat, or state
       founded on states; the Staatenbund, or union of states--to
       which the term Confederacy nearly corresponds; and the
       Bundesstaat, or united state, which answers substantially to
       the term federation as usually employed. The Staatenstaat is
       defined to be a state in which the units are not individuals,
       but states, and which, therefore, has no operation directly on
       individuals, but deals with and legislates for its corporate
       members; they preserve undisturbed their powers of government
       over their own subjects. The usual example of a Staatenstaat
       is the Holy Roman Empire [see ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. This
       conception ... is, however, illogical in theory, and never has
       been carried out in practice. ... Historically, also, the
       distinction is untenable. The Holy Roman Empire had courts,
       taxes, and even subjects not connected with the states. In
       theory it had superior claims upon all the individuals within
       the Empire; in practice it abandoned control over the states.
       The second category is better established. Jellinek says:
       "When states form a permanent political alliance, of which
       common defence is at the very least the purpose, with
       permanent federal organs, there arises a Staatenbund.' This
       form of government is distinguished from an alliance by the
       fact that it has permanent federal organs; from a commercial
       league by its political purpose; from a Bundesstaat by its
       limited purpose. In other words, under Staatenbund are
       included the weaker forms of true federal government, in which
       there is independence from other powers, and, within the
       purposes of the union, independence from the constituent
       states. ... The Staatenbund form includes most of the federal
       governments which have existed. The Greek confederations
       (except perhaps the Lycian and Achæan) and all the mediæval
       leagues were of this type: even the strong modern unions of
       the United States, Germany, and Switzerland, have gone through
       the Staatenbund stage in their earlier history. Between the
       Staatenbund and the more highly developed form, the
       Bundesstaat, no writer has described an accurate boundary.
       There are certain governments, notably those of Canada,
       Germany, Switzerland, and the United States, in which is found
       an elaborate and powerful central organism, including federal
       courts; to this organism is assigned all or nearly all the
       common concerns of the nation; within its exclusive control
       are war, foreign affairs, commerce, colonies, and national
       finances; and there is an efficient power of enforcement
       against states. Such governments undoubtedly are
       Bundesstaaten."

          A. B. Hart,
          Introduction to the Study of Federal Government
          (Harvard Historical Monographs, number 2),
          chapter 1.

    {1109}

    FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
       Greek Federations.

       "Under the conditions of the Græco-Roman civic life there were
       but two practicable methods of forming a great state and
       diminishing the quantity of warfare. The one method was
       conquest with incorporation, the other method was federation.
       ... Neither method was adopted by the Greeks in their day of
       greatness. The Spartan method of extending its power was
       conquest without incorporation: when Sparta conquered another
       Greek city, she sent a harmost to govern it like a tyrant; in
       other words she virtually enslaved the subject city. The
       efforts of Athens tended more in the direction of a peaceful
       federalism. In the great Delian confederacy [see GREECE: B. C.
       478-477, and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454], which developed into the
       maritime empire of Athens, the Ægean cities were treated as
       allies rather than subjects. As regards their local affairs
       they were in no way interfered with, and could they have been
       represented in some kind of a federal council at Athens, the
       course of Grecian history might have been wonderfully altered.
       As it was, they were all deprived of one essential element of
       sovereignty,--the power of controlling their own military
       forces. ... In the century following the death of Alexander,
       in the closing age of Hellenic independence, the federal idea
       appears in a much more advanced stage of elaboration, though
       in a part of Greece which had been held of little account in
       the great days of Athens and Sparta. Between the Achaian
       federation, framed in 274 B. C., and the United States of
       America, there are some interesting points of resemblance
       which have been elaborately discussed by Mr. Freeman, in his
       'History of Federal Government.' About the same time the
       Ætolian League [see ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE] came into prominence in
       the north. Both these leagues were instances of true federal
       government, and were not mere confederations; that is, the
       central government acted directly upon all the citizens and
       not merely upon the local governments. Each of these leagues
       had for its chief executive officer a General elected for one
       year, with powers similar to those of an American President.
       In each the supreme assembly was a primary assembly at which
       every citizen from every city of the league had a right to be
       present, to speak, and to vote; but as a natural consequence
       these assemblies shrank into comparatively aristocratic
       bodies. In Ætolia, which was a group of mountain cantons
       similar to Switzerland, the federal union was more complete
       than in Achaia, which was a group of cities. ... In so far as
       Greece contributed anything towards the formation of great and
       pacific political aggregates, she did it through attempts at
       federation. But in so low a state of political development as
       that which prevailed throughout the Mediterranean world in
       pre-Christian times, the more barbarous method of conquest
       with incorporation was more likely to be successful on a great
       scale. This was well illustrated in the history of Rome,--a civic
       community of the same generic type with Sparta and Athens, but
       presenting specific differences of the highest importance. ...
       Rome early succeeded in freeing itself from that insuperable
       prejudice which elsewhere prevented the ancient city from
       admitting aliens to a share in its franchise. And in this
       victory over primeval political ideas lay the whole secret of
       Rome's mighty career."

    FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
       Mediæval Leagues in Germany.

       "It is hardly too much to say that the Lombard League led
       naturally to the leagues of German cities. The exhausting
       efforts of the Hohenstaufen Emperors to secure dominion in
       Italy compelled them to grant privileges to the cities in
       Germany; the weaker emperors, who followed, bought support
       with new charters and privileges. The inability of the Empire
       to keep the peace or to protect commerce led speedily to the
       formation of great unions of cities, usually commercial in
       origin, but very soon becoming political forces of prime
       importance. The first of these was the Rhenish League, formed
       in 1254. The more important cities of the Rhine valley, from
       Basle to Cologne, were the original members; but it eventually
       had seventy members, including several princes and ruling
       prelates. The league had Colloquia, or assemblies, at stated
       intervals; but, beyond deciding upon a general policy, and the
       assignment of military quotas, it had no legislative powers.
       There was, however, a Kommission, or federal court, which
       acted as arbiter in disputes between the members. The chief
       political service of the league was to maintain peace during
       the interregnum in the Empire (1256-1273). During the
       fourteenth century it fell apart, and many of its members
       joined the Hansa or Suabian League. ... In 1377 seventeen
       Suabian cities, which had been mortgaged by the Emperor,
       united to defend their liberties. They received many
       accessions of German and Swiss cities; but in 1388 they were
       overthrown by Leopold III. of Austria, and all combinations of
       cities were forbidden. A federal government they cannot be
       said to have possessed; but political, almost federal
       relations continued during the fifteenth century. The similar
       leagues of Frankfort and Wetterau were broken up about the
       same time. Other leagues of cities and cantons were in a like
       manner formed and dissolved,--among them the leagues of
       Hauenstein and Burgundy; and there was a confederation in
       Franche Comté, afterward French territory. All the mediæval
       leagues thus far mentioned were defensive, and had no extended
       relations beyond their own borders. The great Hanseatic League
       [see HANSA TOWNS], organized as a commercial union, developed
       into a political and international power, which negotiated and
       made war on its own account with foreign and German
       sovereigns; and which was for two centuries one of the leading
       powers of Europe."

          A. B. Hart,
          Introduction to the Study of Federal Government
          (Harvard Historical Monographs, number 2),
          chapter 3.

    FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
       Mediæval League of Lombardy.

       When Frederick Barbarossa entered Italy for the fifth time in
       1163, to enforce the despotic sovereignty over that country
       which the German kings, as emperors, were then claiming (see
       ITALY: A. D. 961-1039), a league of the Lombard cities was
       formed to resist him. "Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso,
       the most powerful towns of the Veronese marches, assembled
       their consuls in congress, to consider of the means of putting
       an end to a tyranny which overwhelmed them. The consuls of
       these four towns pledged themselves by oath in the name of
       their cities to give mutual support to each other in the
       assertion of their former rights, and in the resolution to
       reduce the imperial prerogatives to the point at which they
       were fixed under the reign of Henry IV. Frederick, informed of
       this association; returned hastily into Northern Italy, to put it
       down ... but he soon perceived that the spirit of liberty had
       made progress in the Ghibeline cities as well as in those of
       the Guelphs. ...
    {1110}
       Obliged to bend before a people which he considered only as
       revolted subjects, he soon renounced a contest so humiliating,
       and returned to Germany, to levy an army more submissive to
       him. Other and more pressing interests diverted his attention
       from this object till the autumn of 1166. ... When Frederick,
       in the month of October, 1166, descended the mountains of the
       Grisons to enter Italy by the territory of Brescia, he marched
       his army directly to Lodi, without permitting any act of
       hostility on the way. At Lodi, he assembled, towards the end
       of November, a diet of the kingdom of Italy, at which he
       promised the Lombards to redress the grievances occasioned by
       the abuses of power by his podestas, and to respect their just
       liberties; ... to give greater weight to his negotiation, he
       marched his army into Central Italy. ... The towns of the
       Veronese marches, seeing the emperor and his army pass without
       daring to attack them, became bolder: they assembled a new
       diet, in the beginning of April, at the convent of Pontida,
       between Milan and Bergamo. The consuls of Cremona, of Bergamo,
       of Brescia, of Mantua and Ferrara met there, and joined those
       of the marches. The union of the Guelphs and Ghibelines, for
       the common liberty, was hailed with universal joy. The
       deputies of the Cremonese, who had lent their aid to the
       destruction of Milan, seconded those of the Milanese villages
       in imploring aid of the confederated towns to rebuild the city
       of Milan. This confederation was called the League of Lombardy.
       The consuls took the oath, and their constituents afterwards
       repeated it, that every Lombard should unite for the recovery
       of the common liberty; that the league for this purpose should
       last twenty years; and, finally, that they should aid each
       other in repairing in common any damage experienced in this
       sacred cause, by any one member of the confederation:
       extending even to the past this contract for reciprocal
       security, the league resolved to rebuild Milan. ... Lodi was
       soon afterwards compelled, by force of arms, to take the oath
       to the league; while the towns of Venice, Placentia, Parma,
       Modena, and Bologna voluntarily and gladly joined the
       association."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 2.

       In 1226 the League was revived
       or renewed against Frederick II.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

       "Milan and Bologna took the lead, and were followed by
       Piacenza, Verona, Brescia, Faenza, Mantua, Vercelli, Lodi,
       Bergamo, Turin, Alessandria, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso. ...
       Nothing could be more unlike, than the First and the Second
       Lombard Leagues, that of 1167, formed against Frederick the
       First after the most cruel provocation, was sanctioned by the
       Pope, and had for its end the deliverance of Lombardy. That of
       1226, formed against Frederick the Second, after no
       provocation received, was discountenanced by the Pope, and
       resulted in the frustration of the Crusade and in sowing the
       germ of endless civil wars. This year is fixed upon by the
       Brescian Chronicler as the beginning of 'those plaguy factions
       of Guelf and Ghibelline, which were so engrained into the
       minds of our forefathers, that they have handed them down as
       an heir-loom to their posterity, never to come to an end.'"

          T. L. Kington,
          History of Frederick the Second,
          volume 1, pages 265-266.

    FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
       Modern Federations.

       "A remarkable phenomenon of the last hundred years is the
       impetus that has been given to the development of Federal
       institutions. There are to-day contemporaneously existing no
       less than eight distinct Federal Governments. First and
       foremost is the United States of America, where we have an
       example of the Federal Union in the most perfect form yet
       attained. Then comes Switzerland, of less importance than the
       United States of America, but most nearly approaching it in
       perfection. Again we have the German Empire [see CONSTITUTION
       OF GERMANY], that great factor in European politics, which is
       truly a Federal Union, but a cumbrous one and full of
       anomalies. Next in importance comes the Dominion of Canada
       [see CONSTITUTION OF CANADA], which is the only example of a
       country forming a Federal Union and at the same time a colony.
       Lastly come the Argentine Republic, Mexico, and the States of
       Colombia and Venezuela [see CONSTITUTIONS]. This is a very
       remarkable list when we consider that never before the present
       century did more than two Federal Unions ever coexist, and
       that very rarely, and that even those unions were far from
       satisfying the true requirements of Federation. Nor is this
       all. Throughout the last hundred years we can mark a growing
       tendency in countries that have adopted the Federal type of
       Government to perfect that Federal type and make it more truly
       Federal than before. In the United States of America, for
       instance, the Constitution of 1789 was more truly Federal than
       the Articles of Confederation, and certainly since the Civil
       War we hear less of State Rights, and more of Union. It has
       indeed been remarked that the citizens of the United States
       have become fond of applying the words 'Nation' and 'National'
       to themselves in a manner formerly unknown. We can mark the
       same progress in Switzerland. Before 1789, Switzerland formed
       a very loose system of Confederated States--in 1815, a
       constitution more truly Federal was devised; in 1848, the
       Federal Union was more firmly consolidated; and lastly, in
       1874, such changes were made in the Constitution that
       Switzerland now presents a very fairly perfect example of
       Federal Government. In Germany we may trace a similar
       movement. In 1815, the Germanic Confederation was formed; but
       it was only a system of Confederated States, or what the
       Germans call Staatenbund; but after various changes, amongst
       others the exclusion of Austria in 1866, it became, in 1871, a
       composite State or, in German language, a Bundestaat. Beyond
       this, we have to note a further tendency to Federation. In the
       year 1886, a Bill passed the Imperial Parliament to permit of
       the formation of an Australasian Council for the purposes of
       forming the Australasian Colonies into a Federation. Then we
       hear of further aspirations for applying the Federal system,
       as though there were some peculiar virtue or talismanic effect
       about it which rendered it a panacea for all political troubles.
       There has, also, been much talk about Imperial Federation.
       Lastly, some people think they see a simple solution of the
       Irish Question in the application of Federation, particularly
       the Canadian form of it, to Ireland."

          Federal Government
          (Westminster Rev., May, 1888,
          pages 573-574).

    {1111}

       "The federal is one of the oldest forms of government known,
       and its adaptability to the largest as well as to the smallest
       states is shown in all political formations of late years.
       States in the New and in the Old World, all in their
       aggregation, alike show ever a stronger tendency to adopt it.
       Already all the central states of Europe are
       federal--Switzerland, Germany, Austria [see AUSTRIA: A. D.
       1866-1867, and 1866-1887]; and if ever the various Sclav
       principalities in south-eastern Europe--the Serb, the
       Albanian, the Rouman, the Bulgar, and the Czech--are to
       combine, it will probably be (as Mr. Freeman so long ago as
       1862 remarked) under a federal form,--though whether under
       Russian or Austrian auspices, or neither, remains to be seen.
       ... In the German lands from early ages there has existed an
       aggregation of tribes and states, some of them even of
       non-German race, each of which preserved for domestic purposes
       its own arrangements and laws, but was united with the rest
       under one supreme head and central authority as regards its
       relation to all external powers. Since 1871 all the states of
       Germany 'form an eternal union for the protection of the realm
       and the care of the welfare of the German people.' For
       legislative purposes, under the Emperor as head, are the two
       Houses of Assembly; first, the Upper House of the Federated
       States, consisting of 62 members, who represent the individual
       States, and thus as the guardian of State rights, answers very
       closely to the Senate of the American Union, except that the
       number of members coming from each state is not uniform, but
       apportioned. ... Each German state has its own local
       constitution and home rule for its internal affairs. Generally
       there are two chambers, except in some of the smallest states,
       the population of which does not much exceed in some cases
       that of our larger towns. ... Since 1867 the Austro-Hungarian
       monarchy has been a political Siamese twin, of which Austria
       is the one body, and Hungary the other; the population of the
       Austrian half is 24 millions, and that of Hungary about 16
       millions. Each of the two has its own parliament; the
       connecting link is the sovereign (whose civil list is raised
       half by one and half by the other) and a common army, navy,
       and diplomatic service, and another Over-parliament of 120
       members, one-half chosen by the legislature of Hungary, and
       the other half by the legislature of Austria (the Upper House
       of each twin returns twenty, and the Lower of each forty
       delegates from their own number, who thus form a kind of Joint
       Committee of the Four Houses). The jurisdiction of this
       Over-parliament is limited to foreign affairs and war. ... The
       western or Austrian part of the twin ... is a federal
       government in itself. ... Federated Austria consists of
       seventeen distinct states. The German element constitutes 36
       per cent. of the inhabitants of these, and the Sclav 57 per
       cent. There are a few Magyars, Italians, and Roumanians. Each
       of these seventeen states has its own provincial parliament of
       one House, partly composed of ex-officio members (the bishops and
       archbishops of the Latin and Greek Churches, and the
       chancellors of the universities), but chiefly of
       representatives chosen by all the inhabitants who pay direct
       taxation. Some of these are elected by the landowners, others
       by the towns, others by the trade-guilds and boards of
       commerce; the representatives of the rural communes, however,
       are elected by delegates, as in Prussia. They legislate
       concerning all local matters, county taxation, land laws and
       farming, education, public worship, and public works. ...
       Turning next to the oldest federation in Europe, that of
       Switzerland, which with various changes has survived from
       1308, though its present constitution dates only from 1874, we
       find it now embraces three nationalities--German, French,
       Italian. The original nucleus of the State, however, was
       German, and even now three-fourths of the population are
       German. The twenty-two distinct states are federated under one
       president elected annually, and the Federal Assembly of two
       chambers. ... Each of the cantons is sovereign and
       independent, and has its own local parliament, scarcely any
       two being the same, but all based on universal suffrage. Each
       canton has its own budget of revenue and expenditure, and its
       own public debt."

          J. N. Dalton,
          The Federal States of the World
          (Nineteenth Century, July, 1884).

    FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
       Canadian Federation.

       "A convention of thirty-three representative men was held in
       the autumn of 1864 in the historic city of Quebec, and after a
       deliberation of several weeks the result was the unanimous
       adoption of a set of seventy-two resolutions embodying the
       terms and conditions on which the provinces through their
       delegates agreed to a federal union in many respects similar
       in its general features to that of the United States
       federation, and in accordance with the principles of the
       English constitution. These resolutions had to be laid before
       the various legislatures and adopted in the shape of addresses
       to the queen whose sanction was necessary to embody the wishes
       of the provinces in an imperial statute. ... In the early part
       of 1867 the imperial parliament, without a division, passed
       the statute known as the 'British North America Act, 1867,'
       which united in the first instance the province of Canada, now
       divided into Ontario and Quebec, with Nova Scotia and New
       Brunswick and made provisions for the coming in of the other
       provinces of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, British
       Columbia, and the admission of Rupert's Land and the great
       North-west. Between 1867 and 1873 the provinces just named,
       with the exception of Newfoundland, which has persistently
       remained out of the federation, became parts of the Dominion
       and the vast Northwest Territory was at last acquired on terms
       eminently satisfactory to Canada and a new province of great
       promise formed out of that immense region, with a complete
       system of parliamentary government. ... When the terms of the
       Union came to be arranged between the provinces in 1864, their
       conflicting interest had to be carefully considered and a system
       adopted which would always enable the Dominion to expand its
       limits and bring in new sections until it should embrace the
       northern half of the continent, which, as we have just shown,
       now constitutes the Dominion. It was soon found, after due
       deliberation, that the most feasible plan was a confederation
       resting on those principles which experience of the working of
       the federation of the United States showed was likely to give
       guarantees of elasticity and permanency. The maritime
       provinces had been in the enjoyment of an excellent system of
       laws and representative institutions for many years, and were
       not willing to yield their local autonomy in its entirety. The
       people of the province of Quebec, after experience of a union
       that lasted from 1841 to 1867, saw decidedly great advantages
       to themselves and their institutions in having a provincial
       government under their own control. The people of Ontario
       recognized equal advantages in having a measure of local
       government, apart from French Canadian influences and
       interference. The consequence was the adoption of the federal
       system, which now, after twenty-six years' experience, we can
       truly say appears on the whole well devised and equal to the
       local and national requirements of the people."

          J. G. Bourinot,
          Federal Government in Canada
          (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 7th Series,
          numbers 10-13), lectures 1-2.

    {1112}

    FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
       Britannic Federation, Proposed.

       "The great change which has taken place in the public mind in
       recent years upon the importance to the Empire of maintaining
       the colonial connection found expression at a meeting held at
       the Westminster Palace Hotel in July 1884, under the guidance
       of the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, who occupied the chair. At
       that meeting--which was attended by a large number of members
       of Parliament of both parties, and representatives of the
       colonies--it was moved by the Right Hon. W. H. Smith: 'That,
       in order to secure the permanent unity of the Empire, some
       form of federation is essential.' That resolution was seconded
       by the Earl of Rosebery, and passed unanimously. In November
       of the same year the Imperial Federation League was formed to
       carry out the objects of that resolution; and the subject has
       received considerable attention since. ... I believe all are
       agreed that the leading objects of the Imperial Federation
       League are to find means by which the colonies, the outlying
       portions of the Empire, may have a certain voice and weight
       and influence in reference to the foreign policy of this
       country, in which they are all deeply interested, and
       sometimes more deeply interested than the United Kingdom
       itself. In the next place, that measures may be taken by which
       all the power and weight and influence that these great
       British communities in Australasia, in South Africa, and in
       Canada possess shall be brought into operation for the
       strengthening and defence of the Empire. The discussion of
       these questions has led to a great deal of progress. We have
       got rid of a number of fallacies that obtained in the minds of
       a good many persons in relation to the means by which those
       objects are to be attained. Most people have come to the
       conclusion stated by Lord Rosebery at the Mansion House, that
       a Parliamentary Federation, if practicable, is so remote, that
       during the coming century it is not likely to make any very great
       advance. We have also got rid of the fallacy that it was
       practicable to have a common tariff throughout the Empire. It
       is not, in my opinion, consistent with the constitution either
       of England or of the autonomous colonies. The tariff of a
       country must rest of necessity mainly with the Government of
       the day, and involves such continual change and alteration as
       to make uniformity impracticable. ... I regard the time as
       near at hand when the great provinces of Australasia will be
       confederated under one Government. ... When that has been done
       it will be followed, I doubt not, at a very early day, by a
       similar course on the part of South Africa, and then we shall
       stand in the position of having three great dominions,
       commonwealths, or realms, or whatever name is found most
       desirable on the part of the people who adopt them--three
       great British communities, each under one central and strong
       Government. When that is accomplished, the measure which the
       Marquis of Lorne has suggested, of having the representatives
       of these colonies during the term of their office here in
       London, practically Cabinet Ministers, will give to the
       Government of England an opportunity of learning in the most
       direct and complete manner the views and sentiments of each of
       those great British communities in regard to all questions of
       foreign policy affecting the colonies. I would suggest that
       the representatives of those three great British communities
       here in London should be leading members of the Cabinet of the
       day of the country they represent, going out of office when
       their Government is changed. In that way they would always
       represent the country, and necessarily the views of the party
       in power in Canada, in Australasia, and in South Africa. That
       would involve no constitutional change; it would simply
       require that whoever represented those dominions in London
       should have a seat in their own Parliament, and be a member of
       the Administration."

          C. Tupper,
          Federating the Empire (Nineteenth Century,
          October, 1891).

       "Recent expensive wars at the Cape, annexations of groups of
       islands in the neighbourhood of Australia, the Fishery and
       other questions that have arisen, and may arise, on the North
       American continent, have all compelled us to take a review of
       our responsibilities in connection with our Colonies and to
       consider how far, in the event of trouble, we may rely upon
       their assistance to adequately support the commercial
       interests of our scattered Empire. It is remarkable that,
       although the matters here indicated are slowly coming to the
       surface, and have provoked discussion, they have not been
       forced upon the public attention suddenly, or by any violent
       injury or catastrophe. The review men are taking of our
       position, and the debates as to how best we can make our
       relationships of standing value, have been the natural outcome
       of slowly developing causes and effects. Politicians belonging
       to both of the great parties in the State have joined the
       Federation League. The leaders have expressly declared that
       they do not desire at the present moment to propound any
       definite theories, or to push any premature scheme for closer
       union of the Empire. The society has been formed for the
       purpose of discussing any plans proposed for such objects. The
       suggestions actually made have varied in importance from
       comprehensive projects of universal commercial union and
       common contributions for a world-wide military and naval
       organization, to such a trivial proposal as the personal
       recognition of distinguished colonists by a nomination to the
       peerage."

          The Marquis of Lorne,
          Imperial Federation,
          chapter 1.

    {1113}

       "Many schemes of federation have been propounded, and many
       degrees of federal union are possible. Lord Rosebery has not
       gone further, as yet, than the enunciation of a general
       principle. 'The federation we aim at (he has said) is the
       closest possible union of the various self-governing States
       ruled by the British Crown, consistently with that free
       development which is the birthright of British subjects all
       over the world--the closest union in sympathy, in external
       action, and in defence.' ... The representation of the
       Colonies in the Privy Council has been viewed with favour,
       both by statesmen and by theoretical writers. Earl Grey has
       proposed the appointment of a Federal Committee, selected from
       the Privy Council, to advise with the Secretary of State for
       the Colonies. The idea thus shadowed forth has been worked out
       with greater amplitude of detail by Mr. Creswell, in an essay to
       which the prize offered by the London Chamber of Commerce was
       awarded. 'The Imperial assembly which we want,' says Mr.
       Creswell, 'must be an independent body, constitutional in its
       origin, representative in its character, and supreme in its
       decisions. Such a body we have already in existence in the
       Privy Council. Its members are chosen, irrespective of party
       considerations, from among the most eminent of those who have
       done service to the State. To this body colonists of
       distinguished public service could be elected. In constituting
       the Imperial Committee of the Privy Council, representation
       might be given to every part of the empire, in proportion to
       the several contributions to expenditure for Imperial
       defence.' The constitution of a great Council of the Empire,
       with similar functions in relation to foreign affairs to those
       which are exercised in the United States by a Committee of the
       Senate, is a step for which public opinion is not yet
       prepared. In the meanwhile the utmost consideration is being
       paid at the Foreign Office to Colonial feelings and interests.
       No commitments or engagements are taken which would not be
       approved by Colonial opinion. Another proposal which has been
       warmly advocated, especially by the Protectionists, is that
       for a customs-union between the Mother-country and the
       Colonies. It cannot be said that at the present time proposals
       for a customs-union are ripe for settlement, or even for
       discussion, at a conference of representatives from all parts
       of the empire. The Mother-country has been committed for more
       than a generation to the principle of Free-trade. By our
       policy of free imports of food and raw materials we have so
       cheapened production that we are able to compete successfully
       with all comers in the neutral markets of the world. ... It
       would be impossible to entertain the idea of a reversal of our
       fiscal policy, in however restricted a sense, without careful and
       exhaustive inquiry. ... Lord Rosebery has recently declared
       that in his opinion it is impracticable to devise a scheme of
       representation for the Colonies in the House of Commons and
       House of Lords, or in the Privy Council. The scheme of an
       Imperial customs-union, ably put forward by Mr. Hoffmeyer at
       the last Colonial Conference, he equally rejects. Lord
       Rosebery would limit the direct action of the Imperial
       Government for the present to conferences, summoned at
       frequent intervals. Our first conference was summoned by the
       Government at the instance of the Imperial Federation League.
       It was attended by men of the highest distinction in the
       Colonies. Its deliberations were guided by Lord Knutsford with
       admirable tact and judgment; it considered many important
       questions of common interest to the different countries of the
       empire; it arrived at several important decisions, and it
       cleared the air of not a few doubts and delusions. The most
       tangible, the most important, and the most satisfactory result
       of that conference was the recognition by the Australian
       colonies of the necessity for making provision for the naval
       defence of their own waters by means of ships, provided by the
       Government of the United Kingdom, but maintained by the
       Australian Governments. Lord Rosebery holds that the question
       of Imperial Federation depends for the present on frequent
       conferences. In his speech at the Mansion House he laid down
       the conditions essential to the success of conferences in the
       future. They must be held periodically and at stated
       intervals. The Colonies must send the best men to represent
       them. The Government of the Mother-country must invest these
       periodical congresses with all the authority and splendour
       which it is in their power to give. The task to be
       accomplished will not be the production of statutes, but the
       production of recommendations. Those who think that a congress
       that only meets to report and recommend has but a neutral task
       before it, have a very inadequate idea of the influence which
       would be exercised by a conference representing a quarter of
       the human race, and the immeasurable opulence and power that
       have been garnered up by the past centuries of our history. If
       we have these conferences, if they are allowed to discuss, as
       they must be allowed to discuss, all topics which any parties
       to these conferences should recommend to be discussed, Lord
       Rosebery cannot apprehend that they would be wanting in
       authority or in weight. Lord Salisbury, in his speeches
       recently delivered in reply to the Earl of Dunraven in the
       House of Lords, and in reply to the deputation of the Imperial
       Federation League at the Foreign Office, has properly insisted
       on the chief practical obstacle to a policy of frequent
       conferences. Attendance at conferences involves grave
       inconvenience to Colonial statesmen. ... In appealing to the
       Imperial Federation League for some practical suggestions as
       to the means by which the several parts of the British Empire
       may be more closely knit together, Lord Salisbury threw out
       some pregnant hints. To make a united empire both a Zollverein
       and a Kriegsverein must be formed. In the existing state of
       feeling in the Mother-country a Zollverein would be a serious
       difficulty. The reasons have been already stated. A
       Kriegsverein was, perhaps, more practicable, and certainly
       more, urgent. The space which separates the Colonies from
       possible enemies was becoming every year less and less a
       protection. We may take concerted action for defence without
       the necessity for constitutional changes which it would be
       difficult to carry out."

          Lord Brassey,
          Imperial Federation: An English View
          (Nineteenth Century, September., 1891).

       "The late Mr. Forster launched under the high-sounding title
       of the 'Imperial Federation League,' a scheme by which its
       authors proposed to solve all the problems attending the
       administration of our colonial empire. From first to last the
       authors of this scheme have never condescended on particulars.
       'Imperial federation,' we were always told, was the only
       specific against the disintegration of the Empire, but as to
       what this specific really was, no information was vouchsafed.
       ... It is very natural that the citizens of a vast but
       fragmentary empire, whose territorial atoms (instead of
       forming, like those of the United States, a 'ring-fence'
       domain) are scattered over the surface of the globe, should
       cast about for some artificial links to bind together the
       colonies we have planted, and 'the thousand tribes nourished
       on strange religions and lawless slaveries' which we have
       gathered under our rule.
    {1114}
       This anxiety has been naturally augmented by a chronic
       agitation for the abandonment of all colonies as expensive and
       useless. For though there may be little to boast of in the
       fact that Great Britain has in the course of less than three
       centuries contrived by war, diplomacy, and adventure, to annex
       about a fifth of the globe, it can hardly be expected that she
       should relinquish without an effort even the nominal sway she
       still holds over her colonial empire. Hence it comes to pass
       that any scheme which seems to supply the needed links is
       caught up by those who, possessing slight acquaintance with
       the past history or the present aspirations of our colonists,
       are simply looking out for some new contrivance by which they
       may hope that an enduring bond of union may be provided.
       'Imperial federation' is the last new 'notion' which has
       cropped up in pursuance of this object. ... Some clue ... to
       its objects and aims may be gained by a reference to the
       earliest exposition by Mr. Forster of his motives contained in
       his answer five years ago to the question, 'Why was the League
       formed at all?' 'For this reason,' says Mr. Forster, 'because
       in giving self-government to our colonies we have introduced a
       principle which must eventually shake off from Great Britain,
       Greater Britain, and divide it into separate states, which
       must, in short, dissolve the union unless counteracting
       measures be taken to preserve it.' Believing, as we do, that
       it has only been by conceding to our larger groups of colonies
       absolute powers of self-government that we have retained them
       at all, and that the secret of our protracted empire lies in
       the fact of this abandonment of central arbitrary power, the
       retention of which has caused the collapse of all the European
       empires which preceded us in the path of colonisation, we are
       bound to enter our emphatic protest against an assumption so
       utterly erroneous as that propounded by Mr. Forster. So far
       from believing that the permanent union of the British Empire
       is to be secured by 'measures which may counteract the
       workings of colonial self-government,' we are convinced that
       the only safety for our Empire lies in the unfettered action
       of that self-government which we have ourselves granted to our
       colonies. It would almost seem that for Lord Rosebery and his
       fellow workers the history of the colonial empires of
       Portugal, Spain, Holland, and France had been written in vain.
       For if we ask why these colonial empires have dwindled and
       decayed, the answer is simply because that self-government
       which is the life of British colonies was never granted to
       their dependencies. There was a time when one hundred and
       fifty sovereign princes paid tribute to the treasury of
       Lisbon. For two hundred years, more than half the South
       American continent was an appanage of Spain. Ceylon, the Cape,
       Guiana, and a vast cluster of trade factories in the East were
       at the close of the seventeenth century colonies of Holland;
       while half North America, comprising the vast and fertile
       valleys of the St. Lawrence, the Mississippi, and the Ohio,
       obeyed, a little more than a century ago, the sceptre of
       France. Neither Portugal, nor Spain, nor Holland, nor France,
       has lacked able rulers or statesmen, but the colonial empire
       of all these states has crumbled and decayed. The exceptional
       position of Great Britain in this respect can only be ascribed
       to the relinquishment of all the advantages, political and
       commercial, ordinarily presumed to result to dominant states
       from the possession of dependencies. ... The romantic dreams
       of the Imperial Federation League were in fact dissipated
       beforehand by the irrevocable grant of independent
       legislatures to all our most important colonies, and Lord
       Rosebery may rest assured that, charm he never so wisely, they
       will not listen to his blandishments at the cost of one iota
       of the political privileges already conferred on them."

          Imperial Federation
          (Edinburgh Review, July, 1889).

       "'Britannic Confederation' is defined to be an union of 'the
       United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, British North
       America, 'British South Africa, and Australasia.' The West
       Indies and one or two other British Dependencies seem here to
       be shut out; but, at any rate, with this definition we at
       least know where we are. The terms of the union we are not
       told; but, as the word 'confederation' is used, I conceive
       that they are meant to be strictly federal. That is to say,
       first of all, the Parliament of the United Kingdom will give
       up its right to legislate for British North America, British
       South Africa, and Australasia. Then the United Kingdom,
       British North America, British South Africa and Australasia
       will enter into a federal relation with one another. They may
       enter either as single members (States or Cantons) 'or as
       groups of members. That is, Great Britain and Ireland might
       enter as a single State of the Confederation, or England,
       Scotland, Ireland, Wales--or possibly smaller divisions
       again--might enter as separate States. Or Great Britain,
       Australia, Canada, &c., might enter as themselves Leagues,
       members of a greater League, as in the old state of things in
       Graubünden. I am not arguing for or against any of these
       arrangements. I am only stating them as possible. But whatever
       the units are to be--Great Britain and Australia, England and
       Victoria, or anything larger or smaller--if the confederation
       is to be a real one, each State must keep some powers to
       itself, and must yield some powers to a central body. That
       Central body, in which all the States must be represented in
       some way or other, will naturally deal with all international
       matters, all matters that concern the Britannic Confederation
       as a whole. The legislatures of Great Britain and Australia,
       England and Victoria, or whatever the units fixed on may be,
       will deal only with the internal affairs of those several
       cantons. Now such a scheme as this is theoretically possible.
       That is, it involves no contradiction in terms, as the talk
       about Imperial Federation does. It is purely federal; there is
       nothing 'imperial' about it. It is simply applying to certain
       political communities a process which has been actually gone
       through by certain other political communities. It is
       proposing to reconstruct a certain political constitution
       after the model of certain other political constitutions which
       are in actual working. It is therefore something better than
       mere talk and theory. But, because it is theoretically
       possible, it does not follow that it is practically possible,
       that is, that it is possible in this particular case. ... Of
       the federations existing at this time the two chief are
       Switzerland and the United States of America. They differ in
       this point, that one is very large and the other very small;
       they agree in this, that the territory of both is continuous.
       But the proposed Britannic Confederation will be scattered,
       scattered over every part of the world.
    {1115}
       I know of no example in any age of a scattered confederation,
       a scattered Bundesstaat. The Hanse Towns were not a
       Bundesstaat; they were hardly a Staatenbund. Of the probable
       working of such a body as that which is now proposed the
       experience of history can teach us nothing; we can only guess
       what may be likely. The Britannic Confederation will have its
       federal congress sitting somewhere, perhaps at Westminster,
       perhaps at Melbourne, perhaps at some Washington called
       specially into being at some point more central than either.
       ... For a while their representatives will think it grand to
       sit at Westminster; presently, as the spirit of equality
       grows, they are not unlikely to ask for some more central
       place; they may even refuse to stir out of their own
       territory. That is to say, they will find that the sentiment
       of national unity, which they undoubtedly have in no small
       measure, needs some physical and some political basis to stand
       on. It is hard to believe that States which are united only by
       a sentiment, which have so much, both political and physical,
       to keep them asunder, will be kept together for ever by a
       sentiment only. And we must further remember that that
       sentiment is a sentiment for the mother-country, and not for
       one another. ... Canada and Australia care a great deal for
       Great Britain; we may doubt whether, apart from Great Britain,
       Canada and Australia care very much for one another. There may
       be American States which care yet less for one another; but in
       their case mere continuity produces a crowd of interests and
       relations common to all. We may doubt whether the
       confederation of States so distant as the existing colonies of
       Great Britain, whether the bringing them into closer relations
       with one another as well as with Great Britain, will at all tend
       to the advance of a common national unity among them. We may
       doubt whether it will not be likely to bring out some hidden
       tendencies to disunion among them. ... In the scattered
       confederation all questions and parties are likely to be
       local. It is hard to see what will be the materials for the
       formation of great national parties among such scattered
       elements."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity
          (Britannic Confederation, edited by A. S. White).

       "I have the greatest respect for the aspirations of the
       Imperial Federationists, and myself most earnestly desire the
       moral unity of our race and its partnership in achievement and
       grandeur. But an attempt at formal Federation, such as is now
       proposed, would in the first place exclude the people of the
       United States, who form the largest portion of the
       English-speaking race, and in the second place it would split
       us all to pieces. It would, I am persuaded, call into play
       centrifugal forces against which the centripetal forces could
       not contend for an hour. What interests of the class with
       which a Federal Parliament would deal have Australia and
       Canada in common? What enemy has either of them whom the other
       would be inclined to fight? Australia, it seems, looks forward
       to a struggle with the Chinese for ascendency in that quarter
       of the globe. Canada cares no more about a struggle between
       the Australians and the Chinese at the other extremity of the
       globe than the Australians would care about a dispute between
       Canada and her neighbours in the United States respecting
       Canadian boundaries or the Fisheries Question. The
       circumstances of the two groups of colonies, to which their
       policy must conform, are totally different. Australia lies in
       an ocean by herself: Canada is territorially interlocked and
       commercially bound up, as well as socially almost fused, with
       the great mass of English-speaking population which occupies
       the larger portion of her continent. Australia again is
       entirely British. Canada has in her midst a great block of
       French population, constituting a distinct nationality, which
       instead of being absorbed is daily growing in intensity; and
       she would practically be unable to take part in any enterprise
       or support any policy, especially any policy entailing an
       increase of taxation, to which the French Canadians were
       opposed. Of getting Canada to contribute out of her own
       resources to wars or to the maintenance of armaments, for the
       objects of British diplomacy in Europe or in the East, no one
       who knows the Canadians can imagine that there would be the
       slightest hope. The very suggestion, at the time of the Soudan
       Expedition, called forth emphatic protests on all sides. The
       only results of an experiment in formal Federation, I repeat,
       would be repudiation of Federal demands, estrangement and
       dissolution."

          Goldwin Smith,
          Straining the Silken Thread
          (Macmillan's Magazine. August, 1888).

    FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
       European Federation.

       "While it is obvious that Imperial Federation of the British
       Empire would cover many of the defects in our relationship
       with the colonies, it is equally apparent that it is open to
       the fatal objection of merely making us a more formidable
       factor in the field of international anarchy. Suppose the
       colonies undertook to share equitably the great cost of
       imperial defence in the present state of things throughout
       Europe--and that is a very large assumption--England would be
       entirely dependent, in case of war, for the supply of food on
       the fleet, any accident to which would place us at the enemy's
       mercy. Even without actual hostilities, however, our
       additional strength would cause another increase of foreign
       armaments to meet the case of war with us. This process has
       taken place invariably on the increase of armaments of any
       European state, and may be taken to be as certain as that the
       sun will rise to-morrow. But all the benefits accruing from
       Imperial Federation may be secured by European Federation,
       plus a reduction of military liability, which Imperial
       Federation would not only not reduce, but increase. There is
       nothing to prevent the self-governing colonies from joining in
       a European Federation, and thus enlarging the basis of that
       institution enormously, and cutting off in a corresponding
       degree the chance of an outbreak of violence in another
       direction, which could not fail to have serious consequences
       to the colonies at any rate."

          C. D. Farquharson,
          Federation, the Polity of the Future
          (Westminster Review, December, 1891),
          pages 602-603.

    ----------FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: End----------

    FEDERALIST, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

    FEDERALISTS; The party of the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
          also 1812; and 1814 (DECEMBER): THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

    FEDS.--CONFEDS.

          See BOYS IN BLUE.

    FEE.

          See FEUDALISM.

    FEHDERECHT.

       The right of private warfare, or diffidation,
       exercised in mediæval Germany.

          See LANDDFRIEDE.

    {1116}

    FEHRBELLIN, Battle of (1675).

          See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688;
          and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

    FEIS OF TARA.

          See TARA.

    FELICIAN HERESY.

          See ADOPTIANISM.

    FELIX V., Pope, A. D. 1439-1449
       Elected by the Council of Basle.

    FENIAN MOVEMENT, The.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867;
          and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

    FENIAN: Origin of the Name.

       An Irish poem of the ninth century called the Duan Eireannach,
       or Poem of Ireland, preserves a mythical story of the origin
       of the Irish people, according to which they sprang from one
       Fenius Farsaidh who came out of Scythia. Nel, or Niul, the son
       of Fenius, travelled into Egypt and married Scota, a daughter
       of Forann (Pharaoh). "Niul had a son named Gaedhuil Glas, or
       Green Gael; and we are told that it is from him the Irish are
       called Gaedhil (Gael) or Gadelians, while from his mother is
       derived the name of Scoti, or Scots, and from Fenius that of
       Feni or Fenians."

          M. Haverty,
          History of Ireland,
          page 10.

       From this legend was derived the name of the Fenian
       Brotherhood, organized in Ireland and America for the
       liberation of the former from British rule, and which played a
       disturbing but unsuccessful part in Irish affairs from about
       1865 to 1871.

    FEODORE.

          See THEODORE.

    FEODUM.

          See FEUDALISM.

    FEOF.

          See FEUDALISM.

    FEORM FULTUM.

          See FERM.

    FERDINAND,
       King of Portugal, A. D. 1367-1383.

       Ferdinand 1., Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary and
       Bohemia, 1835-1848.

       Ferdinand I.,
          Germanic Emperor, 1558-1564;
          Archduke of Austria,
          and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1526-1564;
          King of the Romans, 1531-1558.

       Ferdinand I., King of Aragon and Sicily, 1412-1416.

       Ferdinand I.,
          King of Castile, 1035-1065;
          King of Leon, 1037-1065.

       Ferdinand I., King of Naples, 1458-1494.

       Ferdinand II., Germanic Emperor and King of Bohemia and
       Hungary, 1619-1637.

       Ferdinand II.,
          King of Aragon, 1479-1516;
          V. of Castile (King-Consort of Isabella of Castile and
          Regent), 1474-1516;
          II. of Sicily, 1479-1516; and III. of Naples, 1503-1516.

       Ferdinand II., King of Leon, 1157-1188.

       Ferdinand II., King of Naples, 1495-1496.

       Ferdinand II., called Bomba,
       King of the Two Sicilies, 1830-1859.

       Ferdinand III., Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and
       Bohemia, 1637-1657.

       Ferdinand III.,
          King of Castile, 1217-1230;
          King of Leon and Castile, united, 1230-1252.

       Ferdinand IV., King of Leon and Castile, 1295-1312.

       Ferdinand IV.,
          King of Naples,
          and I. of the Two Sicilies, 1759-1806;
          and 1815-1825.

       Ferdinand VI., King of Spain, 1746-1759.

       Ferdinand VII., King of Spain, 1808; and 1814-1833.

    FERIÆ.

          See LUDI.

    FERM.--FIRMA.--FARM.

       "A sort of composition for all the profits arising to the king
       [in England, Norman period] from his ancient claims on the
       land and from the judicial proceedings of the shire-moot; the
       rent of detached pieces of demesne land, the remnants of the
       ancient folk-land; the payments due from corporate bodies and
       individuals for the primitive gifts, the offerings made in
       kind, or the hospitality--the feorm-fultum--which the kings
       had a right to exact from their subjects, and which were
       before the time of Domesday generally commuted for money; the
       fines, or a portion of the fines, paid in the ordinary process
       of the county courts, and other small miscellaneous incidents.
       These had been, soon after the composition of Domesday,
       estimated at a fixed sum, which was regarded as a sort of rent
       or composition at which the county was let to the sheriff and
       recorded in the 'Rotulus Exactorious'; for this, under the
       name of ferm, he answered annually; if his receipts were in
       excess, he retained the balance as his lawful profit, the
       wages of his service; if the proceeds fell below the ferm, he
       had to pay the difference from his own purse. ... The farm,
       ferm, or firma, the rent or composition for the ancient
       feorm-fultum, or provision payable in kind to the Anglo-Saxon
       kings. The history of the word in its French form would be
       interesting. The use of the word for a pecuniary payment is
       traced long before the Norman Conquest."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 11, section 126, and note.

    FERNANDO.

          See FERDINAND.

    FEROZESHUR, Battle of (1845)

          See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

    FERRARA: The House of Este.

          See ESTE.

    FERRARA: A. D. 1275.
       Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

    FERRARA: A. D. 1597.
       Annexation to the states of the Church.
       End of the house of Este.
       Decay of the city and duchy.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

    FERRARA: A. D. 1797.
       Joined to the Cispadine Republic.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    ----------FERRARA: End----------

    FERRY BRIDGE, Battle of (1461).

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471,

    FETIALES.--FECIALES.

       "The duties of the feciales, or fetiales [among the Romans].
       extended over every branch of international law. They gave
       advice on all matters of peace or war, and the conclusion of
       treaties and alliances. ... They fulfilled the same functions
       as heralds, and, as such, were frequently entrusted with
       important communications. They were also sent on regular
       embassies. To them was entrusted the reception and
       entertainment of foreign envoys. They were required to decide
       on the justice of a war about to commence, and to proclaim and
       consecrate it according to certain established formalities.
       ... The College of Feciales consisted of nearly twenty
       members, with a president, who was called Pater Patratus,
       because it was necessary that he should have both father and
       children living, that he might be supposed to take greater
       interest in the welfare of the State, and look backwards as
       well as forwards. ... The name of Feciales ... still existed
       under the emperors, as well as that of Pater Patratus, though
       only as a title of honour, while the institution itself was
       for ever annihilated; and, after the reign of Tiberius, we
       cannot find any trace of it."

          E. C. G. Murray,
          Embassies and Foreign Courts,
          pages 8-10.

          See, also, AUGURS.

    {1117}

    FEUDAL TENURES.

       "After the feudal system of tenure had been fully established,
       all lands were held subject to certain additional obligations,
       which were due either to the King (not as sovereign, but as
       feudal lord) from the original grantees, called
       tenants-in-chief (tenentes in capite), or to the
       tenants-in-chief themselves from their under tenants. Of these
       obligations the most honourable was that of knight-service.
       This was the tenure by which the King granted out fiefs to his
       followers, and by which they in turn provided for their own
       military retainers. The lands of the bishops and dignified
       ecclesiastics, and of most of the religious foundations, were
       also held by this tenure. A few exceptions only were made in
       favour of lands which had been immemorially held in
       frankalmoign, or free-alms. On the grant of a fief, the tenant
       was publicly invested with the land by a symbolical or actual
       delivery, termed livery of seisin. He then did homage, so
       called from the words used in the ceremony: 'Je deveigne votre
       homme' ['I become your man']. ... In the case of a sub-tenant
       (vavassor), his oath of fealty was guarded by a reservation of
       the faith due to his sovereign lord the King. For every
       portion of land of the annual value of £20, which constituted
       a knight's fee [in England], the tenant was bound, whenever
       required, to render the services of a knight properly armed
       and accoutred, to serve in the field forty days at his own
       expense. ... Tenure by knight-service was also subject to
       several other incidents of a burdensome character. ... There
       was a species of tenancy in chief by Grand Serjeanty, ...
       whereby the tenant was bound, instead of serving the King
       generally in his wars, to do some special service in his own
       proper person, as to carry the King's banner or lance, or to
       be his champion, butler, or other officer at his coronation.
       ... Grants of land were also made by the King to his inferior
       followers and personal attendants, to be held by meaner
       services. ... Hence, probably, arose tenure by Petit
       Serjeanty, though later on we find that term restricted to
       tenure 'in capite' by the service of rendering yearly some
       implement of war to the King. ... Tenure in Free Socage (which
       still subsists under the modern denomination of Freehold, and
       may be regarded as the representative of the primitive alodial
       ownership) denotes, in its most general and extensive
       signification, a tenure by any certain and determinate
       service, as to pay a fixed money rent, or to plough the lord's
       land for a fixed number of days in the year. ... Tenure in
       Burgage was a kind of town socage. It applied to tenements in
       any ancient borough, held by the burgesses, of the King or
       other lord, by fixed rents or services. ... This tenure, which
       still subsists, is subject to a variety of local customs, the
       most remarkable of which is that of borough-English, by which
       the burgage tenement descends to the youngest instead of to
       the eldest son. Gavelkind is almost confined to the county of
       Kent. ... The lands are held by suit of court and fealty, a
       service in its nature certain. The tenant in Gavelkind
       retained many of the properties of alodial ownership: his
       lands were devisable by will; in case of intestacy they
       descended to all his sons equally; they were not liable to
       escheat for felony ... and they could be aliened by the tenant
       at the age of fifteen. Below Free Socage was the tenure in
       Villeinage, by which the agricultural labourers, both free and
       servile, held the land which was to them in lieu of money
       wages."

          T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
          English Constitutional History,
          pages 58-65.

    FEUDALISM.

       "Feudalism, the comprehensive idea which includes the whole
       governmental policy of the French kingdom, was of distinctly
       Frank growth. The principle which underlies it may be
       universal; but the historic development of it with which the
       constitutional history of Europe is concerned may be traced
       step by step under Frank influence, from its first appearance
       on the conquered soil of Roman Gaul to its full development in
       the jurisprudence of the Middle Ages. In the form which it has
       reached at the Norman Conquest, it may be described as a
       complete organisation of society through the medium of land
       tenure, in which from the king down to the lowest landowner
       all are bound together by obligation of service and defence:
       the lord to protect his vassal, the vassal to do service to
       his lord; the defence and service being based on and regulated
       by the nature and extent of the land held by the one of the
       other. In those states which have reached the territorial
       stage of development, the rights of defence and service are
       supplemented by the right of jurisdiction. The lord judges as
       well as defends his vassal; the vassal does suit as well as
       service to his lord. In states in which feudal government has
       reached its utmost growth, the political, financial, judicial,
       every branch of public administration, is regulated by the
       same conditions. The central authority is a mere shadow of a
       name. This institution had grown up from two great
       sources--the beneficium, and the practice of
       commendation,--and had been specially fostered on Gallic soil
       by the existence of a subject population which admitted of any
       amount of extension in the methods of dependence. The
       beneficiary system originated partly in gifts of land made by
       the kings out of their own estates to their kinsmen and
       servants, with a special undertaking to be faithful; partly in
       the surrender by landowners of their estates to churches or
       powerful men, to be received back again and held by them as
       tenants for rent or service. By the latter arrangement the
       weaker man obtained the protection of the stronger, and he who
       felt himself insecure placed his title under the defence of
       the church. By the practice of commendation, on the other
       hand, the inferior put himself under the personal care of a
       lord, but without altering his title or divesting himself of
       his right to his estate; he became a vassal and did homage.
       ... The union of the beneficiary tie with that of commendation
       completed the idea of feudal obligation; the two-fold hold on
       the land, that of the lord and that of the vassal, was
       supplemented by the two-fold engagement, that of the lord to
       defend, and that of the vassal to be faithful. A third
       ingredient was supplied by the grants of immunity by which in
       the Frank empire, as in England, the possession of land was
       united with the right of judicature: the dwellers on a feudal
       property were placed under the tribunal of the lord, and the
       rights which had belonged to the nation or to its chosen head
       were devolved upon the receiver of a fief. The rapid spread of
       the system thus originated, and the assimilation of all other
       tenures to it, may be regarded as the work of the tenth
       century; but as early as A. D. 877 Charles the Bald recognised
       the hereditary character of all benefices; and from that year
       the growth of strictly feudal jurisprudence may be held to
       date. The system testifies to the country and causes of its
       birth.
    {1118}
       The beneficium is partly of Roman, partly of German origin.
       ... Commendation on the other hand may have had a Gallic or
       Celtic origin, and an analogy only with the Roman clientship.
       ... The word feudum, fief, or fee, is derived from the German
       word for cattle (Gothic 'faihu'; Old High German 'fihu'; Old
       Saxon 'fehu'; Anglo-Saxon 'feoh'); the secondary meaning being
       goods, especially money: hence property in general. The letter
       d is perhaps a mere insertion for sound's sake; but it
       has been interpreted as part of a second root, od, also
       meaning property, in which case the first syllable has a third
       meaning, that of fee or reward, and the whole word means
       property given by way of reward for service. But this is
       improbable. ... The word feodum is not found earlier than the
       close of the ninth century."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 9, section 93, and notes (volume 1).

       "The regular machinery and systematic establishment of feuds,
       in fact, may be considered as almost confined to the dominions
       of Charlemagne, and to those countries which afterwards
       derived it from thence. In England it can hardly be thought to
       have existed in a complete state, before the Conquest.
       Scotland, it is supposed, borrowed it soon after from her
       neighbour. The Lombards of Benevento had introduced feudal
       customs into the Neapolitan provinces, which the Norman
       conquerors afterwards perfected. Feudal tenures were so
       general in the kingdom of Aragon, that I reckon it among the
       monarchies which were founded upon that basis. Charlemagne's
       empire, it must be remembered, extended as far as the Ebro.
       But in Castile and Portugal they were very rare, and certainly
       could produce no political effect. Benefices for life were
       sometimes granted in the kingdoms of Denmark and Bohemia.
       Neither of these, however, nor Sweden, nor Hungary, come under
       the description of countries influenced by the feudal system."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 2.

       "Hardly any point in the whole history of European
       institutions has been the subject of so violent controversy as
       this of the origin of Feudalism. It was formerly supposed that
       Feudalism was only a somewhat more developed form of the
       ancient Germanic 'following' transplanted to Roman soil, but a
       more critical examination of the documents of the early period
       soon showed that there was more to it than this. It became
       evident that Feudalism was not so simple as had at first
       appeared. ... When, however, scholars had come to see this,
       they then found themselves at variance upon the details of the
       process by which the popular monarchical arrangements of the
       early Franks were converted into the aristocratic forms of the
       later Feudalism. While they agreed upon the essential fact
       that the Germans, at the time of their emergence from their
       original seats and their occupation of the Roman lands, were
       not mere wandering groups of freebooters, as the earlier
       school had represented them, but well-organized nations, with
       a very distinct sense of political organization, they found
       themselves hopelessly divided on the question how this
       national life had, in the course of time, come to assume forms
       so very different from those of the primitive German. The
       first person to represent what we may call the modern view of
       the feudal system was Georg Waitz, in the first edition of his
       History of the German Constitution, in the years 1844-47.
       Waitz presented the thing as a gradual growth during several
       centuries, the various elements of which it was composed
       growing up side by side without definite chronological
       sequence. This view was met by Paul Roth in his History of the
       Institution of the Benefice, in the year 1850. He maintained that
       royal benefices were unknown to the Merovingian Franks, and
       that they were an innovation of the earliest Carolingians.
       They were, so he believed, made possible by a grand
       confiscation of the lands of the Church, not by Charles
       Martel, as the earlier writers had believed, but by his sons,
       Pippin and Karlmann. The first book of Roth was followed in
       the year 1863 by another on Feudalism and the Relation of the
       Subject to the State, (Feudalität und Unterthanenverband), in
       which he attempted to show that the direct subjection of the
       individual to the government was not a strange idea to the
       early German, but that it pervaded all forms of Germanic life
       down to the Carolingian times, and that therefore the feudal
       relation was a something entirely new, a break in the practice
       of the Germans. In the years 1880-1885 appeared a new edition
       of Waitz's History of the German Constitution, in which, after
       acknowledging the great services rendered by Roth to the cause of
       learning, he declares himself unable to give up his former
       point of view, and brings new evidence in support of it. Thus
       for more than thirty years this question has been before the
       world of scholars, and may be regarded as being quite as far
       from a settlement as ever."

          E. Emerton,
          An Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
          page 236 (foot-note).

          ALSO IN:
          F. P. Guizot,
          History of Civilization:
          Second Course, lecture 2.

          See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 987-1327.

    FEUILLANTS, Club and Party of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, and 1791 (OCTOBER).

    FEZ:
       Founding of the city and kingdom.

          See EDRISITES.

    FIANNA EIRINN.

       The ancient militia of Erin,
       famous in old Irish romance and song.

          T. Moore,
          History of Ireland,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

    FIDENÆ.

       An ancient city on the left bank of the Tiber, only five miles
       from Rome, originally Latin, but afterwards containing a mixed
       Latin and Etruscan population. It was at war with Rome until
       the latter destroyed it, B. C. 426.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 2, chapter 15.

    FIEFS.

          See FEUDAL TENURES;
          and FEUDALISM.

    FIELD OF LIES, The.

       Ludwig, or Louis, the Pious, son and successor of Charlemagne,
       was a man of gentle character, and good intentions--too
       amiable and too honest in his virtues for the commanding of a
       great empire in times so rude. He lost the control of his
       state, and his family, alike. His own sons headed a succession
       of revolts against his authority. The second of these
       insurrections occurred in the year 833. Father and sons
       confronted one another with hostile armies, on the plain of
       Rothfeld, not far from Colmar in Alsace. Intrigue instead of
       battle settled the controversy, for the time being. The
       adherents of the old emperor were all enticed away from him,
       and he found himself wholly deserted and alone. To signify the
       treacherous methods by which this defection was brought about,
       the "Rothfeld" (Red-field) on which it occurred received the
       name of "Lügenfeld," or Field of Lies.

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          The French under the Carlovingians;
          translated by Bellingham, chapter 7.

    {1119}

    FIELD OF THE CLOTH OF GOLD, The.

       The place of the famous meeting of Henry VIII. of England with
       Francis I. of France, which took place in the summer of 1520
       [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523], is notable in history, from the
       magnificence of the preparations made for it, as The Field of
       the Cloth of Gold. It was at Guisnes, or between Guisnes and
       Arde, near Calais (then English territory). "Guisnes and its
       castle offered little attraction, and if possible less
       accommodation, to the gay throng now to be gathered within its
       walls. ... But on the castle green, within the limits of a few
       weeks, and in the face of great difficulties, the English
       artists of that day contrived a summer palace, more like a
       vision of romance, the creation of some fairy dream (if the
       accounts of eye-witnesses of all classes may be trusted), than
       the dull every-day reality of clay-born bricks and mortar. No
       'palace of art' in these beclouded climates of the West ever
       so truly deserved its name. ... The palace was an exact square
       of 328 feet. It was pierced on every side with oriel windows
       and clerestories curiously glazed, the mullions and posts of
       which were overlaid with gold. An embattled gate, ornamented
       on both sides with statues representing men in various
       attitudes of war, and flanked by an embattled tower, guarded
       the entrance. From this gate to the entrance of the palace
       arose in long ascent a sloping daïs or hall-pace, along which
       were grouped 'images of sore and terrible countenances,' in
       armour of argentine or bright metal. At the entrance, under an
       embowed landing place, facing the great doors, stood 'antique'
       (classical) figures girt with olive branches. The passages,
       the roofs of the galleries from place to place and from
       chamber to chamber, were ceiled and covered with white silk,
       fluted and embowed with silken hanging of divers colours and
       braided cloths, 'which showed like bullions of fine burnished
       gold.' The roofs of the chambers were studded with roses, set
       in lozenges, and diapered on a ground of fine gold. Panels
       enriched with antique carving and gilt bosses covered the
       spaces between the windows; whilst all along the corridors and
       from every window hung tapestry of silk and gold, embroidered
       with figures. ... To the palace was attached a spacious
       chapel, still more sumptuously adorned. Its altars were hung
       with cloth of gold tissue embroidered with pearls; cloth of
       gold covered the walls and desks. ... Outside the palace gate,
       on the greensward, stood a gilt fountain, of antique
       workmanship, with a statue of Bacchus 'birlying the wine.'
       Three runlets, fed by secret conduits hid beneath the earth,
       spouted claret, hypocras, and water into as many silver cups,
       to quench the thirst of all comers. ... In long array, in the
       plain beyond, 2,800 tents stretched their white canvas before
       the eyes of the spectator, gay with the pennons, badges, and
       devices of the various occupants; whilst miscellaneous
       followers, in tens of thousands, attracted by profit or the
       novelty of the scene, camped on the grass and filled the
       surrounding slopes, in spite of the severity of
       provost-marshal and reiterated threats of mutilation and
       chastisement. ... From the 4th of June, when Henry first
       entered Guisnes, the festivities continued with unabated
       splendour for twenty days. ... The two kings parted on the
       best of terms, as the world thought."

          J. S. Brewer,
          Reign of Henry VIII.,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          Lady Jackson,
          The Court of France in the 16th Century,
          volume 1, chapters 11-12.

          Miss Pardoe,
          The Court and Reign of Francis I.,
          volume 1, chapter 14.

    FIESCO, Conspiracy of.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.

    FIESOLE.

          See FLORENCE: ORIGIN AND NAME.

    FIFTEEN, The (Jacobite Rebellion),

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

    FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.

    FIFTH MONARCHY MEN.

       One of the most extremely fanatical of the politico-religious
       sects or factions which rose in England during the
       commonwealth and the Protectoral reign of Cromwell, was that
       of the so-called Fifth Monarchy Men, of whom Major-General
       Harrison was the chief. Their belief is thus described by
       Carlyle: "The common mode of treating Universal History, ...
       not yet entirely fallen obsolete in this country, though it
       has been abandoned with much ridicule everywhere else for half
       a century now, was to group the Aggregate Transactions of the
       Human Species into Four Monarchies: the Assyrian Monarchy of
       Nebuchadnezzar and Company; the Persian of Cyrus and ditto;
       the Greek of Alexander; and lastly the Roman. These I think
       were they; but am no great authority on the subject. Under the
       dregs of this last, or Roman Empire, which is maintained yet by
       express name in Germany, 'Das heilige Römische Reich,' we poor
       moderns still live. But now say Major-General Harrison and a
       number of men, founding on Bible Prophecies, Now shall be a
       Fifth Monarchy, by far the blessedest and the only real
       one,--the Monarchy of Jesus Christ, his Saints reigning for
       Him here on Earth,--if not He himself, which is probable or
       possible,--for a thousand years, &c., &c.--O Heavens, there
       are tears for human destiny; and immortal Hope itself is
       beautiful because it is steeped in Sorrow, and foolish Desire
       lies vanquished under its feet! They who merely laugh at
       Harrison take but a small portion of his meaning with them."

          T. Carlyle,
          Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
          part 8, speech 2.

       The Fifth Monarchy fanaticism, sternly repressed by Oliver
       Cromwell, gave some signs of turbulence during Richard
       Cromwell's protectorate, and broke out in a mad way the year
       after the Restoration. The attempted insurrection in London
       was headed by one Venner, and was called Venner's
       Insurrection. It was easily put down. "It came as the expiring
       flash of a fanatical creed, which had blended itself with
       Puritanism, greatly to the detriment of the latter; and, dying
       out rather slowly, it left behind the quiet element of
       Millenarianism."

          J. Stoughton,
          History of Religion in England,
          volume 3, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Masson,
          Life of John Milton,
          volume 5, page 16.

    "FIFTY-FOUR FORTY OR FIGHT."

          See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

    FILI.

       A class of poets among the early Irish, who practiced
       originally certain rites of incantation. Their art was called
       Filidecht. "The bards, who recited poems and stories, formed
       at first a distinct branch from the Fili. According as the
       true Filidecht fell into desuetude, and the Fili became simply
       a poet, the two orders practically coalesced and the names
       Fili and bard became synonymous. ... In Pagan times and during
       the Middle Ages the Irish bards, like the Gaulish ones,
       accompanied their recitation of poems on a stringed instrument
       called a crut. ... The bard was therefore to the Fili, or
       poet, what the Jogler was to the Troubadour."

          W. K. Sullivan,
          Article, Celtic Literature,
          Encyclopedia Brittanica.

    {1120}

    FILIBUSTER.

       "The difference between a filibuster and a freebooter is one
       of ends rather than of means. Some authorities say that the
       words have a common etymology; but others, including
       Charlevoix, maintain that the filibuster derived his name from
       his original occupation, that of a cruiser in a 'flibote,' or
       'Vly-boat,' first used on the river Vly, in Holland. Yet
       another writer says that the name was first given to the
       gallant followers of Dominique de Gourgues, who sailed from
       Finisterre, or Finibuster, in France, on the famous expedition
       against Fort Caroline in 1567 [see FLORIDA: A. D. 1567-1568].
       The name, whatever its origin, was long current in the Spanish
       as 'filibustero' before it became adopted into the English. So
       adopted, it has been used to describe a type of adventurer who
       occupied a curious place in American history during the decade
       from 1850 to 1860."

          J. J. Roche,
          The Story of the Filibusters,
          chapter 1.

          See, also,
          AMERICA: A: D. 1639-1700.

    FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITIONS OF LOPEZ AND WALKER.

          See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860;
          and NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.

    FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY, The.

       "The Council of Toledo, held under King Reccared, A. D. 589,
       at which the Visigothic Church of Spain formally abjured
       Arianism and adopted the orthodox faith, put forth a version
       of the great creed of Nicæa in which they had interpolated an
       additional clause, which stated that the Holy Ghost proceeded
       from the Father 'and from the Son' (Filioque). Under what
       influence the council took upon itself to make an addition to
       the creed of the universal Church is unknown. It is probable
       that the motive of the addition was to make a stronger protest
       against the Arian denial of the co-equal Godhead of the Son.
       The Spanish Church naturally took a special interest in the
       addition it had made to the symbol of Nicæa, and sustained it
       in subsequent councils. ... The Frankish Church seems to have
       early adopted it from their Spanish neighbours. ... The
       question was brought before a council held at Aix in A. D.
       809. ... The council formally approved of the addition to the
       creed, and Charles [Charlemagne] sent two bishops and the
       abbot of Corbie to Rome to request the pope's concurrence in
       the decision. Leo, at a conference with the envoys, expressed
       his agreement with the doctrine, but strongly opposed its
       insertion into the creed. ... Notwithstanding the pope's
       protest, the addition was adopted throughout the Frankish
       Empire. When the Emperor Henry V. was crowned at Rome, A. D.
       1014, he induced Pope Benedict VIII. to allow the creed with
       the filioque to be chanted after the Gospel at High Mass; so
       it came to be generally used in Rome; and at length Pope
       Nicholas I. insisted on its adoption throughout the West. At a
       later period the controversy was revived, and it became the
       ostensible ground of the final breach (A. D. 1054) between the
       Churches of the West and those of the East."

          E. L. Cutts,
          Charlemagne,
          chapter 23.

       "The Filioque controversy relates to the eternal procession of
       the Holy Spirit, and is a continuation of the trinitarian
       controversies of the Nicene age. It marks the chief and almost
       the only important dogmatic difference between the Greek and
       Latin churches, ... and has occasioned, deepened, and
       perpetuated the greatest schism in Christendom. The single
       word Filioque keeps the oldest, largest and most nearly
       related churches divided since the ninth century, and still
       forbids a reunion."

          P. Schaff,
          History of the Christian Church,
          volume 4, chapter 11, section 107.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Howard,
          The Schism between the Oriental and Western Churches.

          See, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

    FILIPPO MARIA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1412-1447.

    FILLMORE, Millard.
       Vice-Presidential Election.
       Succession to the Presidency.
       Administration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848 to 1852.

    FINÉ, The.

       A clan or sept division of the tribe in ancient Ireland.

    FINGALL.

          See NORMANS.
          NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES;
          also, IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

    FINLAND: A. D. 1808-1810.
       Conquest by and peculiar annexation to Russia.
       Constitutional independence of the Finnish grand
       duchy confirmed by the Czar.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

    FINN GALLS.

          See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

    FINNS.

          See HUNGARIANS.

    FIODH-INIS.

          See IRELAND, THE NAME.

    FIRBOLGS, The.

       One of the races to which Irish legend ascribes the settlement
       of Ireland; said to have come from Thrace.

          See NEMEDIANS,
          and IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

    FIRE LANDS, The.

          See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

    FIRMA.

          See FERM.

    FIRST CONSUL OF FRANCE, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    FIRST EMPIRE (FRENCH), The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805, to 1815.

    FIRST-FRUITS.

          See ANNATES.

    FIRST REPUBLIC (FRENCH), The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), to 1804-1805.

    FISCALINI.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.

    FISCUS, The.

       "The treasury of the senate [in the early period of the Roman
       empire] retained the old republican name of the ærarium; that
       of the emperor was denominated the fiscus, a term which
       ordinarily signified the private property of an individual.
       Hence the notion rapidly grew up, that the provincial
       resources constituted the emperor's private purse, and when in
       process of time the control of the senate over the taxes gave
       way to their direct administration by the emperor himself, the
       national treasury received the designation of fiscus, and the
       idea of the empire being nothing else than Cæsar's patrimony
       became fixed ineradicably in men's minds."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 32.

    FISHER, Fort, The capture of.

       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864-1865
       (DECEMBER-JANUARY: NORTH CAROLINA).

    FISHERIES, North American: A. D. 1501-1578.
       The Portuguese, Norman, Breton and Basque fishermen on the
       Newfoundland Banks.

          See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

    {1121}

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1610-1655.
       Growth of the English interest.

          See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1620.
       Monopoly granted to the Council for New England.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1660-1688.
       The French gain their footing in Newfoundland.

          See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1713.
       Newfoundland relinquished to England, with fishing rights
       reserved to France, by the Treaty of Utrecht.

          See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1720-1745.
       French interests protected by the fortification of Louisbourg.

          See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1748.
       St. Pierre and Michelon islands on the Newfoundland coast
       ceded to France.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1763.

       Rights secured to France on the island of Newfoundland and in
       the Gulf of St. Lawrence by the Treaty of Paris.

       Articles V. and VI. of the Treaty of Paris (1763), which
       transferred Canada and all its islands from France to England,
       are in the following language:

       "The subjects of France shall have the liberty of fishing and
       drying, on a part of the coasts of the island of Newfoundland,
       such as it is specified in the 13th Article of the Treaty of
       Utrecht; which article is renewed and confirmed by the present
       treaty (except what relates to the island of Cape Breton, as
       well as to the other islands and coasts, in the mouth and in
       the gulph of St. Laurence): and his Britannic majesty consents
       to leave to the subjects of the most Christian king the
       liberty of fishing in the gulph of St. Laurence, on condition
       that the subjects of France do not exercise the said fishery,
       but at the distance of three leagues from all the coasts
       belonging to Great Britain, as well those of the continent, as
       those of the islands situated in the said gulph of St.
       Laurence. And as to what relates to the fishery on the coasts
       of the island of Cape Breton out of the said gulph, the
       subjects of the most Christian king shall not be permitted to
       exercise the said fishery, but at the distance of 15 leagues
       from the coasts of the island of Cape Breton; and the fishery
       on the coasts of Nova Scotia or Acadia, and everywhere else
       out of the said gulph, shall remain on the foot of former
       treaties.

       Article VI. The King of Great Britain cedes the islands of St.
       Peter and Miquelon, in full right, to his most Christian
       majesty, to serve as a shelter to the French fishermen: and
       his said most Christian majesty engages not to fortify the
       said islands; to erect no buildings upon them, but merely for
       the convenience of the fishery; and to keep upon them a guard
       of 50 men only for the police."

          Text of the Treaty (Parliamentary History,
          volume 15, page 1295).

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1778.
       French fishery rights recognized in the treaty between France
       and the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1783.
       Rights secured to the United States by the Treaty of Paris.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1814-1818.
       Disputed rights of American fishermen after the War of 1812.
       Silence of the Treaty of Ghent.
       The Convention of 1818.

       Under the Treaty of Paris (1783) "we claimed that the liberty
       which was secured to the inhabitants of the United States to
       take fish on the coasts of Newfoundland, under the limitation
       of not drying or curing the same on that island, and also on
       the other coasts, bays, and creeks, together with the limited
       rights of drying or curing fish on the coasts of Nova Scotia,
       Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, were not created or conferred
       by that treaty, but were simply recognized by it as already
       existing. They had been enjoyed before the Revolution by the
       Americans in common with other subjects of Great Britain, and
       had, indeed, been conquered, from the French chiefly, through
       the valor and sacrifices of the colonies of New England and
       New York. The treaty was therefore considered analogous to a
       deed of partition. It defined the boundaries between the two
       countries and all the rights and privileges belonging to them.
       We insisted that the article respecting fisheries was
       therefore to be regarded as identical with the possession of
       land or the demarcation of boundary. We also claimed that the
       treaty, being one that recognized independence, conceded
       territory, and defined boundaries, belonged to that class
       which is permanent in its nature and is not affected by
       subsequent suspension of friendly relations. The English,
       however, insisted that this treaty was not a unity; that while
       some of its provisions were permanent, other stipulations were
       temporary and could be abrogated, and that, in fact, they were
       abrogated by the war of 1812; that the very difference of the
       language used showed that while the rights of deep-sea fishing
       were permanent, the liberties of fishing were created and
       conferred by that treaty, and had therefore been taken away by
       the war. These were the two opposite views of the respective
       governments at the conferences which ended in the treaty of
       Ghent, of 1814." No compromise appearing to be practicable,
       the commissioners agreed, at length, to drop the subject from
       consideration. "For that reason the treaty of Ghent is
       entirely silent as to the fishery question.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

       In consequence of conflicts arising between our fishermen and
       the British authorities, our point of view was very strongly
       maintained by Mr. Adams in his correspondence with the British
       Foreign Office, and finally, on October 20, 1818, Mr. Rush,
       then our minister at London, assisted by Mr. Gallatin,
       succeeded in signing a treaty, which among other things
       settled our rights and privileges by the first article, as
       follows: ... 'It is agreed between the high contracting
       parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall
       have forever, in common with the subjects of his Britannic
       Majesty, the liberty of taking fish of any kind on that part
       of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape
       Ray to the Rameau Islands; on the western and northern coasts
       of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Qurpon Islands;
       on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts,
       bays, harbors, and creeks from Mont Joly, on the southern
       coast of Labrador, to and through the straits of Belle Isle,
       and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast. And that
       the American fishermen shall have liberty forever to dry and
       cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks in
       the southern part of Newfoundland herein-before described, and
       of the coasts of Labrador; but as soon as the same, or any
       portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for
       said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion, so
       settled, without previous agreement for such purpose with the
       inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.
    {1122}
       And the United States hereby renounces forever any liberty
       heretofore enjoyed, claimed by the inhabitants thereof to
       take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any
       of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic
       Majesty's dominions in America not included in the
       above-mentioned limits. Provided, however, That the American
       fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbors for
       the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages therein, of
       purchasing wood, and obtaining water, and for no other purpose
       whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as shall
       be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish
       therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the
       privileges hereby secured to them.' The American
       plenipotentiaries evidently labored to obtain as extensive a
       district of territory as possible for in-shore fishing, and
       were willing to give up privileges, then apparently of small
       amount, but now much more important, than of using other bays
       and harbors for shelter and kindred purposes. For that reason
       they acquiesced in omitting the word 'bait' in the first
       sentence of the proviso after  water.' ... The power of
       obtaining bait for use in the deep-sea fisheries is one which
       our fishermen were afterward very anxious to secure. But the
       mackerel fisheries in those waters did not begin until several
       years later. The only contention then was about the cod
       fisheries."

          E. Schuyler,
          American Diplomacy,
          chapter 8.

          Treaties and Conventions between the United States
          and other Powers (edition of 1889), pages 415-418.

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1854-1866.
       Privileges defined under the Canadian Reciprocity Treaty.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
          A. D. 1854-1866.

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1871.
       Reciprocal privileges adjusted between Great Britain and the
       United States by the Treaty of Washington.

          See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

    FISHERIES: A. D. 1877-1888.
       The Halifax award.
       Termination of the Fishery articles of the Treaty of
       Washington.
       The rejected Treaty of 1888.

       In accordance with the terms of articles 22 and 23 of the
       Treaty of Washington (see ALABAMA CLAIMS: A.. D. 1871), a
       Commission appointed to award compensation to Great Britain
       for the superior value of the fishery privileges conceded to
       the citizens of the United States by that treaty, met at
       Halifax on the 5th of June, 1877. The United States was
       represented on the Commission by Hon. E. H. Kellogg, of
       Massachusetts, and Great Britain by Sir Alexander F. Gault, of
       Canada. The two governments having failed to agree in the
       selection of the third Commissioner, the latter was named, as
       the Treaty provided, by the Austrian Ambassador at London, who
       designated M. Maurice Delfosse, Belgian Minister at
       Washington. The award was made November 27, 1877, when, "by a
       vote of two to one, the Commissioners decided that the United
       States was to pay $5,500,000 for the use of the fishing
       privileges for 12 years. The decision produced profound
       astonishment in the United States." Dissatisfaction with the
       Halifax award, and generally with the main provisions of the
       Treaty of Washington relating to the fisheries, was so great
       in the United States that, when, in 1878, Congress
       appropriated money for the payment of the award, it inserted
       in the bill a clause to the effect that "Articles 18 and 21 of
       the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain
       concluded on the 8th of May, 1871, ought to be terminated at
       the earliest period consistent with the provisions of Article
       33 of the same Treaty." "It is a curious fact that during the
       time intervening between the signing of the treaty of
       Washington and the Halifax award an almost complete change
       took place in the character of the fisheries. The method of
       taking mackerel was completely revolutionized by the
       introduction of the purse-seine, by means of which vast
       quantities of the fish were captured far out in the open sea
       by enclosing them in huge nets. ... This change in the method
       of fishing brought about a change in the fishing grounds. ...
       The result of this change was very greatly to diminish the
       value of the North-eastern Fisheries to the United States
       fishermen." On the 1st of July, 1883, "in pursuance of
       instructions from Congress, the President gave the required
       notice of the desire of the United States to terminate the
       Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington, which
       consequently came to an end the 1st of July, 1885. The
       termination of the treaty fell in the midst of the fishing
       season, and, at the suggestion of the British Minister,
       Secretary Bayard entered into a temporary arrangement whereby
       the American fishermen were allowed the privileges of the
       treaty during the remainder of the season, with the
       understanding that the President should bring the question
       before Congress at its next session and recommend a joint
       Commission by the Governments of the United States and Great
       Britain." This was done; but Congress disapproved the
       recommendation. The question of rights under former treaties,
       especially that of 1818, remained open, and became a subject
       of much irritation between the United States and the
       neighboring British American provinces. The local regulations
       of the latter were enforced with stringency and harshness
       against American fishermen; the latter solicited and procured
       retaliatory legislation from Congress. To end this
       unsatisfactory state of affairs, a treaty was negotiated at
       Washington in February, 1888, by Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary
       of State, William L. Putnam and James B. Angell,
       plenipotentiaries on the part of the United States, and Joseph
       Chamberlain, M. P., Sir L. S. Sackville West and Sir Charles
       Tupper, plenipotentiaries on the part of Great Britain, which
       treaty was approved by the President and sent to the Senate,
       but rejected by that body on the 21st of August, by a negative
       vote of 30, against 27 in its favor.

          C. B. Elliott,
          The United States and the North-eastern Fisheries,
          pages 79-100.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Schuyler,
          American Diplomacy,
          chapter 8.

          J. H. De Ricci,
          The Fisheries Dispute (1888).

          Annual Cyclopedia,
          volume 13 (1888), pages 217-226.

          Annual Report of United States Commission of Fish and
          Fisheries for 1886.

          Correspondence relative to proposed Fisheries Treaty
          (Senate Ex. Doc., Number 113, 50th Congress, 1st Session).

          Documents and Proceedings of Halifax Commission (H. R. Ex.
          Doc., Number 89, 45th. Congress, 2d Session).

    ----------FISHERIES: End----------

    FISHER'S HILL, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

    FISHING CREEK, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
          (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

    {1123}

    FITCH, John, and the beginnings of steam navigation.

          See STEAM NAVIGATION.

    FITZGERALD'S (LORD THOMAS) REBELLION IN IRELAND.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

    FIVE ARTICLES OF PERTH, The.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

    FIVE BLOODS, The.

          See IRELAND; 13TH-14TH CENTURIES.

    FIVE BOROUGHS, The.

       A confederation of towns occupied by the Danes in England,
       including Derby, Lincoln, Leicester, Nottingham and Stamford,
       which played a part in the events of the tenth and eleventh
       centuries. It afterwards became Seven Boroughs by addition of
       York and Chester.

    FIVE FORKS, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
          (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

    FIVE HUNDRED, The French Council of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

    FIVE HUNDRED AT ATHENS, The.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

    FIVE MEMBERS, King Charles' attempt against the.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY).

    FIVE MILE ACT, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

    FIVE NATIONS OF INDIANS, The.

       The five original tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy,--the
       Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas,--were
       commonly called by the English the Five Nations. Subsequently,
       in 1715, a sixth tribe, the Tuscaroras, belonging to the same
       stock, was admitted to the confederacy, and its members were
       then known as the Six Nations.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and IROQUOIS
          TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

    FIVE THOUSAND, The

          See ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.

    FIVE YEARS' TRUCE, The.

       The hostilities between Athens and Sparta which preceded the
       Peloponnesian War, being opened by the battle of Tanagra, B.
       C. 457, were suspended B. C. 451, by a truce called the Five
       Years' Truce, arranged through the influence of the
       soldier-statesman Cimon.

          Thucydides,
          History,
          book 1, section 112.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Curtius,
          History of Greece,
          book 3, chapter 2.

    FLAGELLANTS.

       "Although the Church's forgiveness for sin might now [14th
       century] be easily obtained in other ways: Still Flagellation
       was not only greatly admired among the religious, but was also
       held in such high estimation by the common people, that in
       case of any calamity or plague, they thought they could
       propitiate the supposed wrath of God in no more effectual
       manner than by scourging, and processions of scourgers; just
       as though the Church's ordinary means of atonement were
       insufficient for extraordinary cases. A decided mistrust of
       the Church's intercession, and the clergy who dispensed it,
       prevailed among the societies of Flagellants; roused to action
       by the plague that past over from Asia into Europe in the year
       1348, and spread devastation everywhere, ever since the
       beginning of the year 1349 they diffused themselves from the
       Hungarian frontier over the whole of Germany, and found
       entrance even into the neighbouring countries. ... They
       practised this penance according to a fixed rule, without the
       co-operation of the clergy, under the guidance of Masters,
       Magistri, and made no secret of the fact, that they held the
       Church's way of salvation in much lower estimation than the
       penance by the scourge. Clement VI. put an end to the public
       processions of Flagellants, which were already widely
       prevalent: but penance by the scourge was only thus forced
       into concealment. In Thuringia, Conrad Schmidt, one of their
       masters, gave the form of a connected system of heretical
       doctrine to their dislike of the Church. ... Thus there now
       rose heretical Flagellants, called also by the common name of
       Beghards; they existed down to the time of the Reformation,
       especially in Thuringia, as an heretical sect very dangerous
       to the Church. This warning example, as well as the mistrust
       natural to the Hierarchy of all spiritual impulses which did
       not originate from itself, decided the destiny of the later
       societies of Flagellants. When the Whitemen (Bianchi) [see
       WHITE PENITENTS], scourging themselves as they went, descended
       from the Alps into Italy, they were received almost everywhere
       with enthusiasm by the clergy and the people; but in the Papal
       territory death was prepared for their leader, and the rest
       accordingly dispersed themselves."

          J. C. L. Gieseler,
          Compendium of Ecclesiastical History,
          section 123 (volume 4).

       "Divided into companies of male and female devotees, under a
       leader and two masters, they stripped themselves naked to the
       waist, and publicly scourged themselves, or each other, till
       their shoulders were covered with blood. This expiatory
       ceremony was repeated every morning and afternoon for
       thirty-three days, equal in number to the years which Christ
       is thought to have lived upon earth; after which they returned
       to their former employments, cleansed from sin by the baptism
       of blood.' The flagellants appeared first in Hungary; but
       missionary societies were soon formed, and they hastened to
       impart the knowledge of the new gospel to foreign nations.
       They spread with rapidity over Poland, Germany and the Low
       Countries. From France they were excluded at the request of
       the pope, who had issued a severe constitution against them;
       but a colony reached England, and landed in London, to the
       number of 120 men and women. ... The missionaries made not a
       single proselyte."

          J. Lingard,
          History of England,
          volume 4, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          W. M. Cooper,
          Flagellation and the Flagellants.

          G. Waddington,
          History of the Church,
          note appendix to chapter 23.

    FLAMENS.--FLAMINES.

       "The pontifices, like several other priestly brotherhoods [of
       ancient Rome] ... had sacrificial priests (flamines) attached
       to them, whose name was derived from 'flare' (to blow the
       fire). The number of flamines attached to the pontifices was
       fifteen, the three highest of whom, ... viz., the Flamen
       Dialis, Martialis, and Quirinalis, were always chosen from old
       patrician families. ... Free from all civil duties, the Flamen
       Dialis, with his wife and children, exclusively devoted
       himself to the service of the deity. His house ... lay on the
       Palatine hill. His marriage was dissoluble by death only; he
       was not allowed to take an oath, mount a horse, or look at an
       army. He was forbidden to remain a night away from his house,
       and his hand touched nothing unclean, for which reason he
       never approached a corpse or a burial-place. ... In the
       daytime the Flamen Dialis was not allowed to take off his
       head-dress, and he was obliged to resign his office in case it
       fell off by accident. In his belt he carried the sacrificial
       knife, and in his hand he held a rod, in order to keep off the
       people on his way to the sacrifice. For the same purpose he
       was preceded by a lictor, who compelled everybody on the way
       to lay down his work, the flamen not being allowed to see the
       business of daily life."

          E. Guhl and W. Koner,
          Life of the Greeks and Romans,
          section 103.

          See AUGURS.

    {1124}

    FLAMINIAN WAY.

          See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

    FLAMINIUS, The defeat of.

          See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 863.
       Creation of the County.

       Judith, daughter of Charles the Bald, of France (not yet
       called France), and a twice widowed queen of England, though
       hardly yet out of her girlhood (she had wedded Ethelwulf and
       Ethelbald, father and son, in succession), took a mate, at
       last, more to her liking, by a runaway match with one of her
       father's foresters, named Baudouin, or Baldwin, Bras-de-fer.
       This was in 862. King Charles, in his wrath, caused the
       impudent forester to be outlawed and excommunicated, both; but
       after a year of intercession and mediation he forgave the pair
       and established them in a suitable fief. Baudouin was made
       Count or Marquis of Flanders. "Previously to Baudouin's era,
       Flanders or 'Flandria' is a designation belonging, as learned
       men conjecture, to a Gau or Pagus, afterwards known as the
       Franc de Bruges, and noticed only in a single charter.
       Popularly, the name of Flanders had obtained with respect to a
       much larger surrounding Belgic country. ... The name of
       'Flanders' was thus given to the wide, and in a degree
       indefinite tract, of which the Forester Baudouin and his
       predecessors had the official range or care. According to the
       idiom of the Middle Ages, the term 'Forest' did not exactly
       convey the idea which the word now suggests, not being applied
       exclusively to wood-land, but to any wild and unreclaimed
       region. ... Any etymology of the name of Flamingia, or
       Flanders, which we can guess at, seems intended to designate
       that the land was so called from being half-drowned.
       Thirty-five inundations, which afflicted the country at
       various intervals from the tenth to the sixteenth century,
       have entirely altered the coast-line; and the interior
       features of the country, though less affected, have been much
       changed by the diversions which the river-courses have
       sustained. ... Whatever had been the original amplitude of the
       districts over which Baudouin had any control or authority,
       the boundaries were now enlarged and defined. Kneeling before
       Charles-le-Chauve, placing his hands between the hands of the
       Sovereign, he received his 'honour':--the Forester of Flanders
       was created Count or Marquis. All the countries between the
       Scheldt, the Somme and the sea, became his benefice; so that
       only a narrow and contested tract divided Baudouin's Flanders
       from Normandy. According to an antient nomenclature, ten
       counties, to wit, Theerenburch, Arras, Boulogne, Guisnes,
       Saint-Paul, Hesdin, Blandemont, Bruges, Harlebec, and Tournay,
       were comprehended in the noble grant which Baudouin obtained
       from his father-in-law."

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and of England,
          book 1, chapter 4.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1096.
       The Crusade of Count Robert.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1201-1204.
       The diverted Crusade of Count Baldwin and the imperial crown
       he won at Constantinople.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203;
          and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1214.
       Humbled at the battle of Bouvines.

          See BOUVINES.

    FLANDERS: 13th Century.
       The industry, commerce and wealth of the Flemings.

       "In the 13th century, Flanders was the most populous and the
       richest country in Europe. She owed the fact to the briskness
       of her manufacturing and commercial undertakings, not only
       amongst her neighbours, but throughout Southern and Eastern
       Europe. ... Cloth, and all manner of woolen stuffs, were the
       principal articles of Flemish production, and it was chiefly
       from England that Flanders drew her supply of wool, the raw
       material of her industry. Thence arose between the two
       countries commercial relations which could not fail to acquire
       political importance. As early as the middle of the 12th
       century, several Flemish towns formed a society for founding
       in England a commercial exchange, which obtained great
       privileges, and, under the name of the Flemish hanse of
       London, reached rapid development. The merchants of Bruges had
       taken the initiative in it; but soon all the towns of
       Flanders--and Flanders was covered with towns--Ghent, Lille,
       Ypres, Courtrai, Furnes, Alost, St. Omer, and Douai, entered
       the confederation, and made unity as well as extension of
       liberties in respect of Flemish commerce the object of their
       joint efforts. Their prosperity became celebrated; and its
       celebrity gave it increase. It was a burgher of Bruges who was
       governor of the hanse of London, and he was called the Count
       of the Hanse. The fair of Bruges, held in the month of May,
       brought together traders from the whole world. 'Thither came
       for exchange,' says the most modern and most enlightened
       historian of Flanders (Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove, 'Histoire
       de Flandre,' t. ii., page 300), 'the produce of the North and
       the South, the riches collected in the pilgrimages to
       Novgorod, and those brought over by the caravans from
       Samarcand and Bagdad, the pitch of Norway and the oils of
       Andalusia, the furs of Russia and the dates from the Atlas,
       the metals of Hungary and Bohemia, the figs of Granada, the
       honey of Portugal, the wax of Morocco, and the spice of Egypt;
       whereby, says an ancient manuscript, no land is to be compared
       in merchandise to the land of Flanders.' ... So much
       prosperity made the Counts of Flanders very puissant lords.
       'Marguerite II., called "the Black," Countess of Flanders and
       Hainault, from 1244 to 1280, was extremely rich,' says a
       chronicler, 'not only in lands, but in furniture, jewels, and
       money; ... insomuch that she kept up the state of queen rather
       than countess.' Nearly all the Flemish towns were strongly
       organised communes, in which prosperity had won liberty, and
       which became before long small republics, sufficiently
       powerful not only for the defence of their municipal rights
       against the Counts of Flanders, their lords, but for offering
       an armed resistance to such of the sovereigns their neighbours
       as attempted to conquer them or to trammel them in their
       commercial relations, or to draw upon their wealth by forced
       contributions or by plunder."

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 18.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Hutton,
          James and Philip Van Arteveld,
          part 1, chapter 2.

    {1125}

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.
       The war with Philip the Fair.

       As the Flemings advanced in wealth and consequence, the feudal
       dependence of their country upon the French crown grew
       increasingly irksome and oppressive to them, and their
       attitude towards France became one of confirmed hostility. At
       the same time, they were drawn to a friendly leaning towards
       England by common commercial interests. This showed itself
       decisively on the occasion of the quarrel that arose (A. D.
       1295) between Philip IV., called the Fair, and Edward I. of
       England, concerning the rule of the latter in Aquitaine or
       Guienne. The French king found allies in Scotland; the English
       king found allies in Flanders. An alliance of marriage, in
       fact, had been arranged to take place between king Edward and
       the daughter of Guy de Dampierre, count of Flanders; but
       Philip contrived treacherously to get possession of the
       persons of the count and his daughter and imprisoned them both
       at Paris, declaring the states of the count to be forfeited.
       In 1299 the two kings settled their quarrel and abandoned
       their allies on both sides--Scotland to the tender mercies of
       Edward, and Flanders to the vengeance of the malignant king
       Philip the Fair. The territory of the Flemings was annexed to
       the crown of France, and Jacques de Châtillon, uncle of the
       queen, was appointed governor. Before two years had passed the
       impatient Flemings were in furious revolt. The insurrection
       began at Bruges, May 18, 1302, and more than 3,000 Frenchmen
       in that city were massacred in the first rage of the
       insurgents. This massacre was called the Bruges Matins. A
       French army entered Flanders to put down the rising and was
       confronted at Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302) by the Flemish
       militia. The latter were led by young Guy of Dampierre and, a
       few knights, who dismounted to fight on equal terms with their
       fellows. "About 20,000 militia, armed only with pikes, which
       they employed also as implements of husbandry, resolved to
       abide the onset of 8,000 Knights of gentle blood, 10,000
       archers, and 30,000 foot-soldiers, animated by the presence
       and directed by the military skill of Robert Count of Artois,
       and of Raoul de Nesle, Constable of France. Courtrai was the
       object of attack, and the Flemings, anxious for its safety,
       arranged themselves on a plain before the town, covered in
       front by a canal." An altercation which occurred between the
       two French commanders led to the making of a blind and furious
       charge on the part of the French horsemen, ignorant and
       heedless of the canal, into which they plunged, horses and
       riders together, in one inextricable mass, and where, in their
       helplessness, they were slain without scruple by the Flemings.
       "Philip had lost his most experienced Generals, and the flower
       of his troops; but his obstinacy was unbending." In repeated
       campaigns during the next two years, Philip strove hard to
       retrieve the disaster of Courtrai. He succeeded, at last (A.
       D. 1304), in achieving, with the help of the Genoese, a naval
       victory in the Zuruck-Zee, followed by a victory, personally
       his own, at Mons-en-Puelle, in September of the same year.
       Then, finding the Flemings as dauntlessly ready as ever to
       renew the fight, he gave up to their obstinacy and
       acknowledged the independence of the county. A treaty was
       signed, in which "the independence of Flanders was
       acknowledged under its Count, Robert de Bethune (the eldest
       son of Guy de Dampierre), who, together with his brothers and
       all the other Flemish prisoners, was to be restored to
       liberty. The Flemings, on the other hand, consented to
       surrender those districts beyond the Lys in which the French
       language was vernacularly spoken; and to this territory were
       added the cities of Douai, Lille, and their dependencies. They
       engaged, moreover, to furnish by instalments 200,000 livres in
       order to cover the expenses which Philip had incurred by their
       invasion."

          E. Smedley,
          History of France,
          part 1, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Hutton,
          James and Philip Van Arteveld,
          part 1, chapters 2-3.

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 5, chapter 2.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1314.
       Dishonesty of Philip of France.

       Philip was one of the most treacherous of princes, and his
       treaty with the Flemings did not secure them against him. "The
       Flemings, who had paid the whole of the money stipulated by
       the treaty of 1305, demanded the restitution of that part of
       Flanders which had been given up as a pledge; but Philippe
       refused to restore it on the plea that it had been given to
       him absolutely and not conditionally. He commenced hostilities
       [A. D. 1314] by seizing upon the counties of Nevers and
       Réthel, belonging to the count of Flanders and his eldest son,
       who replied by laying siege to Lille." Philippe was making
       great exertions to raise money for a vigorous prosecution of
       the war, when he died suddenly, Nov. 25, 1314, as the result
       of an accident in hunting.

          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          volume 1, book 2, chapter 2.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1328.
       The Battle of Cassel.

       The first act of Philip of Valois, King of France, after his
       coronation in 1328, was to take up the cause of his cousin,
       Louis de Nevers, Count of Flanders, who had been driven from
       his territories by the independent burghers of Bruges, Ypres,
       and other cities, and who had left to him no town save Ghent,
       in which he dared to appear. The French king "gathered a great
       host of feudal lords, who rejoiced in the thought of Flemish
       spoil, and marched to Arras, and thence onwards into Flanders.
       He pitched his tent under the hill of Cassel, 'with the
       fairest and greatest host in the world' around him. The
       Flemish, under Claus Dennequin, lay on the hill-top: thence
       they came down all unawares in three columns on the French
       camp in the evening, and surprised the King at supper and all
       but took him. The French soon recovered from the surprise;
       'for God would not consent that lords should be discomfitted
       by such riffraff': they slew the Flemish Captain Dennequin,
       and of the rest but few escaped; 'for they deigned not to
       flee,' so stubborn were those despised weavers of Flanders.
       This little battle, with its great carnage of Flemish,
       sufficed to lay all Flanders at the feet of its count."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          book 4, chapter 1.

       "Sixteen thousand Flemings had marched to the attack in three
       divisions. Three heaps of slain were counted on the morrow in
       the French lines, amounting altogether to 13,000 corpses; and
       it is said that Louis ... inflicted death upon 10,000 more of
       the rebels."

          E. Smedley,
          History of France,
          part 1, chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          Froissart (Johnes),
          Chronicles,
          book 1, chapters 21-22.

    {1126}

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337.
       The revolt under Jacques Van Arteveld.
       The alliance with England.

       The most important measure by which Edward III. of England
       prepared himself for the invasion of France, as a claimant of
       the French crown [See FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339] was the
       securing of an alliance with the Flemish burghers. This was
       made easy for him by his enemies. "The Flemings happened to
       have a count who was wholly French--Louis de Nevers--who was
       only count through the battle of Cassel and the humiliation of
       his country, and who resided at Paris, at the court of
       Philippe de Valois. Without consulting his subjects, he
       ordered a general arrest of all the English throughout
       Flanders; on which Edward had all the Flemings in England
       arrested. The commerce, which was the life-blood of each
       country, was thus suddenly broken off. To attack the English
       through Guyenne and Flanders was to wound them in their most
       sensible parts, to deprive them of cloth and wine. They sold
       their wool at Bruges, in order to buy wine at Bordeaux. On the
       other hand, without English wool, the Flemings were at a
       stand-still. Edward prohibited the exportation of wool,
       reduced Flanders to despair, and forced her to fling herself
       into his arms. At first, a crowd of Flemish workmen emigrated
       into England, whither they were allured at any cost, and by
       every kind of flattery and caress. ... I take it that the
       English character has been seriously modified by these
       emigrations, which went on during the whole of the fourteenth
       century. Previously, we find no indications of that patient
       industry which now distinguishes the English. By endeavouring
       to separate Flanders and England the French king only
       stimulated Flemish emigration, and laid the foundation of
       England's manufactures. Meanwhile, Flanders did not resign
       herself. The towns burst into insurrection. They had long
       hated the count, either because he supported the country
       against the monopoly of the towns, or because he admitted the
       foreigners, the Frenchmen, to a share of their commerce. The
       men of Ghent, who undoubtedly repented of having withheld
       their aid from those of Ypres and of Bruges at the battle of
       Cassel, chose, in 1337, as their leader, the brewer,
       Jacquemart Artaveld. Supported by the guilds, and, in
       particular, by the fullers and clothiers, Artaveld organized a
       vigorous tyranny. He assembled at Ghent the men of the three
       great cities, 'and showed them that they could not live
       without the king of England; for all Flanders depended on
       cloth-making, and, without wool, one could not make cloth;
       therefore he recommended them to keep the English king their
       friend.'"

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 6, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN
          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 20.

          J. Hutton,
          James and Philip Van Altevelde,
          part 3.

          J. Froissart,
          Chronicles
          (Johnes's translation),
          book 1, chapter 29.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1345.
       The end of Jacques Van Artaveld.

       "Jacob von Artaveld, the citizen of Ghent that was so much
       attached to the king of England, still maintained the same
       despotic power over all Flanders. He had promised the king of
       England, that he would give him the inheritance of Flanders,
       invest his son the prince of Wales with it, and make it a
       duchy instead of an earldom. Upon which account the king was,
       at this period, about St. John the Baptist's day, 1345, come
       to Sluys, with a numerous attendance of barons and knights. He
       had brought the prince of Wales with him, in order that Jacob
       von Artaveld's promises might be realized. The king remained
       on board his fleet in the harbour of Sluys, where he kept his
       court. His friends in Flanders came thither to see and visit
       him; and there were many conferences between the king and
       Jacob Von Artaveld on one side, and the councils from the
       different capital towns on the other, relative to the
       agreement before mentioned. ... When on his return he [Van
       Artaveld] came to Ghent about midday, the townsmen who were
       informed of the hour he was expected, had assembled in the
       street that he was to pass through; as soon as they saw him,
       they began to murmur, and put their heads close together,
       saying, 'Here comes one who is too much the master, and wants
       to order in Flanders according to his will and pleasure, which
       must not be longer borne.' With this they had also spread a
       rumour through the town, that Jacob von Artaveld had collected
       all the revenues of Flanders, for nine years and more. ... Of
       this great treasure he had sent part into England. This
       information inflamed those of Ghent with rage; and, as he was
       riding up the streets, he perceived that there was something
       in agitation against him; for those who were wont to salute
       him very respectfully, now turned their backs, and went into
       their houses. He began therefore to suspect all was not as
       usual; and as soon as he had dismounted, and entered his
       hotel, he ordered the doors and windows to be shut and
       fastened. Scarcely had his servants done this, when the street
       which he inhabited was filled from one end to the other with
       all sorts of people, but especially by the lowest of the
       mechanics. His mansion was surrounded on every side, attacked
       and broken into by force. Those within did all they could to
       defend it, and killed and wounded many: but at last they could
       not hold out against such vigorous attacks, for three parts of
       the town were there. When Jacob von Artaveld saw what efforts
       were making, and how hardly he was pushed, he came to a
       window; and, with his head uncovered, began to use humble and
       fine language. ... When Jacob von Artaveld saw that he could
       not appease or calm them, he shut the window, and intended
       getting out of his house the back way, to take shelter in a
       church adjoining; but his hotel was already broke into on that
       side, and upwards of four hundred were there calling out for him.
       At last he was seized by them, and slain without mercy: his
       death-stroke was given him by a sadler, called Thomas Denys.
       In this manner did Jacob von Artaveld end his days, who in his
       time had been complete master of Flanders. Poor men first
       raised him, and wicked men slew him."

          J. Froissart (Johnes),
          Chronicles,
          book 1, chapter 115 (volume 1).

    {1127}

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
       The revolt of the White Hoods.

       "We will ... speak of the war in Flanders, which began about
       this time [A. D. 1379]. The people were very murderous and
       cruel, and multitudes were slain or driven out of the country.
       The country itself was so much ruined, that it was said a
       hundred years would not restore it to the situation it was in
       before the war. Before the commencement of these wars in
       Flanders, the country was so fertile, and everything in such
       abundance, that it was marvellous to see; and the inhabitants
       of the principal towns lived in very grand state. You must
       know that this war originated in the pride and hatred that
       several of the chief towns bore to each other: those of Ghent
       against Bruges, and others, in like manner, vying with each
       other through envy. However, this could not have created a war
       without the consent of their lord, the earl of Flanders, who
       was so much loved and feared that no one dared anger him." It
       is in these words that the old court chronicler, Froissart,
       begins his fully detailed and graphic narrative of the
       miserable years, from 1379 to 1384, during which the communes
       of Flanders were at war with one another and at war with their
       worthless and oppressive count, Luis de Maele. The picturesque
       chronicle is colored with the prejudices of Froissart against
       the Flemish burghers and in favor of their lord; but no one
       can doubt that the always turbulent citizens were jealous of
       rights which the always rapacious lord never ceased to
       encroach upon. As Froissart tells the story, the outbreak of
       war began with an attempt on the part of the men of Bruges, to
       dig a canal which would divert the waters of the river Lys.
       When those of Ghent had news of this unfriendly undertaking,
       they took counsel of one John Yoens, or John Lyon, a burgher
       of much cunning, who had formerly been in favor with the
       count, but whom his enemies had supplanted. "When he [John
       Lyon] was prevailed on to speak, he said: 'Gentlemen, if you
       wish to risk this business, and put an end to it, you must
       renew an ancient custom that formerly subsisted in the town of
       Ghent: I mean, you must first put on white-hoods, and choose a
       leader, to whom everyone may look, and rally at his signal.'
       This harangue was eagerly listened to, and they all cried out,
       'We will have it so, we will have it so! now let us put on
       white-hoods.' White-hoods were directly made, and given out to
       those among them who loved war better than peace, and had
       nothing to lose. John Lyon was elected chief of the White
       Hoods. He very willingly accepted of this office, to avenge
       himself on his enemies, to embroil the towns of Ghent and
       Bruges with each other and with the earl their lord. He was
       ordered, as their chief, to march against the pioneers and
       diggers from Bruges, and had with him 200 such people as
       preferred rioting to quiet."

          Froissart (Johnes),
          Chronicles,
          book 2, chapters 36-102.

       When the White Hoods had driven the ditchers of Bruges from
       their canal, they returned to Ghent, but not to disband.
       Presently the jealous count required them to lay aside the
       peculiar badge of their association, which they declined to
       do. Then Count Louis sent his bailiff into Ghent with 200
       horsemen, to arrest John Lyon, and some others of his band.
       The White Hoods rallied, slew the bailiff and drove his posse
       from the town; after which unmistakable deed Ghent and the
       count were distinctly at war. The city of the White Hoods took
       prompt measures to secure the alliance and support of its
       neighbors. Some nine or ten thousand of its citizens marched
       to Bruges, and partly by persuasion, partly by force, partly
       by the help of the popular party in the town, they effected a
       treaty of friendship and alliance--which did not endure,
       however, very long. Courtray, Damme, Ypres and other cities
       joined the league and it soon presented a formidable array.
       Oudenarde, strongly fortified, by the count, became the key of
       the situation, and was besieged by the citizen-militia. In the
       midst of the siege, the Duke of Burgundy, son-in-law of the
       count, made successful efforts to bring about a peace
       (December 1379). "The count promised to forget the past and
       return to his residence in Ghent. This peace, however, was of
       short duration; and the count, after passing only two or three
       days in Ghent, alleged some cause of dissatisfaction and
       returned to Lille, to recommence hostilities, in the course of
       which, with the assistance of the richer citizens, he made
       himself master of Bruges. Another peace was signed in the
       August of 1380, which was no more durable than the former, and
       the count reduced Ypres; and, at the head of an army of 60,000
       men, laid siege to Ghent itself, the chief and soul of the
       popular confederacy, in the month of September. But the
       citizens of Ghent defended themselves so well that he was
       obliged to raise the siege in the middle of November, and
       agree to a truce. This truce also was broken by the count's
       party, the war renewed in the beginning of the year 1381, and
       the men of Ghent experienced a disastrous defeat in the battle
       of Nevelle towards the middle of May. It was a war of
       extermination, and was carried on with extreme ferocity. ...
       Ghent itself, now closely blockaded by the count's troops, was
       only saved by the great qualities of Philip Van Artevelde [son
       of Jacques Van Arteveld, of the revolution of 1337], who, by a
       sort of peaceful revolution, was placed at the head of affairs
       [January 25, 1381]. The victory of Beverholt, in which the
       count was defeated with great slaughter, and only escaped with
       difficulty, made the town of Ghent again master of Flanders."

          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          book 2, chapter 8.

          ALSO IN
          J. Hutton,
          James and Philip Van Arteveld,
          chapters 14-16.

          W. C. Taylor,
          Revolutions, Insurrections and Conspiracies of Europe,
          volume 2, chapters 7-9.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.
       The rebellion crushed.

       By the marriage of Philip, Duke of Burgundy, to the daughter
       and heiress of the Count of Flanders, that powerful French
       prince had become interested in the suppression of the revolt
       of the Flemish burghers and the restoration of the count to
       his lordship. His nephew, the young king of France, Charles
       VI., was easily persuaded to undertake a campaign to that end,
       and an army of considerable magnitude was personally led
       northwards by the monarch of fourteen years. "The object of
       the expedition was not only to restore to the Count of
       Flanders his authority, but to punish the turbulent commons,
       who stirred up those of France to imitate their example.
       Froissart avows it to have been a war between the commons and
       the aristocracy. The Flemings were commanded by Artaveldt, son
       of the famous brewer, the ally of Edward III. The town of Ghent
       had been reduced to the extreme of distress and famine by the
       count and the people of Bruges, who supported him. Artaveldt
       led the people of Ghent in a forlorn hope against Bruges,
       defeated the army of the count, and broke into the rival town,
       which he took and plundered. After this disaster, the count
       had recourse to France. The passage of the river Lys, which
       defended Flanders, was courageously undertaken, and effected
       with some hazard by the French.
    {1128}
       The Flemings were rather dispirited by this first success:
       nevertheless, they assembled their forces; and the two armies
       of French knights and Flemish citizens met at Rosebecque [or
       Roosebeck], between Ypres and Courtray. The 27th of November,
       1382, was the day of battle. Artaveldt had stationed his army
       on a height, to await the attack of the French, but their
       impatience forced him to commence. Forming his troops into one
       solid square, Artaveldt led them against the French centre.
       Froissart compares their charge to the headlong rush of a wild
       boar. It broke the opposite line, penetrating into its ranks:
       but the wings of the French turned upon the flank of the
       Flemings, which, not having the advantage of a charge or
       impulse, were beaten by the French men at arms. Pressed upon
       one another, the Flemings had not room to fight: they were
       hemmed in, surrounded, and slaughtered: no quarter was asked
       or given; nearly 30,000 perished. The 9,000 Ghentois that had
       marched under their banner were counted, to a man, amongst the
       slain: Artaveldt, their general, was among the foremost who
       had fallen. Charles ordered his body to be hung upon a tree.
       It was at Courtray, very near to the field where this battle
       was fought, that Robert of Artois, with a French army, had
       perished beneath the swords of the Flemings, nearly a century
       previous. The gilded spurs of the French knights still adorned
       the walls of the cathedral of Courtray. The victory of Rosebecque
       in the eyes of Charles had not sufficiently repaid the former
       defeat: the town of Courtray was pillaged and burnt; its
       famous clock was removed to Dijon, and formed the third wonder
       of this kind in France, Paris and Sens alone possessing
       similar ornaments. The battle of Rosebecque proved more
       unfortunate for the communes of France than for those of
       Flanders. Ghent, notwithstanding her loss of 9,000 slain, did
       not yield to the conqueror, but held out the war for two years
       longer; and did not finally submit until the Duke of Burgundy,
       at the death of their count, guaranteed to the burghers the
       full enjoyment of their privileges. The king avenged himself
       on the mutinous city of Paris; entered it as a conqueror; took
       the chains from the streets and unhinged the gates: one hundred
       of the citizens were sent to the scaffold; the property of the
       rich was confiscated; and all the ancient and most onerous
       taxes, the gabelle, the duty on sales, as well as that of
       entry, were declared by royal ordinance to be established
       anew. The principal towns of the kingdom were visited with the
       same punishments and exactions. The victory of Rosebecque
       overthrew the commons of France, which were crushed under the
       feet of the young monarch and his nobles."

          E. E. Crowe,
          History of France,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN
          Sir J. Froissart (Johnes),
          Chronicles,
          book 2, chapters 111-130.

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 7, chapter 1 (volume 2).

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 23 (volume 3).

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
       The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade.

       The crushing defeat of the Flemings at Roosebeke produced
       alarm in England, where the triumph of the French was quickly
       felt to be threatening. "English merchants were expelled from
       Bruges, and their property was confiscated. Calais even was in
       danger. The French were at Dunkirk and Gravelines, and might
       by a sudden dash on Calais drive the English out." There had
       been aid from England promised to Van Artevelde, but the
       promise had only helped on the ruin of the Ghent patriot by
       misleading him. No help had come when he needed it. Now, when
       it was too late, the English bestirred themselves. For some
       months there had been on foot among them a Crusade, which Pope
       Urban VI. had proclaimed against the supporters of the rival
       Pope Clement VII.--the "Schismatics." France took the side of
       the latter and was counted among the Schismatics. Accordingly,
       Pope Urban's Crusade, so far as the English people could be moved
       to engage in it, was now directed against the French in
       Flanders. It was led by the Bishop of Norwich, who succeeded
       in rousing a very considerable degree of enthusiasm in the
       country for the movement, despite the earnest opposition of
       Wyclif and his followers. The crusading army assembled at
       Calais in the spring of 1383, professedly for a campaign in
       France; but the Bishop found excuses for leading it into
       Flanders. Gravelines was first attacked, carried by storm, and
       its male defenders slaughtered to a man. An army of French and
       Flemings, encountered near Dunkirk, was routed, with fearful
       carnage, and the whole coast, including Dunkirk, fell into the
       hands of the English. Then they laid siege to Ypres, and there
       their disasters began. The city held out with stubbornness
       from the 9th of June until the 10th of August, when the
       baffled besiegers--repulsed in a last desperate assault which
       they had made on the 8th--marched away. "Ypres might rejoice,
       but the disasters of the long siege proved final. Her stately
       faubourgs were not rebuilt, and she has never again taken her
       former rank among the cities of Flanders." In September a
       powerful French army entered Flanders, and the English
       crusaders could do nothing but retreat before it, giving up
       Cassel (which the French burned), then Bergues, then
       Bourbourg, after a siege, and, finally, setting fire to
       Gravelines and abandoning that place. "Gravelines was utterly
       destroyed, but the French soon began to rebuild it. It was
       repeopled from the surrounding country, and fortified strongly
       as a menace to Calais." The Crusaders returned to England
       "'dripping with blood and disgracing their country. Blessed be
       God who confounds the proud,' says one sharp critic, who
       appears to have been a monk of Canterbury."

          G. M. Wrong,
          The Crusade of MCCCLXXXIII.

          ALSO IN
          Sir J. Froissart, (Johnes),
          Chronicles
          book 2, chapters 130-145 (volumes 1-2).

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1383
       Joined to the Dominions of the Duke of Burgundy.

       "Charles V. [of France] had formed the design of obtaining
       Flanders for his brother Philip, Duke of Burgundy, afterwards
       known as Philip the Bold--by marrying him to Margaret
       [daughter and heiress of Louis de Maele, count of Flanders].
       To gain the good will of the Communes, he engaged to restore
       the three bailiwicks of Lille, Douai, and Orchies as a
       substitute for the 10,000 livres a year promised to Louis de
       Maele and his successors in 1351, as well as the towns of
       Peronne, Crèvecœur, Arleux and Château-Chinon, assigned to him
       in 1358. ... On the 13th May, 1369, the 'Lion of Flanders'
       once more floated, after an interval of half a century, over
       the walls of Lille, Douai, and Orchies, and at the same time
       Flemish garrisons marched into St. Omer, Aire, Bethune and
       Hesdin. The marriage ceremony took place at Ghent on the 19th
       of June." The Duke of Burgundy waited fourteen years for the
       heritage of his wife. In January, 1383, Count Louis died, and
       Flanders was added to the great and growing dominion of the
       new Burgundian house.

          J. Hutton,
          James and Philip van Arteveld,
          chapters 14 and 18.

          See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1364.

    {1129}

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1451-1453.
       Revolt against the Burgundian Gabelle.

          See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1477.
       Severance from Burgundy.
       Transference to the Austrian House by marriage of Mary of
       Burgundy.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1482-1488.
       Resistance to Maximilian.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1494-1588.
       The Austro-Spanish sovereignty and its oppressions.
       The great revolt and its failure in the Flemish provinces.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, and after.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1529.
       Pretensions of the king of France to Suzerainty resigned.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1539-1540.
       The unsupported revolt of Ghent.

          See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

    FLANDERS: A. D. 1594-1884.
       Later history.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609, to 1830-1884.

    ----------FLANDERS: End----------

    FLATHEAD INDIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: FLATHEADS.

    FLAVIA CÆSARIENSIS.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

    FLAVIAN AMPHITHEATRE, The.

          See COLOSSEUM.

    FLAVIAN FAMILY, The.

       "We have designated the second period of the [Roman] Empire by
       the name of the Flavian family--the family of Vespasian [Titus
       Flavius Vespasian]. The nine Emperors who were successively
       invested with the purple, in the space of the 123 years from
       his accession, were not all, however, of Flavian race, even by
       the rites of adoption, which in Rome was become a second
       nature; but the respect of the world for the virtues of
       Flavius Vespasian induced them all to assume his name, and
       most of them showed themselves worthy of such an affiliation.
       Vespasian had been invested with the purple at Alexandria, on
       the 1st of July, A. D. 69; he died in 79. His two sons reigned
       in succession after him; Titus, from 79 to 81; Domitian, from 81
       to 96. The latter having been assassinated, Nerva, then an old
       man, was raised to the throne by the Senate (A. D. 96-98). He
       adopted Trajan (98-117); who adopted Adrian (117-138). Adrian
       adopted Antoninus Pius (138-161); who adopted Marcus Aurelius
       (161-180); and Commodus succeeded his father, Marcus Aurelius
       (180-192). No period in history presents such a succession of
       good and great men upon any throne: two monsters, Domitian and
       Commodus, interrupt and terminate it."

          J. C. L. Sismondi,
          Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 2.

    FLEETWOOD, OR BRANDY STATION, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

    FLEIX, The Peace of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

    FLEMINGS.--FLEMISH.

          See FLANDERS.

    FLEMISH GUILDS.

          See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

    FLEURUS, Battle of (1622).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

    FLEURUS, Battle of (1690).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

    FLEURUS, Battle of (1794).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

    FLODDEN, Battle of (A. D. 1513).

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.

    FLORALIA, The.

          See LUDI.

    FLORÉAL, The month.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

    FLORENCE:
       Origin and Name:

       "Fæsulre was situated on a hill above Florence. Florentine
       traditions call it the metropolis of Florence, which would
       accordingly be a colony of Fæsulre; but a statement in
       Machiavelli and others describes Florence as a colony of
       Sulla, and this statement must have been derived from some
       local chronicle. Fæsulre was no doubt an ancient Etruscan
       town, probably one of the twelve. It was taken in the war of
       Sulla [B. C. 82-81]. ... My conjecture is, that Sulla not only
       built a strong fort on the top of the hill of Fæsulre, but
       also the new colony of Florentia below, and gave to it the
       'ager Fæsulanus.'"

          B. G. Niebuhr,
          Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography.
          volume 2, page 228.

       "We can reasonably suppose that the ancient trading nations
       may have pushed their small craft up the Arno to the present
       site of Florence, and thus have gained a more immediate
       communication with the flourishing city of Fiesole than they
       could through other ports of Etruria, from whatever race its
       people might have sprung. Admitting the high antiquity of
       Fiesole, the imagined work of Atlas, and the tomb of his
       celestial daughter, we may easily believe that a market was
       from very early times established in the plain, where both by
       land and water the rural produce could be brought for sale
       without ascending the steep on which that city stood. Such
       arrangements would naturally result from the common course of
       events, and a more convenient spot could scarcely be found
       than the present site of Florence, to which the Arno is still
       navigable by boats from its mouth, and at that time perhaps by
       two branches. ... 'There were,' says Villani, 'inhabitants
       round San Giovanni, because the people of Fiesole held their
       market there one day in the week, and it was called the Field
       of Mars, the ancient name: however it was always, from the
       first, the market of the Fiesolines, and thus it was called
       before Florence existed.'
    {1130}
       And again: 'The Pæetor Florinus, with a Roman army, encamped
       beyond the Arno towards Fiesole and had two small villages
       there, ... where the people of Fiesole one day in the week
       held a general market with the neighbouring towns and
       villages. ... On the site of this camp, as we are also assured
       by Villani, was erected the city of Florence, after the
       capture of Fiesole by Pompey, Cæsar, and Martius; but Leonardo
       Aretino, following Malespini, asserts that it was the work of
       Sylla's legions, who were already in possession of Fiesole.
       ... The variety of opinions almost equals the number of
       authors. ... It may be reasonably concluded that Florence,
       springing originally from Fiesole, finally rose to the rank of
       a Roman colony and the seat of provincial government; a
       miniature of Rome, with its Campus Martius, its Capitol,
       Forum, temple of Mars, aqueducts, baths, theatre and
       amphitheatre, all erected in imitation of the 'Eternal City;'
       for vestiges of all these are still existing either in name or
       substance. The name of Florence is as dark as its origin, and
       a thousand derivations have confused the brains of
       antiquarians and their readers without much enlightening them,
       while the beautiful Giagiolo or Iris, the city's emblem, still
       clings to her old grey walls, as if to assert its right to be
       considered as the genuine source of her poetic appellation.
       From the profusion of these flowers that formerly decorated
       the meads between the rivers Mugnone and Arno, has sprung one
       of the most popular opinions on the subject; for a white plant
       of the same species having shown itself amongst the rising
       fabrics, the incident was poetically seized upon and the Lily
       then first assumed its station in the crimson banner of
       Florence."

          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          book 1, chapter 1.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 406.
       Siege by Radagaisus.
       Deliverance by Stilicho.

          See ROME: A. D. 404-408.

    FLORENCE: 12th Century.
       Acquisition of republican independence.

       "There is ... an assertion by Villani, that Florence contained
       twenty-two thousand fighting men, without counting the old men
       and children,' about the middle of the sixth century; and
       modern statisticians have based on this statement an estimate
       which would make the population of the city at that period
       about sixty-one thousand. There are reasons too for believing
       that very little difference in the population took place
       during several centuries after that time. Then came the sudden
       increase arising from the destruction, more or less entire, of
       Fiesole, and the incorporation of its inhabitants with those
       of the newer city, which led to the building of the second
       walls. ... An estimate taking the inhabitants of the city at
       something between seventy and eighty thousand at the period
       respecting which we are inquiring [beginning of the 12th
       century] would in all probability be not very wide of the
       mark. The government of the city was at that time lodged in
       the hands of magistrates exercising both legislative and
       administrative authority, called Consuls, assisted by a senate
       composed of a hundred citizens of worth--buoni uomini. These
       Consuls 'guided everything, and governed the city, and decided
       causes, and administered justice.' They remained in office for
       one year. How long this form of government had been
       established in Florence is uncertain. It was not in existence
       in the year 897; but it was in activity in 1102. From 1138 we
       have a nearly complete roll of the names of the consuls for
       each year down to 1219. ... The first recorded deeds of the
       young community thus governed, and beginning to feel conscious
       and proud of its increasing strength, were characteristic
       enough of the tone of opinion and sentiment which prevailed
       within its walls, and of the career on which it was entering.
       'In the year 1107,' says Malispini, 'the city of Florence
       being much increased, the Florentines, wishing to extend their
       territory, determined to make war against any castle or
       fortress which would not be obedient to them. And in that year
       they took by force Monte Orlando, which belonged to certain
       gentlemen who would not be obedient to the city. And they were
       defeated, and the castle was destroyed.' These 'gentlemen,' so
       styled by the civic historian who thus curtly records the
       destruction of their home, in contradistinction to the
       citizens who by no means considered themselves such, were the
       descendants or representatives of those knights and captains,
       mostly of German race, to whom the Emperors had made grants of
       the soil according to the feudal practice and system. They
       held directly of the Empire, and in no wise owed allegiance or
       obedience of any sort to the community of Florence. But they
       occupied almost all the country around the rising city; and
       the citizens' wanted to extend their territory.' Besides,
       these territorial lords were, as has been said, gentlemen, and
       lived as such, stopping wayfarers on the highways, levying tolls
       in the neighbourhood of their strongholds, and in many ways
       making themselves disagreeable neighbours to peaceable folks.
       ... The next incident on the record, however, would seem to
       show that peaceful townsfolk as well as marauding nobles were
       liable to be overrun by the car of manifest destiny, if they
       came in the way of it. 'In the same year,' says the curt old
       historian, 'the men of Prato rebelled against the Florentines;
       wherefore they went out in battle against it, and took it by
       siege and destroyed it.' Prato rebelled against Florence! It
       is a very singular statement; for there is not the shadow of a
       pretence put forward, or the smallest ground for imagining
       that Florence had or could have claimed any sort of suzerainty
       over Prato. ... The territorial nobles, however, who held
       castles in the district around Florence were the principal
       objects of the early prowess of the citizens; and of course
       offence against them was offence against the Emperor. ... In
       1113, accordingly, we find an Imperial vicar residing in
       Tuscany at St. Miniato; not the convent-topped hill of that
       name in the immediate neighbourhood of Florence, but a little
       mountain city of the same name, overlooking the lower
       Valdarno, about half way between Florence and Pisa. ... There
       the Imperial Vicars perched themselves hawk-like, with their
       Imperial troops, and swooped down from time to time to
       chastise and bring back such cities of the plain as too
       audaciously set at naught the authority of the Emperor. And
       really these upstart Florentines were taking the bit between
       their teeth, and going on in a way that no Imperial Vicar
       could tolerate. ... So the indignant cry of the harried Counts
       Cadolingi, and of several other nobles holding of the Empire,
       whose houses had been burned over their heads by these
       audacious citizens, went up to the ears of 'Messer Ruberto,'
       the Vicar, in San Miniato.
    {1131}
       Whereupon that noble knight, indignant at the wrong done to
       his fellow nobles, as well as at the offence against the
       authority of his master the Emperor, forthwith put lance in
       rest, called out his men, and descended from his mountain
       fortress to take summary vengeance on the audacious city. On
       his way thither he had to pass through that very gorge where
       the castle of Monte Orlando had stood, and under the ruins of
       the house from which the noble vassals of the Empire had been
       harried. ... There were the leathern-jerkined citizens on the
       very scene of their late misdeed, come out to oppose the
       further progress of the Emperor's Vicar and his soldiers. And
       there, as the historian writes, with curiously impassible
       brevity, 'the said Messer Ruberto was discomfited and killed.'
       And nothing further is heard of him, or of any after
       consequences resulting from the deed. Learned legal
       antiquaries insist much on the fact, that the independence of
       Florence and the other Communes was never 'recognised' by the
       Emperors; and they are no doubt perfectly accurate in saying
       so. One would think, however, that that unlucky Vicar of
       theirs, Messer Ruberto, must have 'recognised' the fact,
       though somewhat tardily."

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       Countess Matilda, the famous friend of Pope Gregory VII.,
       whose wide dominion included Tuscany, died in 1115,
       bequeathing her vast possessions to the Church.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

       "In reality she was only entitled thus to bequeath her
       allodial lands, the remainder being imperial fiefs. But as it
       was not always easy to distinguish between the two sorts, and
       the popes were naturally anxious to get as much as they could,
       a fresh source of contention was added to the constant
       quarrels between the Empire and the Church. 'Henry IV.
       immediately despatched a representative into Tuscany, who
       under the title of Marchio, Judex, or Praeses, was to govern
       the Marquisate in his name.' 'Nobody,' says Professor Villari,
       'could legally dispute his right to do this: but the
       opposition of the Pope, the attitude of the towns which now
       considered themselves independent and the universal confusion
       rendered the Marquis's authority illusory. The imperial
       representatives had no choice but to put themselves at the
       head of the feudal nobility of the contado and unite it into a
       Germanic party hostile to the cities. In the documents of the
       period the members of this party are continually described as
       Teutonici.' By throwing herself in this juncture on the side
       of the Pope, and thus becoming the declared opponent of the
       empire and the feudal lords, Florence practically proclaimed
       her independence. The grandi, having the same interests with
       the working classes, identified themselves with these; became
       their leaders, their consuls in fact if not yet in name. Thus
       was the consular commune born, or, rather, thus did it
       recognize itself on reaching manhood; for born, in reality, it
       had already been for some time, only so quietly and
       unconsciously that nobody had marked its origin or, until now,
       its growth. The first direct consequence of this
       self-recognition was that the rulers were chosen out of a
       larger number of families. As long as Matilda had chosen the
       officers to whom the government of the town was entrusted, the
       Uberti and a few others who formed their clan, their kinsmen, and
       their connections had been selected, to the exclusion of the
       mass of the citizens. Now more people were admitted to a share
       in the administration: the offices were of shorter duration,
       and out of those selected to govern each family had its turn.
       But those who had formerly been privileged--the Uberti and
       others of the same tendencies and influence--were necessarily
       discontented with this state of things, and there are
       indications in Villani of burnings and of tumults such as
       later, when the era of faction fights had fairly begun, so
       often desolated the streets of Florence."

          B. Duffy,
          The Tuscan Republics,
          chapter 6.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1215-1250.
       The beginning, the causes and the meaning of the strife of the
       Guelfs and Ghibellines.

       Nearly from the beginning of the 13th century, all Italy, and
       Florence more than other Italian communities, became
       distracted and convulsed by a contest of raging factions. "The
       main distinction was that between Ghibellines and Guelphs--two
       names in their origin far removed from Italy. They were first
       heard in Germany in 1140, when at Winsberg in Suabia a battle
       was fought between two contending claimants of the Empire; the
       one, Conrad of Hohenstauffen, Duke of Franconia, chose for his
       battle-cry 'Waiblingen,' the name of his patrimonial castle in
       Würtemburg; the other, Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, chose
       his own family name of 'Welf,' or 'Wölf.' Conrad proved
       victorious, and his kindred to the fourth ensuing generation
       occupied the imperial throne; yet both war-cries survived the
       contest which gave them birth, lingering on in Germany as
       equivalents of Imperialist and anti-Imperialist. By a process
       perfectly clear to philologists, they were modified in Italy
       into the forms Ghibellino and Guelfo; and the Popes being
       there the great opponents of the Emperors, an Italian Guelph
       was a Papalist. The cities were mainly Guelph; the nobles most
       frequently Ghibelline. A private feud had been the means of
       involving Florence in the contest."

          M. F. Rossetti,
          A Shadow of Dante,
          chapter 3.

       "The Florentines kept themselves united till the year 1215,
       rendering obedience to the ruling power, and anxious only to
       preserve their own safety. But, as the diseases which attack
       our bodies are more dangerous and mortal in proportion as they
       are delayed, so Florence, though late to take part in the
       sects of Italy, was afterwards the more afflicted by them. The
       cause of her first division is well known, having been
       recorded by Dante and many other writers; I shall, however,
       briefly notice it. Amongst the most powerful families of
       Florence were the Buondelmonti and the Uberti; next to these
       were the Amidei and the Donati. Of the Donati family there was
       a rich widow who had a daughter of exquisite beauty, for whom, in
       her own mind, she had fixed upon Buondelmonti, a young
       gentleman, the head of the Buondelmonti family, as her
       husband; but either from negligence, or because she thought it
       might be accomplished at any time, she had not made known her
       intention, when it happened that the cavalier betrothed
       himself to a maiden of the Amidei family. This grieved the
       Donati widow exceedingly; but she hoped, with her daughter's
       beauty, to disturb the arrangement before the celebration of
       the marriage; and from an upper apartment, seeing Buondelmonti
       approach her house alone, she descended, and as he was passing
       she said to him, 'I am glad to learn you have chosen a wife,
       although I had reserved my daughter for you'; and, pushing the
       door open, presented her to his view.
    {1132}
       The cavalier, seeing the beauty of the girl, ... became
       inflamed with such an ardent desire to possess her, that, not
       thinking of the promise given, or the injury he committed in
       breaking it, or of the evils which his breach of faith might
       bring upon himself, said, 'Since you have reserved her for me,
       I should be very ungrateful indeed to refuse her, being yet at
       liberty to choose'; and without any delay married her. As soon
       as the fact became known, the Amidei and the Uberti, whose
       families were allied, were filled with rage," and some of
       them, lying in wait for him, assassinated him as he was riding
       through the streets. "This murder divided the whole city; one
       party espousing the cause of the Buondelmonti, the other that
       of the Uberti; and ... they contended with each other for many
       years, without one being able to destroy the other. Florence
       continued in these troubles till the time of Frederick II.,
       who, being king of Naples, endeavoured to strengthen himself
       against the church; and, to give greater stability to his
       power in Tuscany, favoured the Uberti and their followers,
       who, with his assistance, expelled the Buondelmonti; thus our
       city, as all the rest of Italy had long time been, became
       divided into Guelphs and Ghibellines."

          N. Machiavelli,
          History of Florence,
          book 2, chapter 1.

       "Speaking generally, the Ghibellines were the party of the
       emperor, and the Guelphs the party of the Pope; the
       Ghibellines were on the side of authority, or sometimes of
       oppression, the Guelphs were on the side of liberty and
       self-government. Again, the Ghibellines were the supporters of
       an universal empire of which Italy was to be the head, the
       Guelphs were on the side of national life and national
       individuality. ... If these definitions could be considered as
       exhaustive, there would be little doubt as to the side to
       which our sympathies should be given. ... We should ... expect
       all patriots to be Guelphs, and the Ghibelline party to be
       composed of men who were too spiritless to resist despotic
       power, or too selfish to surrender it. But, on the other hand,
       we must never forget that Dante was a Ghibelline."

          O. Browning,
          Guelphs and Ghibellines,
          chapter 2.

          See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1215.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.
       The wars of a generation of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

       In 1248, the Ghibellines, at the instigation of Frederick II.,
       and with help from his German soldiery, expelled the Guelfs
       from the city, after desperate fighting for several days, and
       destroyed the mansions of their chiefs, to the number of 38.
       In 1250 there was a rising of the people--of the under-stratum
       which the cleavage of parties hardly penetrated--and a popular
       constitution of government was brought into force. At the same
       time, the high towers, which were the strongholds of the
       contending nobles, were thrown down. An attempt was then made
       by the leaders of the people to restore peace between the
       Ghibellines and the Guelfs, but the effort was vain; whereupon
       the Guelfs (in January, 1251) came back to the city, and the
       Ghibellines were either driven away or were shut up in their
       city castles, to which they had retired when the people rose.
       In 1258 the restless Ghibellines plotted with Manfred, King of
       the Two Sicilies, to regain possession of Florence. The plot
       was discovered, and the enraged people drove the last
       lingerers of the faction from their midst and pulled down
       their palaces. The great palace of the Uberti family, most
       obnoxious of all, was not only razed, but a decree was made
       that no building should ever stand again on its accursed site.
       The exiled Ghibellines took refuge at Siena, and there plotted
       again with King Manfred, who sent troops to aid them. The
       Florentines did not wait to be attacked, but marched out to
       meet them on Sienese territory, and suffered a terrible defeat
       at Montaperti (September 4, 1260), in the battle that Dante
       refers to, "which coloured the river Arbia red." "'On that
       day,' says Villani, ... 'was broken and destroyed the old
       popular government of Florence, which had existed for ten
       years with so great power and dignity, and had won so many
       victories.' Few events have ever left a more endurable
       impression on the memory of a people than this great battle
       between two cities and parties animated both of them by the
       most unquenchable hatred. The memory of that day has lasted
       through 600 years, more freshly perhaps in Siena than in
       Florence." As a natural consequence of their defeat at
       Montaperti, the Guelfs were again forced to fly into exile
       from Florence, and this expatriation included a large number
       of even the commoner people. "So thorough had been the defeat,
       so complete the Ghibelline ascendency resulting from it, that
       in every city the same scene on a lesser scale was taking
       place. Many of the smaller towns, which had always been Guelph
       in their sympathies, were now subjected to Ghibelline
       despotism. One refuge alone remained in Tuscany--Lucca. ...
       And thither the whole body of the expatriated Guelphs betook
       themselves. ... The Ghibellines entered Florence in triumph on
       the 16th of September, three days after their enemies had left
       it. ... The city seemed like a desert. The gates were standing
       open and unguarded; the streets were empty; the comparatively
       few inhabitants who remained, almost entirely of the lowest
       class of the populace, were shut up in their obscure
       dwellings, or were on their knees in the churches. And what
       was worse, the conquerors did not come back alone. They had
       invited a foreign despot to restore order;" and so King
       Manfred's general, Giordano da Anglona, established Count
       Guido Novello in Florence as Manfred's vicar. "All the
       constitutional authorities established by the people, and the
       whole frame-work of the former government, were destroyed, and
       the city was ruled entirely by direction transmitted from the
       King's Sicilian court." There were serious proposals, even,
       that Florence itself should be destroyed, and the saving of
       the noble city from that untimely fate is credited to one
       patriotic noble, of the Uberti family, who withstood the
       proposition, alone. "The Ghibelline army marched on Lucca, and
       had not much more difficulty in reducing that city. The
       government was put into Ghibelline hands, and Lucca became a
       Ghibelline city like all the rest of Tuscany. The Lucchese
       were not required by the victors to turn their own Guelphs out
       of the city. But it was imperatively insisted on that every
       Guelph not a native citizen should be thrust forth from the
       gates." The unfortunate Florentines, thus made homeless again,
       now found shelter at Bologna, and presently helped their friends
       at Modena and Reggio to overcome the Ghibellines in those
       cities and recover control. But for five years their condition
       was one of wretchedness. Then Charles of Anjou was brought
       into Italy (1265) by the Pope, to snatch the crown of the Two
       Sicilies from King Manfred, and succeeded in his undertaking.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

    {1133}

       The prop of the Ghibellines was broken. Guido Novello and his
       troopers rode away from Florence; 800 French horsemen, sent by
       the new Angevine king, under Guy de Montfort, took their
       places; the Guelfs swarmed in again--the Ghibellines swarmed
       out; the popular constitution was restored, with new features
       more popular than before. In 1273 there was a great attempt
       made by Pope Gregory X. in person, to reconcile the factions
       in Florence; but it had so little success that the Holy Father
       left the city in disgust and pronounced it under interdict for
       three years. In 1278 the attempt was renewed with somewhat
       better success. "'And now, says Villani, 'the Ghibellines were
       at liberty to return to Florence, they and their families. ...
       And the said Ghibellines had back again their goods and
       possessions; except that certain of the leading families were
       ordered, for the safety of the city, to remain for a certain
       time beyond the boundaries of the Florentine territory.' In
       fact, little more is heard henceforward of the Ghibellines as
       a faction within the walls of Florence. The old name, as a
       rallying cry for the Tory or Imperialist party, was still
       raised here and there in Tuscany; and Pisa still called
       herself Ghibelline. But the stream of progress had run past
       them and left them stranded."

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 1, chapters 4-5,
          and book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN
          N. Machiavelli,
          Florentine Histories,
          book 1.

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 4.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.
       Development of the popular constitution of the Commonwealth.

       When it became clear that the republic was to rule itself
       henceforth untrammelled by imperial interference, the people
       [in 1250] divided themselves into six districts, and chose for
       each district two Ancients, who administered the government in
       concert with the Potestà and the Captain of the People. The
       Ancients were a relic of the old Roman municipal organization.
       ... The body of the citizens, or the popolo, were ultimately
       sovereigns in the State. Assembled under the banners of their
       several companies, they formed a parlamento for delegating
       their own power to each successive government. Their
       representatives, again, arranged in two councils, called the
       Council of the People and the Council of the Commune, under
       the presidency of the Captain of the People and the Potestà,
       ratified the measures which had previously been proposed and
       carried by the executive authority or signoria. Under this
       simple State system the Florentines placed themselves at the
       head of the Tuscan League, fought the battles of the Church,
       asserted their sovereignty by issuing the golden florin of the
       republic, and flourished until 1266. In that year an important
       change was effected in the Constitution. The whole population
       of Florence consisted, on the one hand, of nobles or Grandi,
       as they were called in Tuscany, and on the other hand of
       working people. The latter, divided into traders and
       handicraftsmen, were distributed in guilds called Arti; and at
       that time there were seven Greater and five Lesser Arti, the most
       influential of all being the Guild of the Wool Merchants.
       These guilds had their halls for meeting, their colleges of
       chief officers, their heads, called Consoli or Priors, and
       their flags. In 1266 it was decided that the administration of
       the commonwealth should be placed simply and wholly in the
       hands of the Arti, and the Priors of these industrial
       companies became the lords or Signory of Florence. No
       inhabitant of the city who had not enrolled himself as a
       craftsman in one of the guilds could exercise any function of
       burghership. To be scioperato, or without industry, was to be
       without power, without rank or place of honour in the State.
       The revolution which placed the Arts at the head of the
       republic had the practical effect of excluding the Grandi
       altogether from the government. ... In 1293, after the
       Ghibellines had been defeated in the great battle of
       Campaldino, a series of severe enactments, called the
       Ordinances of Justice, were decreed against the unruly Grandi.
       All civic rights were taken from them; the severest penalties
       were attached to their slightest infringement of municipal
       law; their titles to land were limited; the privilege of
       living within the city walls was allowed them only under
       galling restrictions; and last not least, a supreme
       magistrate, named the Gonfalonier of Justice, was created for
       the special purpose of watching them and carrying out the
       penal code against them. Henceforward Florence was governed
       exclusively by merchants and artisans. The Grandi hastened to
       enroll themselves in the guilds, exchanging their former
       titles and dignities for the solid privilege of burghership.
       The exact parallel to this industrial constitution for a
       commonwealth, carrying on wars with emperors and princes,
       holding haughty captains in its pay, and dictating laws to
       subject cities, cannot, I think, be elsewhere found in
       history. It is as unique as the Florence of Dante and Giotto
       is unique."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Florence and the Medici
          (Sketches and Studies in Italy, chapter 5).

          ALSO IN
          C. Balbo,
          Life and Times of Dante,
          volume 1, Introduction.

          A. Von Reumont,
          Lorenzo de Medici,
          book 1, chapter 1.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1284-1293.
       War with Pisa.

          See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1289.
       The victory of Campaldino, and the jealousy among its heroes.

       In 1289 the Ghibellines of Arezzo having expelled the Guelfs
       from that city, the Florentines made war in the cause of the
       latter and won a great victory at Campaldino. This "raised the
       renown and the military spirit of the Guelf party, for the
       fame of the battle was very great; the hosts contained the
       choicest chivalry of either side, armed and appointed with
       emulous splendour. The fighting was hard, there was brilliant
       and conspicuous gallantry, and the victory was complete. It
       sealed Guelf ascendency. The Ghibelline warrior-bishop of
       Arezzo fell, with three of the Uberti, and other Ghibelline
       chiefs. ... In this battle the Guelf leaders had won great
       glory. The hero of the day was the proudest, handsomest,
       craftiest, most winning, most ambitious, most unscrupulous
       Guelf noble in Florence--one of a family who inherited the
       spirit and recklessness of the proscribed Uberti, and did not
       refuse the popular epithet of 'Malefami'--Corso Donati.
    {1134}
       He did not come back from the field of Campaldino, where he
       had won the battle by disobeying orders, with any increased
       disposition to yield to rivals, or court the populace, or
       respect other men's rights. Those rivals, too--and they also
       had fought gallantly in the post of honour at Campaldino--were
       such as he hated from his soul--rivals whom he despised, and
       who yet were too strong for him [the family of the Cerchi].
       His blood was ancient, they were upstarts; he was a soldier,
       they were traders; he was poor, they the richest men in
       Florence. ... They had crossed him in marriages, bargains,
       inheritances. ... The glories of Campaldino were not as oil on
       these troubled waters. The conquerors flouted each other all
       the more fiercely in the streets on their return, and
       ill-treated the lower people with less scruple."

          R. W. Church,
          Dante and Other Essays,
          pages 27-31.

          ALSO IN
          C. Balbo,
          Life and Times of Dante,
          part 1, chapter 6 (volume 1).

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300.
       New factions in the city, and Dante's relations to them.
       The Bianchi and the Neri (Whites and Blacks).

       Among the Nobles "who resisted the oppression of the people,
       Corso Donati must have been the chief, but he did not at first
       come forward; with one of his usual stratagems, however, he
       was the cause of a new revolution [January, 1295], which drove
       Giano della Bella, the leader of the people, from the city.
       ... Notwithstanding the fall of Giano, the Nobles did not
       return into power. He was succeeded as a popular leader by one
       much his inferior, one Pecora, surnamed, from his trade, the
       Butcher. New disputes arose between the nobles and the people,
       and between the upper and lower ranks of the people itself.
       Villani tells us that, in the year 1295, 'many families, who
       were neither tyrannical nor powerful, withdrew from the order
       of the nobles, and enrolled themselves among the people,
       diminishing the power of the nobles and increasing that of the
       people.' Dante must have been precisely one of those nobles 'who
       were neither tyrannical nor powerful;' and ... it is certain
       that he was among those who passed over from their own order
       to that of the Popolani, by being matriculated in one of the
       Arts. In a register from 1297 to 1300, of the Art of the
       physicians and druggists, the fifth of the seven major Arts,
       he is found matriculated in these words: 'Dante d'Aldighiero
       degli Aldighieri poeta fiorentino.' ... Dante, by this means,
       obtained office under the popular government. ... The new
       factions that arose in Florence, in almost all Tuscany, and in
       some of the cities in other parts of Italy, were merely
       subdivisions of the Guelf party; merely what, in time, happens
       to every faction after a period of prosperity, a division of
       the ultras and of the moderates, or of those who hold more or
       less extravagant views. ... All this happened to the Guelf
       party in a very few years, and the Neri and Bianchi, the names
       'Of the two divisions of that party, which had arisen in 1300,
       were no longer mentioned ten years afterwards, but were again
       lost in the primitive appellations of Guelfs and Ghibellines.
       Thus this episode would possess little interest, and would be
       scarcely mentioned in the history of Italy, or even of
       Florence, had not the name of our sublime Poet been involved
       in it; and, after his love, it is the most important
       circumstance of his life, and the one to which he most
       frequently alludes in his Commedia. It thus becomes a subject
       worthy of history. ... Florentine historians attribute Corso
       Donati's hatred towards Vieri de Cerchi to envy. ... This envy
       arose to such a height between Dante's neighbours in Florence
       that he has rendered it immortal. 'Through envy,' says
       Villani, 'the citizens began to divide into factions, and one
       of the principal feuds began in the Sesto dello Scandalo, near
       the gate of St. Pietro, between the families of the Cerchi and
       the Donati [from which latter family came Dante's wife]. ...
       Messer Vieri was the head of the House of the Cerchi, and he
       and his house were powerful in affairs, possessing a numerous
       kindred; they were very rich merchants, for their company was
       one of the greatest in the world.'" The state of animosity
       between these two families "was existing in Florence in the
       beginning of 1300, when it was increased by another rather
       similar family quarrel that had arisen in Pistoia. . . .
       'There was in Pistoia a family which amounted to more than 100
       men capable of bearing arms; it was not of great antiquity,
       but was powerful, wealthy, and numerous; it was descended from
       one Cancellieri Notaio, and from him they had preserved
       Cancellieri as their family name. From the children of the two
       wives of this man were descended the 107 men of arms that have
       been enumerated; one of the wives having been named Madonna
       Bianca, her descendants were called Cancellieri Bianchi (White
       Cancellieri); and the descendants of the other wife, in
       opposition, were called Cancellieri Neri (Black
       Cancellieri).'" Between these two branches of the family of
       the Cancellieri there arose, some time near the end of the
       thirteenth century, an implacable feud. "Florence ...
       exercised a supremacy over Pistoia ... and fearing that these
       internal dissensions might do injury to the Guelf party, she
       took upon herself the lordship or supremacy of that city. The
       principal Cancellieri, both Bianchi and Neri, were banished to
       Florence itself; 'the Neri took up their abode in the house of
       the Frescobaldi, beyond the Arno; the Bianchi at the house of
       the Cerchi, in the Garbo, from being connected with them by
       kindred. But as one sick sheep infects another, and is
       injurious to the flock, so this cursed seed of discord, that
       had departed from Pistoia and had now entered Florence,
       corrupted all the Florentines, and divided them into two
       parties.' ... The Cerchi, formerly called the Forest party
       (parte selvaggia), now assumed the name of Bianchi; and those
       who followed the Donati were now called Neri. ... 'There sided
       with [the Bianchi, says Villani] the families of the Popolani
       and petty artisans, and all the Ghibellines, whether Nobles or
       Popolani.' ... Thus the usual position in which the two
       parties stood was altered; for hitherto the Nobles had almost
       always been Ghibellines, and the Popolani Guelfs; but now, if
       the Popolani were not Ghibellines, they were at least not such
       strong Guelfs as the nobles. Sometimes these parties are
       referred to as White Guelfs and Black Guelfs."

          C. Balbo,
          Life and Times of Dante,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN
          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          book 1, chapter 14 (volume l).

          N. Machiavelli,
          The Florentine Histories,
          book 2.

    {1135}

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1301-1313.
       Triumph of the Neri.
       Banishment of Dante and his party.
       Downfall and death of Corso Donati.

       "In the year 1301, a serious affray took place between the two
       parties [the Bianchi and the Neri]; the whole city was in
       arms; the law, and the authority of the Signoria, among whom
       was the poet Dante Alighieri, was set at naught by the great
       men of each side, while the best citizens looked on with fear
       and trembling. The Donati, fearing that unaided they would not
       be a match for their adversaries, proposed that they should
       put themselves under a ruler of the family of the king of
       France. Such a direct attack on the independence of the state
       was not to be borne by the Signoria, among whom the poet had
       great influence. At his instigation they armed the populace,
       and with their assistance compelled the heads of the
       contending parties to lay down their arms, and sent into exile
       Messer Donati and others who had proposed the calling in of
       foreigners. A sentence of banishment was also pronounced
       against the most violent men of the party of the Bianchi, most
       of whom, however, were allowed, under various pretences, to
       return to their country. The party of the Donati in their
       exile carried on those intrigues which they had commenced
       while at home. They derived considerable assistance from the
       king of France's brother, Charles of Valois, whom Pope
       Boniface had brought into Italy. That prince managed, by means
       of promises, which he subsequently violated, to get admission
       for himself, together with several of the Neri, and the legate
       of the pope, into Florence. He then produced letters,
       generally suspected to be forgeries, charging the leaders of
       the Bianchi with conspiracy. The popularity of the accused
       party had already been on the wane, and after a violent
       tumult, the chief men among them, including Dante, were
       obliged to leave the city; their goods were confiscated, and
       their houses destroyed. ... From this time Corso Donati, the
       head of the faction of the Neri, became the chief man at
       Florence. The accounts of its state at this period, taken from
       the most credible historians, warrant us in thinking that the
       severe invectives of Dante are not to be ascribed merely to
       indignation or resentment at the harsh treatment he had
       received. ... The city was rent by more violent dissensions
       than ever. There were now three distinct sources of
       contention--the jealousy between the people and the nobles,
       the disputes between the Bianchi and the Neri, and those
       between the Ghibellines and the Guelfs. It was in vain that
       the legate of Pope Benedict, a man of great piety, went
       thither for the sake of trying to restore order. The
       inhabitants showed how little they respected him by exhibiting
       a scandalous representation of hell on the river Arno; and,
       after renewing his efforts without success, he cursed the city
       and departed [1302]. The reign of Corso Donati ended like that
       of most of those who have succeeded to power by popular violence.
       Six years after the banishment of his adversaries he was
       suspected, not without reason, of endeavouring to make himself
       independent of constitutional restraints. The Signori declared
       him guilty of rebellion. After a protracted resistance he made
       his escape from the city, but was pursued and taken at Rovesca
       [1308]. When he was led captive by those among whom his
       authority had lately been paramount, he threw himself under
       his horse, and, after having been dragged some distance, he
       was dispatched by one of the captors. ... The party that had
       been raised by Corso Donati continued to hold the chief power
       at Florence even after the death of their chief. The exiled
       faction, in the words of one of their leaders, ... had not
       learned the art of returning to their country as well as their
       adversaries. Four years after the events alluded to, the
       Emperor, Henry VII., made some negotiations in their favour,
       which but imperfectly succeeded. The Florentines, however,
       were awed when he approached their city at the head of his
       army; and in the extremity of their danger they implored the
       assistance of King Robert of Naples, and made him Lord of
       their city for the space of five years. The Emperor's
       mysterious death [August 24, 1313], at Buonconvento freed them
       from their alarm."

          W. P. Urquhart,
          Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN
          Mrs. Oliphant,
          The Makers of Florence,
          chapter 2.

          B. Duffy,
          The Tuscan Republics,
          chapter 12.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1310-1313.
       Resistance to the Emperor, Henry VII.
       Siege by the imperial army.

          See ITALY: A. D, 1310-1313,

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1313-1328.
       Wars with Pisa and with Castruccio Castracani, of Lucca.
       Disastrous battles of Montecatini and Altopascio.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1336-1338.
       Alliance with Venice against Mastino della Scala.

          See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.
       Defeat by the Pisans before Lucca.
       The brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens.

       In 1341, Mastino della Scala, of Verona, who had become master
       of Lucca in 1335 by treachery, offered to sell that town to
       the Florentines. The bargain was concluded; "but it appeared
       to the Pisans the signal of their own servitude, for it cut
       off all communication between them and the Ghibelines of
       Lombardy. They immediately advanced their militia into the
       Lucchese states to prevent the Florentines from taking
       possession of the town; vanquished them in battle, on the 2d
       of October, 1341, under the walls of Lucca; and, on the 6th of
       July following, took possession of that city for themselves.
       The people of Florence attributed this train of disasters to
       the incapacity of their magistrates. ... At this period,
       Gauttier [Walter] de Brienne, duke of Athens, a French noble,
       but born in Greece, passed through Florence on his way from
       Naples to France; The duchy of Athens had remained in his
       family from the conquest of Constantinople till it was taken
       from his father in 1312. ... It was for this man the
       Florentines, after their defeat at Lucca, took a sudden fancy.
       ... On the 1st of August, 1342, they obliged the signoria to
       confer on him the title of captain of justice, and to give him
       the command of their militia." A month later, the duke, by his
       arts, had worked such a ferment among the lower classes of the
       population that they "proclaimed him sovereign lord of
       Florence for his life, forced the public palace, drove from it
       the gonfalonier and the priori, and installed him there in
       their place. ... Happily, Florence was not ripe for slavery:
       ten months sufficed for the duke of Athens to draw from it
       400,000 golden florins, which he sent either to France or
       Naples; but ten months sufficed also to undeceive all parties
       who had placed any confidence in him," and by a universal
       rising, in July, 1343, he was driven from the city.

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2).

    {1136}

    FLORENCE: 14th Century.
       Industrial Prosperity of the City.

       "John Villani has given us an ample and precise account of the
       state of Florence in the earlier part of the 14th century. The
       revenue of the Republic amounted to 300,000 florins, a sum
       which, allowing for the depreciation of the precious metals,
       was at least equivalent to 600,000 pounds sterling; a larger
       sum than England and Ireland, two centuries ago, yielded
       annually to Elizabeth--a larger sum than, according to any
       computation which we have seen, the Grand Duke of Tuscany now
       derives from a territory of much greater extent. The
       manufacture of wool alone employed 200 factories and 30,000
       workmen. The cloth annually produced sold, at an average, for
       1,200,000 florins; a sum fairly equal, in exchangeable value,
       to two millions and a half of our money. Four hundred thousand
       florins were annually coined. Eighty banks conducted the
       commercial operations, not of Florence only, but of all
       Europe. The transactions of these establishments were
       sometimes of a magnitude which may surprise even the
       contemporaries of the Barings and the Rothschilds. Two houses
       advanced to Edward the Third of England upwards of 300,000
       marks, at a time when the mark contained more silver than 50
       shillings of the present day, and when the value of silver was
       more than quadruple of what it now is. The city and its
       environs contained 170,000 inhabitants. In the various schools
       about 10,000 children were taught to read; 1,200 studied
       arithmetic; 600 received a learned education. The progress of
       elegant literature and of the fine arts was proportioned to
       that of the public prosperity. ... Early in the 14th century
       came forth the Divine Comedy, beyond comparison the greatest
       work of imagination which had appeared since the poems of
       Homer. The following generation produced indeed no second
       Dante: but it was eminently distinguished by general
       intellectual activity. The study of the Latin writers had
       never been wholly neglected in Italy. But Petrarch introduced
       a more profound, liberal, and elegant scholarship; and
       communicated to his countrymen that enthusiasm for the
       literature, the history, and the antiquities of Rome, which
       divided his own heart with a frigid mistress and a more frigid
       Muse. Boccaccio turned their attention to the more sublime and
       graceful models of Greece."

          Lord Macaulay,
          Machiavelli
          (Essays, volume 1).

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1348.
       The Plague.

       "In the year then of our Lord 1348, there happened at
       Florence, the finest city in all Italy, a most terrible
       plague; which, whether owing to the influence of the planets,
       or that it was sent from God as a just punishment for our
       sins, had broken out some years before in the Levant, and
       after passing from place to place, and making incredible havoc
       all the way, had now reached the west. There, spite of all the
       means that art and human foresight could suggest, such as
       keeping the city clear from filth, the exclusion of all
       suspected persons, and the publication of copious instructions
       for the preservation of health; and notwithstanding manifold
       humble supplications offered to God in processions and
       otherwise; it began to show itself in the spring of the
       aforesaid year, in a sad and wonderful manner. Unlike what had
       been seen in the east, where bleeding from the nose is the
       fatal prognostic, here there appeared certain tumours in the
       groin or under the armpits, some as big as a small apple,
       others as an egg; and afterwards purple spots in most parts of
       the body; in some cases large and but few in number, in others
       smaller and more numerous--both sorts the usual messengers of
       death. To the cure of this malady, neither medical knowledge
       nor the power of drugs was of any effect. ... Nearly all died
       the third day from the first appearance of the symptoms, some
       sooner, some later, without any fever or other accessory
       symptoms. What gave the more virulence to this plague, was
       that, by being communicated from the sick to the hale, it
       spread daily, like fire when it comes in contact with large
       masses of combustibles. Nor was it caught only by conversing
       with, or coming near the sick, but even by touching their
       clothes, or anything that they had before touched. ... These
       facts, and others of the like sort, occasioned various fears
       and devices amongst those who survived, all tending to the
       same uncharitable and cruel end; which was, to avoid the sick,
       and everything that had been near them, expecting by that
       means to save themselves. And some holding it best to live
       temperately, and to avoid excesses of all kinds, made parties,
       and shut themselves up from the rest of the world. ... Others
       maintained free living to be a better preservative, and would
       baulk no passion or appetite they wished to gratify, drinking
       and revelling incessantly from tavern to tavern, or in private
       houses (which were frequently found deserted by the owners,
       and therefore common to everyone), yet strenuously avoiding,
       with all this brutal indulgence, to come near the infected.
       And such, at that time, was the public distress, that the
       laws, human and divine, were no more regarded; for the
       officers to put them in force being either dead, sick, or in
       want of persons to assist them, everyone did just as he
       pleased. ... I pass over the little regard that citizens and
       relations showed to each other; for their terror was such that
       a brother even fled from a brother, a wife from her husband,
       and, what is more uncommon, a parent from his own child. ...
       Such was the cruelty of Heaven, and perhaps of men, that
       between March and July following, according to authentic
       reckonings, upwards of 100,000 souls perished in the city
       only; whereas, before that calamity, it was not supposed to
       have continued so many inhabitants. What magnificent
       dwellings, what noble palaces, were then depopulated to the
       last inhabitant!"

          G. Boccaccio,
          The Decameron,
          introd.

          See, also, BLACK DEATH.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.
       The captains of the Guelf Party and the "Ammoniti."

       "The magistracy called the 'Capitani di Parte Guelfa,'--the
       Captains of the Guelph party,--was instituted in the year
       1267; and it was remarked, when the institution of it was
       recorded, that the conception of a magistracy avowedly formed
       to govern a community, not only by the authority of, but in
       the interest of one section only of its members, was an
       extraordinary proof of the unfitness of the Florentines for
       self-government, and a forewarning of the infallible certainty
       that the attempt to rule the Commonwealth on such principles
       would come to a bad ending. In the year 1358, a little less
       than a century after the first establishment of this strange
       magistracy, it began to develop the mischievous capabilities
       inherent in the nature of it, in a very alarming manner. ...
    {1137}
       In 1358 this magistracy consisted of four members. ... These
       men, 'born,' says Ammirato, 'for the public ruin, under
       pretext of zeal for the Guelph cause' ... caused a law to be
       passed, according to which any citizen or Florentine subject
       who had ever held, or should thereafter hold, any office in
       the Commonwealth, might be either openly or secretly accused
       before the tribunal of the Captains of the Guelph Party of
       being Ghibelline, or not genuine Guelph. If the accusation was
       supported by six witnesses worthy of belief, the accused might
       be condemned to death or to fine at the discretion of the
       Captains. ... It will be readily conceived that the passing of
       such a law, in a city bristling with party hatreds and feuds,
       was the signal for the commencement of a reign of terror." The
       citizens proscribed were "said to be 'admonished'; and the
       condemnations were called 'admonitions'; and henceforward for
       many years the 'ammonizioni' [or 'ammoniti'] play a large part
       in the domestic history and political struggles of Florence."

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          chapter 23 (volume 2).

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1359-1391.
       The Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood and the wars with Pisa,
       with Milan, and with the Pope.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.
       War with the Pope in support of the oppressed States of the
       Church.
       The Eight Saints of War.
       A terrible excommunication.

       In 1375, the Florentines became engaged in war with Pope
       Gregory XI., supporting a revolt of the States of the Church,
       which were heavily oppressed by the representatives of their
       papal sovereign

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

       "Nevertheless, so profoundly reverenced was the church that
       even the sound of war against a pope appeared to many little
       less than blasphemy: numbers opposed on this pretence, but
       really from party motives alone." But "a general council
       assembled and declared the cause of liberty paramount to every
       other consideration; the war was affirmed to be rather against
       the injustice and tyranny of foreign governors than the church
       itself. ... All the ecclesiastical cities then groaning under
       French oppression were to be invited to revolt and boldly
       achieve their independence. These spirited resolutions were
       instantly executed, and on the 8th of August 1375 Alessandro
       de' Bardi [and seven other citizens] ... were formed into a
       supreme council of war called 'Gli Otto della Guerra'; and
       afterwards, from their able conduct, 'Gli Otto Santi della
       Guerra' [The Eight Saints of War]; armed with the concentrated
       power of the whole Florentine nation in what regarded war." A
       terrible sentence of excommunication was launched against the
       Florentines by the Pope. "Their souls were solemnly condemned
       to the pains of hell; fire and water were interdicted; their
       persons and property outlawed in every Christian land, and
       they were finally declared lawful prey for all who chose to
       sell, plunder, or kill them as though they were mere slaves or
       infidels."

          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2).

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.
       Complete democratizing of the commonwealth.
       The Tumult of the Ciompi.
       First appearance of the Medici in Florentine history.

       Though the reign of the Duke of Athens lasted rather less than
       a year, "it bore important fruits; for the tyrant, seeking to
       support himself upon the favour of the common people, gave
       political power to the Lesser Arts at the expense of the
       Greater, and confused the old State-system by enlarging the
       democracy. The net result of these events for Florence was,
       first, that the city became habituated to rancorous
       party-strife, involving exiles and proscriptions, and,
       secondly, that it lost its primitive social hierarchy of
       classes. ... Civil strife now declared itself as a conflict
       between labour and capital. The members of the Lesser Arts,
       craftsmen who plied trades subordinate to those of the Greater
       Arts, rose up against their social and political superiors,
       demanding a larger share in the government, a more equal
       distribution of profits, higher wages, and privileges that
       should place them on an absolute equality with the wealthy
       merchants. It was in the year 1378 that the proletariate broke
       out into rebellion. Previous events had prepared the way for
       this revolt. First of all, the republic had been democratised
       through the destruction of the Grandi and through the popular
       policy pursued to gain his own ends by the Duke of Athens.
       Secondly, society had been shaken to its very foundation by
       the great plague of 1348 ... nor had 30 years sufficed to
       restore their relative position to grades and ranks confounded
       by an overwhelming calamity. ... Rising in a mass to claim
       their privileges, the artisans ejected the Signory from the
       Public Palace, and for awhile Florence was at the mercy of the
       mob. It is worthy of notice that the Medici, whose name is
       scarcely known before this epoch, now come for one moment to
       the front. Salvestro de' Medici was Gonfalonier of Justice at
       the time when the tumult first broke out. He followed the
       faction of the handicraftsmen, and became the hero of the day.
       I cannot discover that he did more than extend a sort of
       passive protection to their cause. Yet there is no doubt that
       the attachment of the working classes to the house of Medici
       dates from this period. The rebellion of 1378 is known in
       Florentine history as the Tumult of the Ciompi. The name
       Ciompi strictly means the Wool-Carders. One set of operatives
       in the city, and that the largest, gave its title to the whole
       body of the labourers. For some months these craftsmen
       governed the republic, appointing their own Signory and
       passing laws in their own interest; but, as is usual, the
       proletariate found itself incapable of sustained government.
       The ambition and discontent of the Ciompi foamed themselves
       away, and industrious workingmen began to see that trade was
       languishing and credit on the wane. By their own act at last
       they restored the government to the Priors of the Greater
       Arti. Still the movement had not been without grave
       consequences. It completed the levelling of classes, which had
       been steadily advancing from the first in Florence. After the
       Ciompi riot there was no longer not only any distinction
       between noble and burgher, but the distinction between greater
       and lesser guilds was practically swept away. ... The proper
       political conditions had been formed for unscrupulous
       adventurers. Florence had become a democracy without social
       organisation. ... The time was come for the Albizzi to attempt
       an oligarchy, and for the Medici to begin the enslavement of the
       State.
    {1138}
       The Constitution of Florence offered many points of weakness
       to the attacks of such intriguers. In the first place it was
       in its origin not a political but an industrial
       organisation--a simple group of guilds invested with the
       sovereign authority. ... It had no permanent head, like the
       Doge of Venice, no fixed senate like the Venetian Grand
       Council; its chief magistrates, the Signory, were elected for
       short periods of two months, and their mode of election was
       open to the gravest criticism. Supposed to be chosen by lot,
       they were really selected from lists drawn up by the factions
       in power from time to time. These factions contrived to
       exclude the names of all but their adherents from the bags, or
       'borse,' in which the burghers eligible for election had to be
       inscribed. Furthermore, it was not possible for this shifting
       Signory to conduct affairs requiring sustained effort and
       secret deliberation; therefore recourse was being continually
       had to dictatorial Commissions. The people, summoned in
       parliament upon the Great Square, were asked to confer
       plenipotentiary authority upon a committee called Balia [see
       BALIA OF FLORENCE], who proceeded to do what they chose in the
       State; and who retained power after the emergency for which
       they were created passed away. ... It was through these [and
       other specified] defects that the democracy merged gradually
       into a despotism. The art of the Medici consisted in a
       scientific comprehension of these very imperfections, a
       methodic use of them for their own purposes, and a steady
       opposition to any attempts made to substitute a stricter
       system. ... Florence, in the middle of the 14th century, was a
       vast beehive of industry. Distinctions of rank among burghers,
       qualified to vote and hold office, were theoretically unknown.
       Highly educated men, of more than princely wealth, spent their
       time in shops and counting-houses, and trained their sons to
       follow trades. Military service at this period was abandoned
       by the citizens; they preferred to pay mercenary troops for
       the conduct of their wars. Nor was there, as in Venice, any
       outlet for their energies upon the seas. Florence had no navy,
       no great port--she only kept a small fleet for the protection
       of her commerce. Thus the vigour of the commonwealth was
       concentrated on itself; while the influence of citizens,
       through their affiliated trading-houses, correspondents, and
       agents, extended like a network over Europe. ... Accordingly
       we find that out of the very bosom of the people a new
       plutocratic aristocracy begins to rise. ... These nobles of
       the purse obtained the name of 'Popolani Nobili'; and it was
       they who now began to play at high stakes for the supreme
       power. ... The opening of the second half of the 14th century
       had been signalised by the feuds of two great houses, both
       risen from the people. These were the Albizzi and the Ricci."
       The Albizzi triumphed, in the conflict of the two houses, and
       became all-powerful for a time in Florence; but the wars with
       the Visconti, of Milan, in which they engaged the city, made
       necessary a heavy burden of taxation, which they rendered more
       grievous by distributing it unfairly. "This imprudent
       financial policy began the ruin of the Albizzi. It caused a
       clamour in the city for a new system of more just taxation,
       which was too powerful to be resisted. The voice of the people
       made itself loudly heard; and with the people on this occasion
       sided Giovanni de' Medici. This was in 1427. It is here that
       the Medici appear upon that memorable scene where in the
       future they are to play the first part. Giovanni de' Medici
       did not belong to the same branch of his family as the
       Salvestro who favoured the people at the time of the Ciompi
       Tumult. But he adopted the same popular policy. To his sons
       Cosimo and Lorenzo he bequeathed on his death-bed the rule
       that they should invariably adhere to the cause of the
       multitude, found their influence on that, and avoid the arts
       of factious and ambitious leaders."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Florence and the Medici
          (Sketches and Studies in Italy, chapter 5).

          ALSO IN:
          A. von Reumont,
          Lorenzo de' Medici,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume l).

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          books 4-5 (volume 2).

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.
       War with Gian Galeazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan.

       "Already in 1386, the growing power of Giangaleazzo Visconti,
       the tenth duke of Milan of that family, began to give umbrage,
       not only to all the sovereign princes: his neighbours, but
       also to Florence [see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447]. ... Florence
       ... had cause enough to feel uneasy at the progress of such a
       man in his career of successful invasion and
       usurpation;--Florence, no more specially than other of the
       free towns around her, save that Florence seems always to have
       thought that she had more to lose from the loss of her liberty
       than any of the other cities ... and felt always called upon to
       take upon herself the duty of standing forward as the champion
       and supporter of the principles of republicanism and free
       government. ... The Pope, Urban VI., added another element of
       disturbance to the condition of Italy. For in his anxiety to
       recover sundry cities mainly in Umbria and Romagna ... he was
       exceedingly unscrupulous of means, and might at any moment be
       found allying himself with the enemies of free government and
       of the old Guelph cause in Italy. Venice, also, having most
       improvidently and unwisely allied herself with Visconti,
       constituted another element of danger, and an additional cause
       of uneasiness and watchfulness to the Florentine government.
       In the spring of 1388, therefore, a board of ten, 'Dieci di
       Balia,' was elected for the general management of 'all those
       measures concerning war and peace which should be adopted by
       the entire Florentine people.'" The first war with Visconti
       was declared by the republic in May, 1390, and was so
       successfully conducted for the Florentines by Sir John
       Hawkwood that it terminated in a treaty signed January 26,
       1392, which bound the Duke of Milan not to meddle in any way
       with the affairs of Tuscany. For ten years this agreement
       seems to have been tolerably well adhered to; but in 1402 the
       rapacious Duke entered upon new encroachments, which forced
       the Florentines to take up arms again. Their only allies were
       Bologna and Padua (or Francesco Carrara of Padua), and the
       armies of the three states were defeated in a terribly bloody
       battle fought near Bologna on the 26th of June. "Bologna fell
       into the hands of Visconti. Great was the dismay and terror in
       Florence when the news ... reached the city. It was neither
       more nor less than the fall, as the historian says, of the
       fortress which was the bulwark of Florence. Now she lay
       absolutely open to the invader." But the invader did not come.
       He was stricken with the plague and died, in September, and
       Florence and Italy were saved from the tyranny which he had
       seemed able to extend over the whole.

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 4, chapters 4-5 (volume 2).

    {1139}

    FLORENCE: 14th-15th Centuries.
       Commercial enterprise, industrial energy,
       wealth and culture of the city.

       "During the 14th and 15th centuries Florentine wealth
       increased in an extraordinary degree. Earlier generations had
       compelled the powerful barons of the district to live in the
       city; and even yet the exercise of the rights of citizenship
       was dependent on having a residence there. The influx of
       outsiders was, however, much more owing to the attractions
       offered by the city, whether in business, profession, or
       pleasure, than to compulsion. ... The situation of the city is
       not favorable to the natural growth of commerce, especially
       under the conditions which preceded the building of railroads.
       At a considerable distance from the sea, on a river navigable
       only for very small craft, and surrounded by hills which
       rendered difficult the construction of good roads,--the fact
       that the city did prosper so marvellously is in itself proof
       of the remarkable energy and ability of its people. They
       needed above all things a sea-port, and to obtain a good one
       they waged some of their most exhausting wars. Their principal
       wealth, however, came through their financial operations,
       which extended throughout Europe, and penetrated even to
       Morocco and the Orient. Their manufactures also, especially of
       wool and silk, brought in enormous returns, and made not only
       the fortunes but also, in one famous case at least, the name
       of the families engaged in them. Their superiority over the
       rest of Christendom in these pursuits was but one side of that
       remarkable, universal talent which is the most astonishing
       feature of the Florentine life of that age. With the hardihood
       of youth, they were not only ready but eager to engage in new
       enterprises, whether at home or abroad. ... As a result of
       their energy and ability, riches poured into their coffers,--a
       mighty stream of gold, in the use of which they showed so much
       judgment, that the after world has feasted to our day, and for
       centuries to come, will probably continue to feast without
       satiety on the good things which they caused to be made, and
       left behind them. Of all the legacies for which we have to
       thank Florence, none are so well known and so universally
       recognized as the treasures of art created by her sons, many
       of which yet remain within her walls, the marvel and delight
       of all who behold them. As the Florentines were ready to try
       experiments in politics, manufactures, and commerce, so also
       in all branches of the fine arts they tried experiments, left
       the old, beaten paths of their forefathers, and created
       something original, useful, and beautiful for themselves.
       Christian art from the time of the Roman Empire to Cimabue had
       made comparatively little progress; but a son of the
       Florentine fields was to start a revolution which should lead
       to the production of some of the most marvellous works which
       have proceeded from the hand of man. The idea that the fine
       arts are more successfully cultivated under the patronage of
       princes than under republican rule is very widespread, and is
       occasionally accepted almost as a dogma; but the history of
       Athens and of Florence teaches us without any doubt that the
       two most artistic epochs in the history of the world have had
       their rise in republics. ... Some writers, dazzled by the
       splendors of the Medici, entirely lose sight of the fact that
       both Dante and Petrarch were dead before the Medici were even
       heard of, and that the greatest works, at least in
       architecture, were all begun long before they were leaders in
       Florentine affairs. That family did much, yes very much, for
       the advancement of art and letters; but they did not do all or
       nearly all that was done in Florence. ... Though civil discord
       and foreign war were very frequent, Florentine life is
       nevertheless an illustration rather of what Herbert Spencer
       calls the commercial stage of civilization, than of the
       war-like period. Her citizens were above all things merchants,
       and were generally much more willing to pay to avoid a war than
       to conduct one. They strove for glory, not in feats of arms,
       but in literary contests and in peaceful emulation in the
       encouragement of learning and the fine arts."

          W. B. Scaife,
          Florentine Life during the Renaissance,
          pages 16-19.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1405-1406.
       Purchase and conquest of Pisa.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1409-1411.
       League against and war with Ladislas, King of Naples.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1423-1447.
       War with the Duke of Milan.
       League with Venice, Naples, and other States.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.
       The ascendancy of Cosimo de' Medici.

       In 1433, Cosmo, or Cosimo de' Medici, the son of Giovanni de'
       Medici, was the recognized leader of the opposition to the
       oligarchy controlled by Rinaldo de' Albizzi. Cosmo inherited
       from his father a large fortune and a business as a merchant
       and banker which he maintained and increased. "He lived
       splendidly; he was a great supporter of all literary men, and
       spent and distributed his great wealth amongst his fellow
       citizens. He was courteous and liberal, and was looked upon
       with almost unbounded respect and affection by a large party
       in the state. Rinaldo was bent upon his ruin, and in 1433,
       when he had a Signoria devoted to his party, he cited Cosmo
       before the Council, and shut him up in a tower of the Public
       Palace. Great excitement was caused by this violent step, and
       two days after the Signoria held a parliament of the people.
       The great bell of the city was tolled, and the people gathered
       round the Palace. Then the gates of the Palace were thrown
       open, and the Signoria, the Colleges of Arts, and the
       Gonfaloniere came forth, and asked the people if they would
       have a Balia. So a Balia was appointed, the names being
       proposed by the Signoria, to decide on the fate of Cosmo. At
       first it was proposed to kill him, but he was only banished,
       much against the will of Rinaldo, who knew that, if he lived,
       he would some day come back again. The next year the Signoria
       was favourable to him; another Balia was appointed; the party
       of the Albizzi was banished, and Cosmo was recalled. He was
       received with a greeting such as men give to a conqueror, and
       was hailed as the 'Father of his Country.' This triumphant
       return gave the Medici a power in the Republic which they
       never afterwards lost. The banished party fled to the court of
       the Duke of Milan, and stirred him up to war against the city."

          W. Hunt,
          History of Italy,
          chapter 6, section 5.

    {1140}

       "Cosimo de' Medici did not content himself with rendering his
       old opponents harmless; he took care also that none of his
       adherents should become too powerful and dangerous to him.
       Therefore, remarks Francesco Guicciardini, he retained the
       Signoria, as well as the taxes, in his hand, in order to be
       able to promote or oppress individuals at will. In other
       things the citizens enjoyed greater freedom and acted more
       according to their own pleasure than later, in the days of his
       grandson, for he let the reins hang loose if he was only sure
       of his own position. It was just in this that his great art
       lay, to guide things according to his will, and yet to make
       his partisans believe that he shared his authority with them.
       ... 'It is well known' remarks [Guicciardini] ... 'how much
       nobility and wealth were destroyed by Cosimo and his
       descendants by taxation. The Medici never allowed a fixed
       method and legal distribution, but always reserved to
       themselves the power of bearing heavily upon individuals
       according to their pleasure. ... He [Cosimo] maintained great
       reserve in his whole manner of life. For a quarter of a
       century he was the almost absolute director of the State, but
       he never assumed the show of his dignity. ... The ruler of the
       Florentine State remained citizen, agriculturist, and
       merchant. In his appearance and bearing there was nothing
       which distinguished him from others. ... He ruled the money
       market, not only in Italy, but throughout Europe. He had banks
       in all the western countries, and his experience and the
       excellent memory which never failed him, with his strong love
       of order, enabled him to guide everything from Florence, which
       he never quitted after 1438." The death of Cosimo occurred on
       the 1st day of August, 1464.

          A. von Reumont,
          Lorenzo de' Medici,
          book. 1, chapters 6 and 8 (volume 1).

       "The last troubled days of the Florentine democracy had not
       proved quite unproductive of art. It was the time of Giotto's
       undisputed sway. Many works of which the 15th century gets the
       glory because it finished them were ordered and begun amidst
       the confusion and terrible agitation of the demagogy. ...
       Under the oligarchy, in the relative calm that came with
       oppression, a taste for art as well as for letters began to
       develop in Florence as elsewhere." But "Cosimo de' Medicis had
       rare good fortune. In his time, and under his rule, capricious
       chance united at Florence talents as numerous as they were
       diverse--the universal Brunelleschi, the polished and elegant
       Ghiberti, the rough and powerful Donatello, the suave
       Angelico, the masculine Masaccio. ... Cosimo lived long enough
       to see the collapse of the admirable talent which flourished
       upon the banks of the Arno, and soon spread throughout Italy,
       and to feel the void left by it. It is true his grandson saw a
       new harvest, but as inferior to that which preceded it, as it
       was to that which followed it."

          F. T. Perrens,
          History of Florence, 1434-1531,
          book 1, chapter 6.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1450-1454.
       Alliance with Francesco Sforza, of Milan, and war with
       Venice, Naples, Savoy, and other States.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1458-1469.
       Lucas Pitti, and the building of the Pitti Palace.
       Piero de' Medici and the five agents of his tyranny.

       Until 1455, Cosmo de' Medici shared the government of Florence
       in some degree with Neri Capponi, an able statesman, who had
       taken an eminent part in public affairs for many years--during
       the domination of the Albizzi, as well as afterwards.

       "When Neri Capponi died, the council refused to call a new
       parliament to replace the balia, whose power expired on the
       1st of July, 1455. ... The election of the signoria was again
       made fairly by lot, ... the contributions were again equitably
       apportioned,--the tribunals ceased to listen to the
       recommendations of those who, till then, had made a traffic of
       distributive justice." This recovery of freedom in Florence
       was enjoyed for about three years; but when, in 1458, Lucas
       Pitti, "rich, powerful, and bold," was named gonfalonier,
       Cosmo conspired with him to reimpose the yoke. "Pitti
       assembled the parliament; but not till he had filled all the
       avenues of the public square with soldiers or armed peasants.
       The people, menaced and trembling within this circle,
       consented to name a new balia, more violent and tyrannical
       than any of the preceding. It was composed of 352 persons, to
       whom was delegated all the power of the republic. They exiled
       a great number of the citizens who had shown the most
       attachment to liberty, and they even put some to death." When,
       in 1463, Cosmo's second son, Giovanni, on whom his hopes were
       centered, died, Lucas Pitti "looked on himself henceforth as
       the only chief of the state. It was about this time that he
       undertook the building of that magnificent palace which now
       [1832] forms the residence of the grand-dukes. The republican
       equality was not only offended by the splendour of this regal
       dwelling; but the construction of it afforded Pitti an
       occasion for marking his contempt of liberty and the laws. He
       made of this building an asylum for all fugitives from
       justice, whom no public officer dared pursue when once he
       [they?] took part in the labour. At the same time individuals,
       as well as communities, who would obtain some favour from the
       republic, knew that the only means of being heard was to offer
       Lucas Pitti some precious wood or marble to be employed in the
       construction of his palace. When Cosmo de' Medici died, at his
       country-house of Careggi, on the 1st of August, 1464, Lucas
       Pitti felt himself released from the control imposed by the
       virtue and moderation of that great citizen. ... His [Cosmo's]
       son, Pietro de' Medici, then 48 years of age, supposed that he
       should succeed to the administration of the republic, as he
       had succeeded to the wealth of his father, by hereditary
       right: but the state of his health did not admit of his
       attending regularly to business, or of his inspiring his
       rivals with much fear. To diminish the weight of affairs which
       oppressed him, he resolved on withdrawing a part of his immense
       fortune from commerce; recalling all his loans made in
       partnership with other merchants; and laying out this money in
       land. But this unexpected demand of considerable capital
       occasioned a fatal shock to the commerce of Florence; at the
       same time that it alienated all the debtors of the house of
       Medici, and deprived it of much of its popularity. The death
       of Sforza, also, which took place on the 8th of March, 1466,
       deprived the Medicean party of its firmest support abroad. ...
       The friends of liberty at Florence soon perceived that Lucas
       Pitti and Pietro de' Medici no longer agreed together; and
       they recovered courage when the latter proposed to the council
       the calling of a parliament, in order to renew the balia, the
       power of which expired on the 1st of September, 1465; his
       proposition was rejected.
    {1141}
       The magistracy began again to be drawn by lot from among the
       members of the party victorious in 1434. This return of
       liberty, however, was but of short duration. Pitti and Medici
       were reconciled: they agreed to call a parliament, and to
       direct it in concert; to intimidate it, they surrounded it
       with foreign troops. But Medici, on the nomination of the
       balia, on the 2d of September, 1466, found means of admitting
       his own partisans only, and excluding all those of Lucas
       Pitti. The citizens who had shown any zeal for liberty were
       all exiled. ... Lucas Pitti ruined himself in building his
       palace. His talents were judged to bear no proportion to his
       ambition: the friends of liberty, as well as those of Medici,
       equally detested him; and he remained deprived of all power in
       a city which he had so largely contributed to enslave. Italy
       became filled with Florentine emigrants: every revolution,
       even every convocation of parliament, was followed by the
       exile of many citizens. ... At Florence, the citizens who
       escaped proscription trembled to see despotism established in
       their republic; but the lower orders were in general
       contented, and made no attempt to second Bartolomeo Coleoni,
       when he entered Tuscany, in 1467, at the head of the
       Florentine emigrants, who had taken him into their pay.
       Commerce prospered; manufactures were carried on with great
       activity; high wages supported in comfort all who lived by
       their labour; and the Medici entertained them with shows and
       festivals, keeping them in a sort of perpetual carnival,
       amidst which the people soon lost all thought of liberty.
       Pietro de' Medici was always in too bad a state of health to
       exercise in person the sovereignty he had usurped over his
       country; he left it to five or six citizens, who reigned in
       his name. ... They not only transacted all business, but
       appropriated to themselves all the profit; they sold their
       influence and credit; they gratified their cupidity or their
       vengeance; but they took care not to act in their own names,
       or to pledge their own responsibility; they left that to the
       house of Medici. Pietro, during the latter months of his life,
       perceived the disorder and corruption of his agents. He was
       afflicted to see his memory thus stained, and he addressed
       them the severest reprimands; he even entered into
       correspondence with the emigrants, whom he thought of
       recalling, when he died, on the 2d of December, 1469. His two
       sons, Lorenzo and Giuliano, the elder of whom was not 21 years
       of age, ... given up to all the pleasures of their age, had
       yet no ambition. The power of the state remained in the hands
       of the five citizens who had exercised it under Pietro."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 11.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.
       The conspiracy of the Pazzi.
       The government of Lorenzo the Magnificent.
       The death of liberty.
       The golden age of letters and art.

       "Lorenzo inherited his grandfather's political sagacity and
       far surpassed him in talent and literary culture. In many
       respects too he was a very different man. Cosimo never left
       his business office; Lorenzo neglected it, and had so little
       commercial aptitude that he was obliged to retire from
       business, in order not to lose his abundant patrimony. Cosimo
       was frugal in his personal expenses and lent freely to others;
       Lorenzo loved splendid living, and thus gained the title of
       the Magnificent; he spent immoderately for the advancement of
       literary men; he gave himself up to dissipation which ruined
       his health and shortened his days. His manner of living
       reduced him to such straits, that he had to sell some of his
       possessions and obtain money from his friends. Nor did this
       suffice; for he even meddled with the public money, a thing
       that had never happened in Cosimo's time. Very often, in his
       greed of unlawful gain, he had the Florentine armies paid by
       his own bank; he also appropriated the sums collected in the
       Monte Comune or treasury of the public debt, and those in the
       Monte delle Fanciulle where were marriage portions accumulated
       by private savings--money hitherto held sacred by all.
       Stimulated by the same greed, he, in the year 1472 joined the
       Florentine contractors for the wealthy alum mines of Volterra,
       at the moment in which that city was on the verge of rebellion
       in order to free itself from a contract which it deemed
       unjust. And Lorenzo, with the weight of his authority, pushed
       matters to such a point that war broke out, soon to be
       followed by a most cruel sack of the unhappy city, a very
       unusual event in Tuscany. For all this he was universally
       blamed. But he was excessively haughty and cared for no man;
       he would tolerate no equals, would be first in
       everything--even in games. He interfered in all matters, even
       in private concerns and in marriages: nothing could take place
       without his consent. In overthrowing the powerful and exalting
       men of low condition, he showed none of the care and
       precaution so uniformly observed by Cosimo. It is not then
       surprising if his enemies increased so fast that the
       formidable conspiracy of the Pazzi broke out on the 26th April
       1478. In this plot, hatched in the Vatican itself where Sixtus
       IV. was Lorenzo's determined enemy, many of the mightiest
       Florentine families took part. In the cathedral, at the moment
       of the elevation of the Host, the conspirators' daggers were
       unsheathed. Giuliano dei Medici was stabbed to death, but
       Lorenzo defended himself with his sword and saved his own
       life. The tumult was so great that it seemed as though the
       walls of the church were shaken. The populace rose to the cry
       of 'Palle! Palle!' the Medici watchword, and the enemies of
       the Medici were slaughtered in the streets or hung from the
       windows of the Palazzo Veechio. There, among others, were seen
       the dangling corpses of Archbishop Salviati and of Francesco
       Pazzi, who in their last struggles had gripped each other with
       their teeth and remained thus for some time. More than seventy
       persons perished on that day, and Lorenzo, taking advantage of
       the opportunity, pushed matters to extremity by his
       confiscations, banishments, and sentences of death. Thereby
       his power would have been infinitely increased if Pope Sixtus
       IV., blinded by rage, had not been induced to excommunicate
       Florence, and make war against it, in conjunction with
       Ferdinand of Aragon. On this Lorenzo, without losing a moment,
       went straight to Naples, and made the king understand how much
       better it served his interests that Florence should have but
       one ruler instead of a republican government, always liable to
       change and certainly never friendly to Naples. So he returned
       with peace re-established and boundless authority and
       popularity. Now indeed he might have called himself lord of
       the city, and it must have seemed easy to him to destroy the
       republican government altogether.
    {1142}
       With his pride and ambition it is certain that he had an
       intense desire to stand on the same level with the other
       princes and tyrants of Italy; the more so as at that moment
       success seemed entirely within his grasp. But Lorenzo showed
       that his political shrewdness was not to be blinded by
       prosperity, and knowing Florence well, he remained firm to the
       traditional policy of his house, that of dominating the
       Republic, while apparently respecting it. He was well
       determined to render his power solid and durable; but to that
       end he had recourse to a most ingenious reform, by means of
       which, without abandoning the old road, he thoroughly
       succeeded in his object. In place of the usual five-yearly
       Balia, he instituted, in 1480, the Council of Seventy, which
       renewed itself and was like a permanent Balia with still wider
       power. This, composed of men entirely devoted to his cause,
       secured the government to him forever. By this Council, say
       the chroniclers of the time, liberty was wholly buried and
       undone, but certainly the most important affairs of the State
       were carried on in it by intelligent and cultivated men, who
       largely promoted its material prosperity. Florence still
       called itself a republic, nominally the old institutions were
       still in existence, but all this seemed and was nothing but an
       empty mockery. Lorenzo, absolute lord of all, might certainly be
       called a tyrant, surrounded by lackeys and courtiers. ... Yet
       he dazzled all men by the splendour of his rule, so that
       [Guicciardini] observes, that though Lorenzo was a tyrant, 'it
       would be impossible to imagine a better and more pleasing
       tyrant.' Industry, commerce, public works had all received a
       mighty impulse. In no city in the world had the civil equality
       of modern States reached the degree to which it had attained
       not merely in Florence itself, but in its whole territory and
       throughout all Tuscany. Administration and secular justice
       proceeded regularly enough in ordinary cases, crime was
       diminished, and, above all, literary culture had become a
       substantial element of the new State. Learned men were
       employed in public offices, and from Florence spread a light
       that illuminated the world. ... But Lorenzo's policy could
       found nothing that was permanent. Unrivalled as a model of
       sagacity and prudence, it promoted in Florence the development
       of all the new elements of which modern society was to be the
       outcome, without succeeding in fusing them together; for his
       was a policy of equivocation and deceit, directed by a man of
       much genius, who had no higher aim than his own interest and
       that of his family, to which he never hesitated to sacrifice
       the interests of his people."

          P. Villari,
          Machiavelli and his Times,
          chapter 2, section 2 (volume 1).

       "The state of Florence at this period was very remarkable. The
       most independent and tumultuous of towns was spellbound under
       the sway of Lorenzo de' Medici, the grandson of Cosimo who
       built San Marco; and scarcely seemed even to recollect its
       freedom, so absorbed was it in the present advantages
       conferred by 'a strong government,' and solaced by shows,
       entertainments, festivals, pomp, and display of all kinds. It
       was the very height of that classic revival so famous in the
       later history of the world, and the higher classes of society,
       having shaken themselves apart with graceful contempt from the
       lower, had begun to frame their lives according to a pagan
       model, leaving the other and much bigger half of the world to
       pursue its superstitions undisturbed. Florence was as near a
       pagan city as it was possible for its rulers to make it. Its
       intellectual existence was entirely given up to the past; its
       days were spent in that worship of antiquity which has no
       power of discrimination, and deifies not only the wisdom but
       the trivialities of its golden epoch. Lorenzo reigned in the
       midst of a lettered crowd of classic parasites and flatterers,
       writing poems which his courtiers found better than
       Alighieri's, and surrounding himself with those eloquent
       slaves who make a prince's name more famous than arms or
       victories, and who have still left a prejudice in the minds of
       all literature-loving people in favour of their patron. A man
       of superb health and physical power, who can give himself up
       to debauch all night without interfering with his power of
       working all day, and whose mind is so versatile that he can
       sack a town one morning and discourse upon the beauties of
       Plato the next, and weave joyous ballads through both
       occupations--gives his flatterers reason when they applaud
       him. The few righteous men in the city, the citizens who still
       thought of Florence above all, kept apart, overwhelmed by the
       tide which ran in favour of that leading citizen of Florence,
       who had gained the control of the once high-spirited and
       freedom-loving people. Society had never been more dissolute,
       more selfish, or more utterly deprived of any higher aim.
       Barren scholarship, busy over grammatical questions, and
       elegant philosophy, snipping and piecing its logical systems,
       formed the top dressing to that half-brutal,
       half-superstitious ignorance which in such communities is the
       general portion of the poor. The dilettante world dreamed
       hazily of a restoration of the worship of the pagan gods;
       Cardinal Bembo bade his friend beware of reading St. Paul's
       epistles, lest their barbarous style should corrupt his taste;
       and even such a man as Pico della Mirandola declared the
       'Divina Commedia' to be inferior to the 'Canti
       Carnascialeschi' of Lorenzo de' Medici. ... Thus limited
       intellectually, the age of Lorenzo was still more hopeless
       morally, full of debauchery, cruelty, and corruption,
       violating oaths, betraying trusts, believing in nothing but
       Greek manuscripts, coins, and statues, caring for nothing but
       pleasure. This was the world in which Savonarola found
       himself."

          Mrs. Oliphant,
          The Makers of Florence,
          chapter 9.

       "Terrible municipal enmities had produced so much evil as to
       relax ancient republican energy. After so much destruction
       repose was necessary. To antique sobriety and gravity succeed
       love of pleasure and the quest of luxury. The belligerent
       class of great nobles were expelled and the energetic class of
       artisans crushed. Bourgeois rulers were to rule, and to rule
       tranquilly. Like the Medicis, their chiefs, they manufacture,
       trade, bank and make fortunes in order to expend them in
       intellectual fashion. War no longer fastens its cares upon
       them, as formerly, with a bitter and tragic grasp; they manage
       it through the paid bands of condottieri, and these as cunning
       traffickers, reduce it to cavalcades; when they slaughter each
       other it is by mistake; historians cite battles in which
       three, and sometimes only one soldier remains on the field.
       Diplomacy takes the place of force, and the mind expands as
       character weakens. Through this mitigation of war and through
       the establishment of principalities or of local tyrannies, it
       seems that Italy, like the great European monarchies, had just
       attained to its equilibrium.
    {1143}
       Peace is partially established and the useful arts germinate
       in all directions upon an improved social soil like a good
       harvest on a cleared and well-ploughed field. The peasant is
       no longer a serf of the glebe, but a metayer; he nominates his
       own municipal magistrates, possesses arms and a communal
       treasury; he lives in enclosed bourgs, the houses of which,
       built of stone and cement, are large, convenient, and often
       elegant. Near Florence he erects walls, and near Lucca he
       constructs turf terraces in order to favor cultivation.
       Lombardy has its irrigations and rotation of crops; entire
       districts, now so many deserts around Lombardy and Rome, are
       still inhabited and richly productive. In the upper class the
       bourgeois and the noble labor since the chiefs of Florence are
       hereditary bankers and commercial interests are not
       endangered. Marble quarries are worked at Carrara, and foundry
       fires are lighted in the Maremmes. We find in the cities
       manufactories of silk, glass, paper, books, flax, wool and
       hemp; Italy alone produces as much as all Europe and furnishes
       to it all its luxuries. Thus diffused commerce and industry
       are not servile occupations tending to narrow or debase the
       mind. A great merchant is a pacific general, whose mind
       expands in contact with men and things. Like a military
       chieftain he organizes expeditions and enterprises and makes
       discoveries. ... The Medicis possess sixteen banking-houses in
       Europe; they bind together through their business Russia and
       Spain, Scotland and Syria; they possess mines of alum
       throughout Italy, paying to the Pope for one of them a hundred
       thousand florins per annum; they entertain at their court
       representatives of all the powers of Europe and become the
       councillors and moderators of all Italy. In a small state like
       Florence, and in a country without a national army like Italy,
       such an influence becomes ascendant in and through itself; a
       control over private fortunes leads to a management of the
       public funds, and without striking a blow or using violence, a
       private individual finds himself director of the state. ...
       These banking magistrates are liberal as well as capable. In
       thirty-seven years the ancestors of Lorenzo expend six hundred
       and sixty thousand florins in works of charity and of public
       utility. Lorenzo himself is a citizen of the antique stamp,
       almost a Pericles, capable of rushing into the arms of his
       enemy, the king of Naples, in order to avert, through personal
       seductions and eloquence, a war which menaces the safety of
       his country. His private fortune is a sort of public treasury,
       and his palace a second hotel-de-ville. He entertains the
       learned, aids them with his purse, makes friends of them,
       corresponds with them, defrays the expenses of editions of
       their works, purchases manuscripts, statues and medals,
       patronizes promising young artists, opens to them his gardens,
       his collections, his house and his table, and with that
       cordial familiarity and that openness, sincerity and
       simplicity of heart which place the protected on a footing of
       equality with the protector as man to man and not as an
       inferior in relation to a superior. This is the representative
       man whom his contemporaries all accept as the accomplished man of
       the century, no longer a Farinata or an Alighieri of ancient
       Florence, a spirit rigid, exalted and militant to its utmost
       capacity, but a balanced, moderate and cultivated genius, one
       who, through the genial sway of his serene and beneficent
       intellect, binds up into one sheaf all talents and all
       beauties. It is a pleasure to see them expanding around him.
       On the one hand writers are restoring and, on the other,
       constructing. From the time of Petrarch Greek and Latin
       manuscripts are sought for, and now they are to be exhumed in
       the convents of Italy, Switzerland, Germany and France. They
       are deciphered and restored with the aid of the savants of
       Constantinople. A decade of Livy or a treatise by Cicero, is a
       precious gift solicited by princes; some learned man passes
       ten years of travel in ransacking distant libraries in order
       to find a lost book of Tacitus, while the sixteen authors
       rescued from oblivion by the Poggios are counted as so many
       titles to immortal fame. ... Style again becomes noble and at
       the same time clear, and the health, joy and serenity diffused
       through antique life re-enters the human mind with the
       harmonious proportions of language and the measured graces of
       diction. From refined language they pass to vulgar language,
       and the Italian is born by the side of the Latin. ... Here in
       the restored paganism, shines out Epicurean gaiety, a
       determination to enjoy at any and all hours, and that instinct
       for pleasure which a grave philosophy and political sobriety
       had thus far tempered and restrained. With Pulci, Berni,
       Bibiena, Ariosto, Bandelli, Aretino, and so many others, we
       soon see the advent of voluptuous debauchery and open
       skepticism, and later a cynical unbounded licentiousness.
       These joyous and refined civilizations based on a worship of
       pleasure and intellectuality--Greece of the fourth century,
       Provence of the twelfth, and Italy of the sixteenth--were not
       enduring. Man in these lacks some checks. After sudden
       outbursts of genius and creativeness he wanders away in the
       direction of license and egotism; the degenerate artist and
       thinker makes room for the sophist and the dilettant. But in
       this transient brilliancy his beauty was charming. ... It is
       in this world, again become pagan, that painting revives, and
       the new tastes she is to gratify show beforehand the road she
       is to follow; henceforth she is to decorate the houses of rich
       merchants who love antiquity and who desire to live daintily."

          H. Taine, Italy,
          Florence and Venice,
          book 3, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          A. von Reumont,
          Lorenzo de' Medici.

          W. Roscoe,
          Life of Lorenzo de' Medici.

          F. T. Perrens,
          History of Florence, 1434-1531,
          book 2, chapters 2-6.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
       The preaching of Savonarola.
       The coming of Charles VII. of France,
       and expulsion of the Medici.
       The great religious revival and Christianization of
       the Commonwealth.
       Conflict with the Church and fall of Savonarola.

       Girolamo, or Jerome Savonarola, a Dominican monk, born at
       Ferrara in 1452, educated to be a physician, but led by early
       disgust with the world to renounce his intended profession and
       give himself to the religious life, was sent to the convent of
       St. Mark, in Florence, in 1490, when he had reached the age of
       37. "He began his career as a reader and lecturer, and his
       lectures, though only intended for novices, drew a large
       audience. He then lectured in the garden of the cloister,
       under a large rosebush, where many intellectual men came from
       the city to hear him.
    {1144}
       At length he began to preach in the Church of St. Mark's, and
       his subject was the Apocalypse, out of which he predicted the
       restoration of the Church in Italy, which he declared God
       would bring about by a severe visitation. Its influence upon
       his hearers was overpowering; there was no room in the church
       for the brethren; his fame spread abroad, and he was next
       appointed to preach the sermons in the cathedral. ... Amid the
       luxurious, æsthetic, semi-pagan life of Florence, in the ears
       of the rich citizens, the licentious youth, the learned
       Platonists, he denounced the revival of paganism, the
       corruptions of the Church; the ignorance and consequent
       slavery of the people, and declared that God would visit Italy
       with some terrible punishment, and that it would soon come. He
       spoke severe words about the priests, declared to the people
       that the Scriptures were the only guides to salvation; that
       salvation did not come from external works, as the Church
       taught, but from faith in Christ, from giving up the heart to
       Him, and if He forgave sin, there was no need for any other
       absolution. Scarcely had he been a year in Florence when he
       was made prior of the monastery. There was a custom in vogue,
       a relic of the old times, for every new prior to go to the
       king or ruler and ask his favour. This homage was then due to
       Lorenzo di Medici, but Savonarola declared he would never
       submit to it, saying--'From whom have I received my office,
       from God or Lorenzo? Let us pray for grace to the Highest.'
       Lorenzo passed over this slight, being anxious to acquire the
       friendship of one whom he clearly saw would exert great
       influence over the Florentines. Burlamachi, his contemporary
       biographer, tells us that Lorenzo tried all kinds of plans to
       win the friendship of Savonarola: he attended the church of
       St. Mark; listened to his sermons; gave large sums of money to
       him for the poor; loitered in the garden to attract his
       attention--but with little success. Savonarola treated him
       with respect, gave his money away to the poor, but avoided him
       and denounced him. Another plan was tried: five distinguished men
       waited on Savonarola, and begged him to spare such elevated
       persons in his sermons, to treat more of generalities; and not
       to foretell the future. They received a prophetic answer: 'Go
       tell your master, Lorenzo, to repent of his sins, or God will
       punish him and his. Does he threaten me with banishment? Well,
       I am but a stranger, and he is the first citizen in Florence,
       but let him know that I shall remain and he must soon depart!'
       What happened shortly after caused the people to begin to
       regard Savonarola as a prophet, and won him that terrible fame
       which caused his downfall. ... Lorenzo died on the 8th April,
       1492, and from that time Savonarola becomes more prominent. He
       directed his exertions to the accomplishment of three
       objects--the reformation of his monastery, the reformation of
       the Florentine State, and the reformation of the Church. He
       changed the whole character of his monastery. ... Then he
       proceeded to State matters, and in this step we come to the
       problem of his life--was he a prophet or a fanatic? Let the
       facts speak for themselves. Lorenzo was succeeded by his son
       Pietro, who was vastly inferior to his father in learning and
       statesmanship. His only idea appears to have been a desire to
       unite Florence and Naples into one principality; this created
       for him many enemies, and men began to fancy that the great
       house of Medici would terminate with him. So, it appears,
       thought Savonarola, and announced the fact at first privately
       amongst his friends; in a short time, however, he began to
       prophecy their downfall publicly. During the years 1492 and
       1494, he was actively engaged in preaching. In Advent of the
       former year, he began his thirteen sermons upon Noah's Ark. In
       1493 he preached the Lent sermons at Bologna, and upon his return
       he began preaching in the cathedral. In these sermons he
       predicted the approaching fall of the State to the
       astonishment of all his hearers, who had not the slightest
       apprehension of danger: 'The Lord has declared that His sword
       shall come upon the land swiftly and soon.' This was the
       burden of a sermon preached on Advent Sunday, 1492. At the
       close of 1493, and as the new year approached, he spoke out
       more plainly and definitely. He declared that one should come
       over the Alps who was called, like Cyrus, of whom Jeremiah
       wrote; and he should, sword in hand, wreak vengeance upon the
       tyrants of Italy. ... His preaching had always exerted a
       marvellous influence upon people, as we shall hereafter note,
       but they could not understand the cause of these predictions.
       The city was at peace; gay and joyous as usual, and no fear
       was entertained; but towards the end of the year came the
       fulfilment. Charles VIII., King of France, called into Italy
       by Duke Ludovico of Milan, came over the Alps with an immense
       army, took Naples, and advanced on Florence. The expulsion of
       the Medici from Florence soon followed: Pietro, being
       captured, signed an agreement to deliver up all his
       strongholds to Charles VIII., and to pay him 200,000 ducats.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

       The utmost indignation seized the Florentines when they heard
       of this treaty. The Signori sent heralds to Charles, to
       negotiate for milder terms, and their chief was Savonarola,
       who addressed the King like a prophet, begged him to take pity
       on Italy, and save her. His words had the desired effect.
       Charles made more easy terms, and left it to the Florentine
       people to settle their own State. In the meantime Pietro
       returned, but he found Florence in the greatest
       excitement--the royal palace was closed; stones were thrown at
       him; he summoned his guards, but the people took to arms, and
       he was compelled to fly to his brothers Giovanni and Giuliano.
       The Signori declared them to be traitors, and set a price upon
       their heads. Their palace and its treasures fell into the hands
       of the people. The friends of the Medici, however, were not
       all extinct; and as a discussion arose which was likely to
       lead to a struggle, Savonarola summoned the people to meet
       under the dome of St. Mark. ... In fact, the formation of the
       new State fell upon Savonarola, for the people looked up to
       him as an inspired prophet. He proposed that 3,200 citizens
       should form themselves into a general council. Then they drew
       lots for a third part, who for six months were to act together
       as an executive body and represent the general council,
       another one-third for the next three months, and so on; so
       that every citizen had his turn in the council every eighteen
       months. They ultimately found it convenient to reduce the
       number to 80--in fact, Savonarola's Democracy was rapidly
       becoming oligarchic. Each of these 80 representatives was to
       be 40 years of age; they voted with black and white beans, six
       being a legal majority.
    {1145}
       But the Chief of the State was to be Christ; He was to be the
       new monarch. His next step was to induce them to proclaim a
       general amnesty, in which he succeeded only through vigorously
       preaching to them that forgiveness was sweeter than
       vengeance--that freedom and peace were more loving than strife
       and hatred. ... He was now at the height of his power; his
       voice ruled the State; he is the only instance in Europe of a
       monk openly leading a republic. The people regarded him as
       something more than human: they knew of his nights spent in
       prayer; of his long fasts; of his unbounded charity. ... Few
       preachers ever exerted such influence upon the minds of
       crowds, such a vitalizing influence; he changed the whole
       character of Florentine society. Libertines abandoned their
       vices; the theatres and taverns were empty; there was no card
       playing, nor dice throwing; the love of fasting grew so
       general, that meat could not be sold; the city of Florence was
       God's city, and its government a Theocracy. There was a custom in
       Florence, during Carnival time, for the children to go from
       house to house and bid people give up their cherished
       pleasures; and so great was the enthusiasm at this period that
       people gave up their cards, their dice and backgammon boards,
       the ladies their perfumed waters, veils, paint-pots, false
       hair, musical instruments, harps, lutes, licentious tales,
       especially those of Boccaccio, dream books, romances, and
       popular songs. All this booty was gathered together in a heap
       in the market place, the people assembled, the Signori took
       their places, and children clothed in white, with olive
       branches on their heads, received from them the burning
       torches, and set fire to the pile amid the blast of trumpets
       and chant of psalms, which were continued till the whole was
       consumed. ... His fame had now reached other countries;
       foreigners visited Florence solely for the purpose of seeing
       and hearing him. The Sultan of Turkey allowed his sermons to
       be translated and circulated in his dominions. But in the
       midst of his prosperity his enemies were not idle: as he
       progressed their jealousy increased: his preaching displeased
       them, terrified them, and amongst these the most bitter and
       virulent were the young sons of the upper classes: they called
       his followers 'howlers' (piagnoni), and so raged against him
       that they gained the name, now immortalised in history, of the
       Arrabiati (the furies): this party was increased by the old
       friends of the Medici, who called him a rebel and leader of
       the lower classes. Dolfo Spini, a young man of position and
       wealth, commanded this party, and used every effort to destroy
       the reputation of Savonarola, to incite the people against him,
       and to ruin him. They bore the name of 'Compagnacci'; they
       wrote satires about the Piagnoni; they circulated slanders
       about the monk who was making Florence the laughing stock of
       Europe: but Savonarola went on his way indifferent to the
       signs already manifesting themselves amongst his countrymen,
       ever most sensitive to ridicule. He also strove to reform the
       Church: he delineated the Apostolic Church as a model upon
       which he would build up that of Florence. ... By this time,
       the intelligence of his doings, and the gist of his preaching
       and writing, which had been carefully transmitted to Rome by
       his enemies, began to attract the attention of the Pope,
       Alexander VI., who tried what had frequently proved an
       infallible remedy, and offered Savonarola a Cardinal's hat,
       which he at once refused. He was then invited to Rome, but
       thought it prudent to excuse himself. When the controversy
       between him and the Pope appeared to approach a crisis,
       Savonarola took a step which somewhat hurried the catastrophe.
       He wrote to the Kings of France and Spain, and the Emperor of
       Germany, to call a General Council to take into consideration
       the Reform of the Church. One of these letters reached the
       Pope, through a spy of Duke Ludovico Moro, of Milan, whom
       Savonarola had denounced. The result was the issue of a Breve
       (October, 1496), which forbade him to preach. The Pope then
       ordered the Congregation of St. Mark to be broken up and
       amalgamated with another. For a time Savonarola, at the advice
       of his friends, remained quiet; but at this last step, to
       break up the institution he had established, he was aroused to
       action. He denounced Rome as the source of all the poison
       which was undermining the constitution of the Church; declared
       that its evil fame stunk in men's nostrils. The Pope then
       applied to the Signori to deliver up this enemy of the Church,
       but to no purpose. The Franciscans were ordered to preach
       against him, but they made no impression. Then came the last
       thunderbolt: a Bann was issued (12th May, 1497), which was
       announced by the Franciscans. During the time of his
       suspension and his excommunication, many things happened which
       tended to his downfall, although his friends gathered round him,
       the rapid change of ministry brought in turn friends of the
       Medici to the helm; they introduced the young, Compagnacci
       into the Council, and gradually his enemies were increasing in
       the Government to a strong party." The fickle Florentine mob
       now took sides with them against the monk whom it had recently
       adored, and on the 7th of April, 1498, in the midst of a
       raging tumult, Savonarola was taken into custody by the
       Signori of the city. With the assent of the Pope, he was
       subjected seven times to torture upon the rack, to force from
       him a recantation of all that he had taught and preached, and
       on the 23d of May he was hanged and burned, in company with
       two of his disciples.

          O. T. Hill,
          Introduction to Savonarola's "Triumph of the Cross."

          ALSO IN:
          P. Villari,
          History of Savonarola and his times.

          Mrs. Oliphant,
          The Makers of Florence.

          H. H. Milman,
          Savonarola, Erasmus, and other Essays.

          George Eliot,
          Romola.

          H. Grimm,
          Life of Michael Angelo,
          volume 1, chapters 3-4.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1494-1509.
       The French deliverance of Pisa and the long war of reconquest.

          See PISA: A. D. 1404-1509.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.
       Threatened by the Medici, on one side,
       and Cæsar Borgia on the other.
       A new division of parties.

       "After the death of Savonarola things changed with such a
       degree of rapidity that the Arrabbiati had not time to
       consider in what manner they could restrict the government;
       but they soon became convinced that the only salvation for the
       Republic was to adopt the course which had been recommended by
       the Friar. Piero and Giuliano dei Medici were in fact already
       in the neighbourhood of Florence, supported by a powerful
       Venetian army. It became, therefore, absolutely necessary for
       the Arrabbiati to unite with the Piagnoni, in order to defend
       themselves against so many dangers and so many enemies.
    {1146}
       By great good fortune, the Duke of Milan, from jealousy of the
       Venetians, came to their assistance to ward off the danger;
       but who could trust to his friendship--who could place any
       reliance on his fidelity? As to Alexander Borgia, he who had
       held out such great hopes, and had made so many promises, in
       order to get Savonarola put to death, no sooner was his object
       attained than he gave full sway to his unbridled passions. It
       seemed as if the death of the poor Friar had released both the
       Pope and his son, Duke Valentino, from all restraints upon
       their lusts and ambition. The Pope formed intimate alliances
       with Turks and Jews, a thing hitherto unheard of. He, in one
       year, set up twelve cardinals' hats for sale. The history of
       the incests and murders of the family of Borgia is too well
       known to render it necessary for us to enter into any detailed
       account of them here. The great object of the Pope was to form
       a State for his son in the Romagna; and so great was the
       ambition of Duke Valentino, that he contemplated extending his
       power over the whole of Italy, Tuscany being the first part he
       meant to seize upon. With that view he was always endeavouring
       to create new dangers to the Republic; at one time he caused
       Arezzo to rise against it; at another time he threatened to
       bring back Piero de' Medici; and he was continually ravaging
       their territory. The consequence was, that the Florentines
       were obliged to grant him an annual subsidy of 36,000 ducats,
       under the name of condotta (military pay); but even that did
       not restrain him from every now and then, under various
       pretexts, overrunning and laying waste their territory. Thus
       did Alexander Borgia fulfil those promises to the Republic by
       which they had been induced to murder Savonarola. The
       Arrabbiati were at length convinced that to defend themselves
       against the Medici and Borgia, their only course was to
       cultivate the alliance with France, and unite in good faith
       with the Piagnoni. Thus they completely adopted the line of
       policy which Savonarola had advised; and the consequence was,
       that their affairs got order and their exertions were attended
       with a success far beyond what could have been anticipated."

          P. Villari,
          History of Savonarola and of his Times,
          volume 2, conclusion.

       "A new division of parties may be said to have taken place
       under the three denominations of 'Palleschi' [a name derived
       from the watchword of the Mediceans, 'palle, palle,' which
       alluded to the well-known balls in the coat of arms of the
       Medici family], 'Ottimati,' and 'Popolani.' The first ... were
       for the Medici and themselves. ... The 'Ottomati' were in
       eager search for a sort of visionary government where a few of
       the noblest blood, the most illustrious connexions and the
       greatest riches, were to rule Florence without any regard to
       the Medici. ... The Popolani, who formed the great majority,
       loved civic liberty, therefore were constantly watching the
       Medici and other potent and ambitious men."

          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          book. 2, chapter 8 (volume 4).

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.
       Ten years under Piero Soderini.
       Restoration of the Medici and their second expulsion.
       Siege of the city by the imperial army.
       Final surrender to Medicean tyranny.
       Creation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.

       "In 1502, it was decreed that the Gonfalonier should hold
       office for life--should be in fact a Doge. To this important
       post of permanent president Piero Soderini was appointed; and
       in his hands were placed the chief affairs of the republic.
       ... During the ten years which elapsed between 1502 and 1512,
       Piero Soderini administered Florence with an outward show of
       great prosperity. He regained Pisa, and maintained an
       honourable foreign policy in the midst of the wars stirred up
       by the League of Cambray. Meanwhile the young princes of the
       house of Medici had grown to manhood in exile. The Cardinal
       Giovanni was 37 in 1512. His brother Giuliano was 33. Both of
       these men were better fitted than their brother Piero to fight
       the battles of the family. Giovanni, in particular, had
       inherited no small portion of the Medicean craft. During the
       troubled reign of Julius II. he kept very quiet, cementing his
       connection with powerful men in Rome, but making no effort to
       regain his hold on Florence. Now the moment for striking a
       decisive blow had come. After the battle of Ravenna in 1512,
       the French were driven out of Italy, and the Sforzas returned
       to Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513]; the Spanish troops,
       under the Viceroy Cardona, remained masters of the country.
       Following the camp of these Spaniards, Giovanni de' Medici
       entered Tuscany in August, and caused the restoration of the
       Medici to be announced in Florence. The people, assembled by
       Soderini, resolved to resist to the uttermost. ... Yet their
       courage failed on August 29th, when news reached them of the
       capture and the sack of Prato. Prato is a sunny little city a
       few miles distant from the walls of Florence, famous for the
       beauty of its women, the richness of its gardens, and the
       grace of its buildings. Into this gem of cities the savage
       soldiery of Spain marched in the bright autumnal weather, and
       turned the paradise into a hell. It is even now impossible to
       read of what they did in Prato without shuddering. Cruelty and
       lust, sordid greed for gold, and cold delight in bloodshed,
       could go no further. Giovanni de' Medici, by nature mild and
       voluptuous, averse to violence of all kinds, had to smile
       approval, while the Spanish Viceroy knocked thus with mailed
       hand for him at the door of Florence. The Florentines were
       paralysed with terror. They deposed Soderini and received the
       Medici. Giovanni and Giuliano entered their devastated palace
       in the Via Larga, abolished the Grand Council, and dealt with
       the republic as they listed. ... It is not likely that they
       would have succeeded in maintaining their authority--for they
       were poor and ill-supported by friends outside the
       city--except for one most lucky circumstance: that was the
       election of Giovanni de' Medici to the Papacy in 1513. The
       creation of Leo X. spread satisfaction throughout Italy. ...
       Florence shared in the general rejoicing. ... It seemed as
       though the Republic, swayed by him, might make herself the
       first city in Italy, and restore the glories of her Guelf
       ascendency upon the platform of Renaissance statecraft. There
       was now no overt opposition to the Medici in Florence. How to
       govern the city from Rome, and how to advance the fortunes of
       his brother Giuliano and his nephew Lorenzo (Piero's son, a
       young man of 21), occupied the Pope's most serious attention.
       For Lorenzo, Leo obtained the Duchy of Urbino and the hand of
       a French princess. Giuliano was named Gonfalonier of the
       Church. He also received the French title of Duke of Nemours
       and the hand of Filiberta, Princess of Savoy. ...
    {1147}
       Giulio, the Pope's bastard cousin, was made cardinal. ... To
       Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, the titular head of the family, was
       committed the government of Florence. ... Florence now for the
       first time saw a regular court established in her midst, with
       a prince, who, though he bore a foreign title, was in fact her
       master. The joyous days of Lorenzo the Magnificent returned.
       ... But this prosperity was no less brief than it was
       brilliant. A few years sufficed to sweep off all the chiefs of
       the great house. Giuliano died in 1516, leaving only a bastard
       son, Ippolito. Lorenzo died in 1519, leaving a bastard son,
       Alessandro, and a daughter, six days old, who lived to be the
       Queen of France. Leo died in 1521. There remained now no
       legitimate male descendants from the stock of Cosimo. The
       honours and pretensions of the Medici devolved upon three
       bastards,--on the Cardinal Giulio, and the two boys,
       Alessandro and Ippolito. Of these, Alessandro was a mulatto,
       his mother having been a Moorish slave in the Palace of
       Urbino; and whether his father was Giulio, or Giuliano, or a
       base groom, was not known for certain. To such extremities
       were the Medici reduced. ... Giulio de' Medici was left in
       1521 to administer the State of Florence single-handed. He was
       archbishop, and he resided in the city, holding it with the
       grasp of an absolute ruler. ... In 1523, the Pope, Adrian VI.,
       expired after a short papacy, from which he gained no honour
       and Italy no profit. Giulio hurried to Rome, and, by the
       clever use of his large influence, caused himself to be
       elected with the title of Clement VII." Then followed the
       strife of France and Spain--of Francis I. and Charles V.--for
       the possession of Italy, and the barbarous sack of Rome in
       1527.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, 1527, and 1527-1529.

       "When the Florentines knew what was happening in Rome, they
       rose and forced the Cardinal Passerini [whom the Pope had
       appointed to act as his vicegerent in the government of
       Florence] to depart with the Medicean bastards from the city.
       ... The whole male population was enrolled in a militia. The
       Grand Council was reformed, and the republic was restored upon
       the basis of 1495. Niccolo Capponi was elected Gonfalonier.
       The name of Christ was again registered as chief of the
       commonwealth--to such an extent did the memory of Savonarola
       still sway the popular imagination. The new State hastened to
       form an alliance with France, and Malatesta Baglioni was
       chosen as military Commander-in-Chief. Meanwhile the city
       armed itself for siege--Michel Angelo Buonarroti and
       Francesco da San Gallo undertaking the construction of new
       forts and ramparts. These measures were adopted with sudden
       decision, because it was soon known that Clement had made
       peace with the Emperor, and that the army which had sacked
       Rome was going to be marched on Florence. ... On September 4
       [1529], the Prince of Orange appeared before the walls, and
       opened the memorable siege. It lasted eight months, at the end
       of which time, betrayed by their generals, divided among
       themselves, and worn out with delays, the Florentines
       capitulated. ... The long yoke of the Medici had undermined
       the character of the Florentines. This, their last glorious
       struggle for liberty, was but a flash in the pan--a final
       flare up of the dying lamp. ... What remains of Florentine
       history may be briefly told. Clement, now the undisputed
       arbiter of power and honour in the city, chose Alessandro de'
       Medici to be prince. Alessandro was created Duke of Cività di
       Penna, and married to a natural daughter of Charles V.
       Ippolito was made a cardinal." Ippolito was subsequently
       poisoned by Alessandro, and Alessandro was murdered by another
       kinsman, who suffered assassination in his turn. "When
       Alessandro was killed in 1539, Clement had himself been dead
       five years. Thus the whole posterity of Cosimo de' Medici,
       with the exception of Catherine, Queen of France [daughter of
       Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, the son of Piero de' Medici], was
       utterly extinguished. But the Medici had struck root so firmly
       in the State, and had so remodelled it upon the type of
       tyranny, that the Florentines were no longer able to do
       without them. The chiefs of the Ottimati selected Cosimo," a
       descendant from Lorenzo, brother of the Cosimo who founded the
       power of the House. "He it was who obtained [1569] the title
       of Grand Duke of Tuscany from the Pope--a title confirmed by
       the Emperor, fortified by Austrian alliances, and transmitted
       through his heirs to the present century."

          J. A. Symonds,
          Sketches and studies in Italy,
          chapter 5 (Florence and the Medici).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Grimm,
          Life of Michael Angelo,
          chapters 8-15 (volumes 1-2).

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          book 9, chapter 10, book 10 (volume 4).

          H. E. Napier,
          Florentine History,
          volumes 4-5.

          W. Roscoe,
          Life and Pontificate of Leo X,
          chapters 9-23 (volumes 1-2).

          P. Villari,
          Machiavelli and his Times,
          volumes 3-4.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1803.
       Becomes the capital of the kingdom of Etruria.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

    FLORENCE: A. D. 1865.
       Made temporarily the capital of the kingdom of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

    ----------FLORENCE: End----------

    FLORIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 276.

    FLORIDA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES;
          MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY; SEMINOLES; TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1512.
       Discovery and Naming by Ponce de Leon.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
       The expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto.
       Wide Spanish application of the name Florida.

       "The voyages of Garay [1519-1523] and Vasquez de Ayllon
       [1520-1526] threw new light on the discoveries of Ponce, and
       the general outline of the coasts of Florida became known to
       the Spaniards. Meanwhile, Cortes had conquered Mexico, and the
       fame of that iniquitous but magnificent exploit rang through
       all Spain. Many an impatient cavalier burned to achieve a
       kindred fortune. To the excited fancy of the Spaniards the
       unknown land of Florida seemed the seat of surpassing wealth,
       and Pamphilo de Narvaez essayed to possess himself of its
       fancied treasures. Landing on its shores [1528], and
       proclaiming destruction to the Indians unless they
       acknowledged the sovereignty of the Pope and the Emperor, he
       advanced into the forests with 300 men. Nothing could exceed
       their sufferings. Nowhere could they find the gold they came
       to seek. The village of Appalache, where they hoped to gain a
       rich booty, offered nothing but a few mean wigwams. The horses
       gave out and the famished soldiers fed upon their flesh.
    {1148}
       The men sickened, and the Indians unceasingly harassed their
       march. At length, after 280 leagues of wandering, they found
       themselves on the northern shore of the Gulf of Mexico, and
       desperately put to sea in such crazy boats as their skill and
       means could construct. Cold, disease, famine, thirst, and the
       fury of the waves, melted them away. Narvaez himself perished,
       and of his wretched followers no more than four escaped,
       reaching by land, after years of vicissitude, the Christian
       settlements of New Spain. ... Cabeça de Vaca was one of the
       four who escaped, and, after living for years among the tribes
       of Mississippi, crossed the River Mississippi near Memphis,
       journeyed westward by the waters of the Arkansas and Red River
       to New Mexico and Chihuahua, thence to Cinaloa on the Gulf of
       California, and thence to Mexico. The narrative is one of the
       most remarkable of the early relations. ... The interior of
       the vast country then comprehended under the name of Florida
       still remained unexplored. ... Hernando de Soto ... companion
       of Pizarro in the conquest of Peru ... asked and obtained
       permission [1537] to conquer Florida. While this design was in
       agitation, Cabeça de Vaca, one of those who had survived the
       expedition of Narvaez, appeared in Spain, and for purposes of
       his own spread abroad the mischievous falsehood that Florida
       was the richest country yet discovered. De Soto's plans were
       embraced with enthusiasm. Nobles and gentlemen contended for
       the privilege of joining his standard; and, setting sail with
       an ample armament, he landed [May, 1539] at the Bay of
       Espiritu Santo, now Tampa Bay, in Florida, with 620 chosen
       men, a band as gallant and well appointed, as eager in purpose
       and audacious in hope, as ever trod the shores of the New
       World. ... The adventurers began their march. Their story has
       been often told. For month after month and year after year,
       the procession of priests and cavaliers, cross-bowmen,
       arquebusiers, and Indian captives laden with the baggage,
       still wandered on through wild and boundless wastes, lured
       hither and thither by the ignis-fatuus of their hopes. They
       traversed great portions of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi,
       everywhere inflicting and enduring misery, but never
       approaching their phantom El Dorado. At length, in the third
       year of their journeying, they reached the banks of the
       Mississippi, 132 years before its second [or third?] discovery
       by Marquette. ... The Spaniards crossed over at a point above
       the mouth of the Arkansas. They advanced westward, but found
       no treasures,--nothing indeed but hardships, and an Indian
       enemy, furious, writes one of their officers, 'as mad dogs.'
       They heard of a country towards the north where maize could
       not be cultivated because the vast herds of wild cattle
       devoured it. They penetrated so far that they entered the
       range of the roving prairie-tribes. ... Finding neither gold
       nor the South Sea, for both of which they had hoped, they
       returned to the banks of the Mississippi. De Soto ... fell
       into deep dejection, followed by an attack of fever, and soon
       after died miserably [May 21, 1542]. To preserve his body from
       the Indians his followers sunk it at midnight in the river,
       and the sullen waters of the Mississippi buried his ambition
       and his hopes. The adventurers were now, with few exceptions,
       disgusted with the enterprise, and longed only to escape from
       the scene of their miseries. After a vain attempt to reach
       Mexico by land, they again turned back to the Mississippi, and
       labored, with all the resources which their desperate
       necessity could suggest, to construct vessels in which they
       might make their way to some Christian settlement. ... Seven
       brigantines were finished and launched; and, trusting their
       lives on board these frail vessels, they descended the
       Mississippi, running the gauntlet between hostile tribes who
       fiercely attacked them. Reaching the Gulf, though not without
       the loss of eleven of their number, they made sail for the
       Spanish settlement on the River Panuco, where they arrived
       safely, and where the inhabitants met them with a cordial
       welcome. Three hundred and eleven men thus escaped with life,
       leaving behind them the bones of their comrades, strewn
       broadcast through the wilderness. De Soto's fate proved an
       insufficient warning, for those were still found who begged a
       fresh commission for the conquest of Florida; but the Emperor
       would not hear them. A more pacific enterprise was undertaken
       by Cancello [or Cancer], a Dominican monk, who with several
       brother-ecclesiastics undertook to convert the natives to the
       true faith, but was murdered in the attempt. ... Not a
       Spaniard had yet gained foothold in Florida. That name, as the
       Spaniards of that day understood it, comprehended the whole
       country extending from the Atlantic on the east to the
       longitude of New Mexico on the west, and from the Gulf of
       Mexico and the River of Palms indefinitely northward towards
       the polar Sea. This vast territory was claimed by Spain in
       right of the discoveries of Columbus, the grant of the Pope,
       and the various expeditions mentioned above. England claimed
       it in light of the discoveries of Cabot, while France could
       advance no better title than might be derived from the voyage
       of Verrazano and vague traditions of earlier visits of Breton
       adventurers."

          F. Parkman,
          Pioneers of France in the New World,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Irving,
          Conquest of Florida by De Soto.

          Discovery and Conquest of Terra Florida;
          written by a Gentleman of Elvas (Hakluyt Society).

          J. W. Monette,
          Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,
          chapters 1-4.

          J. G. Shea,
          Ancient Florida (Narrative and Critical
          History of America,
          volume 2, chapter 4).

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.
       First colonizing attempt of the French Huguenots.

       About the middle of the 16th century, certain of the
       Protestants of France began to turn their thoughts to the New
       World as a possible place of refuge from the persecutions they
       were suffering at home. "Some of the French sea-ports became
       strong-holds of the Huguenots. Their most prominent supporter,
       Coligny, was high admiral of France. These Huguenots looked
       toward the new countries as the proper field in which to
       secure a retreat from persecution, and to found a new
       religious commonwealth. Probably many of the French
       'corsarios' following the track of the Portuguese and
       Spaniards to the West Indies and the coasts of Brazil, were
       Huguenots. ... The first scheme for a Protestant colony in the
       new world was suggested by Admiral Coligny in 1554, and intended
       for the coast of Brazil, to which an expedition, under Durand
       de Villegagnon, was sent with ships and colonists. This
       expedition arrived at the Bay of Rio de Janeiro in 1555,
       and founded there the first European settlement.
    {1149}
       It was followed the next year by another expedition. But the
       whole enterprise came to an end by divisions among the
       colonists, occasioned by the treacherous, despotic, and cruel
       proceedings of its commander, a reputed Catholic. The colony
       was finally subverted by the Portuguese, who, in 1560, sent
       out an armament against it, and took possession of the Bay of
       Rio de Janeiro. ... After the unfortunate end of the French
       enterprise to South America, Admiral Coligny, who may be
       styled the Raleigh of France, turned his attention to the
       eastern shores of North America; the whole of which had become
       known in France from the voyage of Verrazano, and the French
       expeditions to Canada and the Banks of Newfoundland." In
       February, 1562, an expedition, fitted out by Coligny, sailed
       from Havre de Grace, under Jean Ribault, with Réné de
       Laudonnière forming one of the company. Ribault arrived on the
       Florida coast in the neighborhood of the present harbor of St.
       Augustine, and thence sailed north. "At last, in about 32° 30'
       North he found an excellent broad and deep harbor, which he
       named Port Royal, which probably is the present Broad River,
       or Port Royal entrance. ... He found this port and the
       surrounding country so advantageous and of such 'singular
       beauty,' that he resolved to leave here a part of his men in a
       small fort. ... A pillar with the arms of France was therefore
       erected, and a fort constructed, furnished with cannon,
       ammunition, and provisions, and named 'Charlesfort.' Thirty
       volunteers were placed in it, and it became the second
       European settlement ever attempted upon the east coast of the
       United States. Its position was probably not far from the site
       of the present town of Beaufort, on Port Royal River. Having
       accomplished this, and made a certain captain, Albert de la
       Pieria, 'a soldier of great experience,' commander of
       Charlesfort, he took leave of his countrymen, and left Port
       Royal on the 11th day of June," arriving in France on the 20th
       of July. "On his arrival in France, Ribault found the country
       in a state of great commotion. The civil war between the
       Huguenots and the Catholics was raging, and neither the king
       nor the admiral had time to listen to Ribault's solicitations,
       to send relief to the settlers left in 'French Florida.' Those
       colonists remained, therefore, during the remainder of 1562,
       and the following winter, without assistance from France; and
       after many trials and sufferings, they were at last forced, in
       1563, to abandon their settlement and the new country." Having
       constructed a ship, with great difficulty, they put to sea;
       but suffered horribly on the tedious voyage, from want of food
       and water, until they were rescued by an English vessel and
       taken to England.

          J. G. Kohl,
          History of the Discovery of Maine
          (Maine Historical Society Collection,
          2d series, volume 1), chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Parkman,
          Pioneers of France in the New World,
          chapter 3.

          Father Charlevoix,
          History of New France;
          translated by J. G. Shea,
          book 3 (volume 1).

          T. E. V. Smith,
          Villegaignon
          (American Society of Church History, volume 3).

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1564-1565.
       The second Huguenot colony, and the cry in Spain against it.

       "After the treacherous peace between Charles IX. and the
       Huguenots, Coligny renewed his solicitations for the
       colonization of Florida. The king gave consent; in 1564 three
       ships were conceded for the service; and Laudonnière, who, in
       the former voyage, had been upon the American coast, a man of
       great intelligence, though a seaman rather than a soldier, was
       appointed to lead forth the colony. ... A voyage of 60 days
       brought the fleet, by the way of the Canaries and the
       Antilles, to the shores of Florida in June. The harbor of Port
       Royal, rendered gloomy by recollections of misery, was
       avoided; and, after searching the coast, and discovering
       places which were so full of amenity that melancholy itself
       could not but change its humor as it gazed, the followers of
       Calvin planted themselves on the banks of the river May [now
       called the St. John's], near St. John's bluff. They sung a
       psalm of thanksgiving, and gathered courage from acts of
       devotion. The fort now erected was called Carolina. ... The
       French were hospitably welcomed by the natives; a monument,
       bearing the arms of France, was crowned with laurels, and its
       base encircled with baskets of corn. What need is there of
       minutely relating the simple manners of the red men, the
       dissensions of rival tribes, the largesses offered to the
       strangers to secure their protection or their alliance, the
       improvident prodigality with which careless soldiers wasted
       the supplies of food; the certain approach of scarcity; the
       gifts and the tribute levied from the Indians by entreaty,
       menace or force? By degrees the confidence of the red men was
       exhausted; they had welcomed powerful guests, who promised to
       become their benefactors, and who now robbed their humble
       granaries. But the worst evil in the new settlement was the
       character of the emigrants. Though patriotism and religious
       enthusiasm had prompted the expedition, the inferior class of
       the colonists was a motley group of dissolute men. Mutinies
       were frequent. The men were mad with the passion for sudden
       wealth; and in December a party, under the pretence of
       desiring to escape from famine, compelled Laudonnière to sign
       an order permitting their embarkation for New Spain. No sooner
       were they possessed of this apparent sanction of the chief
       than they began a career of piracy against the Spaniards. The
       act of crime and temerity was soon avenged. The pirate vessel
       was taken, and most of the men disposed of as prisoners or
       slaves. The few that escaped in a boat sought shelter at Fort
       Carolina, where Laudonnière sentenced the ringleaders to
       death. During these events the scarcity became extreme; and
       the friendship of the natives was forfeited by unprofitable
       severity. March of 1565 was gone, and there were no supplies
       from France; April passed away, and the expected recruits had
       not arrived; May brought nothing to sustain the hopes of the
       exiles, and they resolved to attempt a return to Europe. In
       August, Sir John Hawkins, the slave merchant, arrived from the
       West Indies. He came fresh from the sale of a cargo of
       Africans, whom he had kidnapped with signal ruthlessness; and
       he now displayed the most generous sympathy, not only
       furnishing a liberal supply of provisions, but relinquishing a
       vessel from his own fleet. The colony was on the point of
       embarking when sails were descried. Ribault had arrived to
       assume the command, bringing with him supplies of every kind,
       emigrants with their families, garden-seeds, implements of
       husbandry, and the various kinds of domestic animals. The
       French, now wild with joy, seemed about to acquire a home, and
       Calvinism to become fixed in the inviting regions of Florida.
    {1150}
       But Spain had never abandoned her claim to that territory,
       where, if she had not planted colonies, she had buried many
       hundreds of her bravest sons. ... There had appeared at the
       Spanish court a commander well fitted for reckless acts. Pedro
       Melendez [or Menendez] de Aviles ... had acquired wealth in
       Spanish America, which was no school of benevolence, and his
       conduct there had provoked an inquiry, which, after a long
       arrest, ended in his conviction. ... Philip II. suggested the
       conquest and colonization of Florida; and in May, 1565, a
       compact was framed and confirmed by which Melendez, who
       desired an opportunity to retrieve his honor, was constituted
       the hereditary governor of a territory of almost unlimited
       extent. On his part he stipulated, at his own cost, in the
       following May, to invade Florida with 500 men; to complete its
       conquest within three years; to explore its currents and
       channels, the dangers of its coasts, and the depth of its
       havens; to establish a colony of at least 500 persons, of whom
       100 should be married men; with 12 ecclesiastics, besides four
       Jesuits. ... Meantime, news arrived, as the French writers
       assert through the treachery of the court of France, that the
       Huguenots had made a plantation in Florida, and that Ribault
       was preparing to set sail with re-enforcements. The cry was
       raised that the heretics must be extirpated; and Melendez
       readily obtained the forces which he required."

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (author's last revision), part 1, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          G. R. Fairbanks,
          History of Florida,
          chapters 7-8.

          W. G. Simms,
          History of South Carolina,
          book 1.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.
       The Spanish capture of Fort Caroline and
       massacre of the Huguenots.
       Founding of St. Augustine.

       "The expedition under Menendez consisted of an army of 2,600
       soldiers and officers. He sailed straight for Florida,
       intending to attack Fort Caroline with no delay. In fact he
       sighted the mouth of the port [Sept. 4, 1565] two months after
       starting; but, considering the position occupied by the French
       ships, he judged it prudent to defer the attack, and make it,
       if possible, from the land. A council of war was held in Fort
       Caroline, presided over by Ribaut. Laudonnière proposed that,
       while Ribaut held the fort with the ships, he, with his old
       soldiers, who knew the country well, aided by the Floridans as
       auxiliaries, should engage the Spaniards in the woods, and
       harass them by perpetual combats in labyrinths to which they
       were wholly unaccustomed. The advice was good, but it was not
       followed. Ribaut proposed to follow the Spanish fleet with his
       own--lighter and more easily handled--fall on the enemy when
       the soldiers were all disembarked, and, after taking and
       burning the ships, to attack the army. In the face of
       remonstrances from all the officers, he persisted in this
       project. Disaster followed the attempt. A violent gale arose.
       The French ships were wrecked upon the Floridan coast; the men
       lost their arms, their powder, and their clothes; they escaped
       with their bare lives. There was no longer the question of
       conquering the Spaniards, but of saving themselves. The
       garrison of Caroline consisted of 150 soldiers, of whom 40
       were sick. The rest of the colony was composed of sick and
       wounded Protestant ministers, workmen, royal commissioners,'
       and so forth. Laudonnière was in command. They awaited the
       attack for several days, yet the Spaniards came not. They were
       wading miserably through the marshes in the forests, under
       tropical rains, discouraged, and out of heart." But when, at
       length, the exhausted and despairing Spaniards, toiling
       through the marshes, from St. Augustine, where they had landed
       and established their settlement, reached the French fort
       (Sept. 20), "there was actually no watch on the ramparts.
       Three companies of Spaniards simultaneously rushed from the
       forest, and attacked the fortress on the south, the west and
       the south-west. There was but little resistance from the
       surprised garrison. There was hardly time to grasp a sword.
       About 20 escaped by flight, including the Captain,
       Laudonnière; the rest were every one massacred. None were
       spared except women and children under fifteen; and, in the
       first rage of the onslaught, even these were murdered with the
       rest. There still lay in the port three ships, commanded by
       Jacques Ribaut, brother [son] of the unfortunate Governor. One
       of these was quickly sent to the bottom by the cannon of the
       fort; the other two cut their cables, and slipped out of reach
       into the roadstead, where they lay, waiting for a favourable
       wind, for three days. They picked up the fugitives who had
       been wandering half-starved in the woods, and then set sail
       from this unlucky land. ... There remained, however, the
       little army, under Ribaut, which had lost most of its arms in
       the wreck, and was now wandering along the Floridan shore."
       When Ribaut and his men reached Fort Caroline and saw the
       Spanish flag flying, they turned and retreated southward. Not
       many days later, they were intercepted by Menendez, near St.
       Augustine, to which post he had returned. The first party of
       the French who came up, 200 in number, and who were in a
       starving state, surrendered to the Spaniard, and laid down
       their arms. "They were brought across the river in small
       companies, and their hands tied behind their backs. On
       landing, they were asked if they were Catholics. Eight out of
       the 200 professed allegiance to that religion; the rest were
       all Protestants.' Menendez traced out a line on the ground
       with his cane. The prisoners were marched up one by one to the
       line; on reaching it, they were stabbed. Next day, Ribaut
       arrived with the rest of the army. The same pourparlers began.
       But this time a blacker treachery was adopted." An officer,
       sent by Menendez, pledged his honor to the French that the
       lives of all should be spared if they laid down their arms.
       "It is not clear how many of the French accepted the
       conditions. A certain number refused them, and escaped into
       the woods. What is certain is, that Ribaut, with nearly all
       his men, were tied back to back, four together. Those who said
       they were Catholics, were set on one side; the rest were all
       massacred as they stood. ... Outside the circle of the
       slaughtered and the slaughterers stood the priest, Mendoza,
       encouraging, approving, exhorting the butchers."

          W. Besant,
          Gaspard de Coligny,
          chapter 7.

       The long dispatch in which Menendez reported his fiendish work
       to the Spanish king has been brought to light in the archives
       at Seville, and there is this endorsement on it, in the
       hand-writing of Philip II.: "Say to him that, as to those he
       has killed, he has done well; and as to those he has saved,
       they shall be sent to the galleys."

          F. Parkman,
          Pioneers of France in the New World,
          chapters 7-8.

    {1151}

       ALSO IN:
       C. W. Baird,
       History of the Huguenot Emigration to America,
       volume 1, introduction.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1567-1568.
       The vengeance of Dominic de Gourgues.

       "As might have been expected, all attempts to rouse the French
       court into demanding redress were vain. Spain, above all other
       nations, knew the arts by which a corrupt court might be
       swayed, and the same intrigues which, fifty years later, sent
       Raleigh to the block and well-nigh ended the young colony of
       Virginia, now kept France quiet. But though the court refused
       to move, an avenger was not wanting. Dominic de Gourgues had
       already known as a prisoner of war the horrors of the Spanish
       galleys. Whether he was a Huguenot is uncertain. Happily in
       France, as the history of that and all later ages proved, the
       religion of the Catholic did not necessarily deaden the
       feelings of the patriot. Seldom has there been a deed of more
       reckless daring than that which Dominic de Gourgues now
       undertook. With the proceeds of his patrimony he bought three
       small ships, manned by eighty sailors and a hundred
       men-at-arms. He then obtained a commission as a slaver on the
       coast of Guinea, and in the summer of 1567 set sail. With
       these paltry resources he aimed at overthrowing a settlement
       which had already destroyed a force of twenty times his
       number, and which might have been strengthened in the
       interval. ... To the mass of his followers he did not reveal
       the true secret of his voyage till he had reached the West
       Indies. Then he disclosed his real purpose. His men were of
       the same spirit as their leader. Desperate though the
       enterprise seemed, De Gourgues' only difficulty was to
       restrain his followers from undue haste. Happily for their
       attempt, they had allies on whom they had not reckoned. The
       fickle savages had at first welcomed the Spaniards, but the
       tyranny of the new comers soon wrought a change, and the
       Spaniards in Florida, like the Spaniards in every part of the
       New World, were looked on as hateful tyrants. So when De
       Gourgues landed he at once found a ready body of allies. ...
       Three days were spent in making ready, and then De Gourgues,
       with a hundred and sixty of his own men and his Indian allies,
       marched against the enemy. In spite of the hostility of the
       Indians, the Spaniards seem to have taken no precaution
       against a sudden attack. Menendez himself had left the colony.
       The Spanish force was divided between three forts, and no proper
       precautions were taken for keeping up the communications
       between them. Each was successively seized, the garrison slain
       or made prisoners, and, as each fort fell, those in the next
       could only make vague guesses as to the extent of the danger.
       Even when divided into three the Spanish force outnumbered
       that of De Gourgues, and savages with bows and arrows would
       have counted for little against men with fire arms and behind
       walls. But after the downfall of the first fort a panic seemed
       to seize the Spaniards, and the French achieved an almost
       bloodless victory. After the death of Ribault and his
       followers nothing could be looked for but merciless
       retaliation, and De Gourgues copied the severity, though not
       the perfidy of his enemies. The very details of Menendez' act
       were imitated, and the trees on which the prisoners were hung
       bore the inscription: 'Not as Spaniards, but as traitors,
       robbers, and murderers.' Five weeks later De Gourgues anchored
       under the walls of Rochelle. ... His attack did not wholly
       extirpate the Spanish power in Florida. Menendez received the
       blessing of the Pope as a chosen instrument for the conversion
       of the Indians, returned to America and restored his
       settlement. As before, he soon made the Indians his deadly
       enemies. The Spanish settlement held on, but it was not till
       two centuries later that its existence made itself remembered
       by one brief but glorious episode in the history of the
       English colonies."

          J. A. Doyle,
          The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          W. W. Dewhurst,
          History of St. Augustine, Florida,
          chapter 9.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1628.
       Claimed by France, and placed, with New France, under the
       control of the Company of the Hundred Associates.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1629.
       Claimed in part by England and embraced in the Carolina grant
       to Sir Robert Heath.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1680.
       Attack on the English of Carolina.

          See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1702.
       Adjustment of western boundary with the French of Louisiana.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1740.
       Unsuccessful attack on St. Augustine by the English of Georgia
       and Carolina.

          See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (February).
       Ceded to Great Britain by Spain in the Treaty of Paris.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (July).
       Possession taken by the English.

       "When, in July [1763], possession was taken of Florida, its
       inhabitants, of every age and sex, men, women, children, and
       servants, numbered but 3,000; and, of these, the men were
       nearly all in the pay of the Catholic king. The possession of
       it had cost him nearly $230,000 annually; and now it was
       accepted by England as a compensation for Havana. Most of the
       people, receiving from the Spanish treasury indemnity for
       their losses, had migrated to Cuba, taking with them the bones
       of their saints and the ashes of their distinguished dead. The
       western province of Florida extended to the Mississippi, on
       the line of latitude of 31°. On the 20th of October, the
       French surrendered the post of Mobile, with its brick fort,
       which was fast crumbling to ruins. A month later, the slight
       stockade at Tombigbee, in the west of the Chocta country, was
       delivered up. In a congress of the Catawbas, Cherokees,
       Creeks, Chicasas, and Choctas, held on the 10th of November,
       at Augusta, the governors of Virginia and the colonies south
       of it were present, and the peace with the Indians of the
       South and South-west was ratified."

          G. Bancroft,
          History of the United States
          (Author's last revision.),
          volume 3, page 64.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (October).
       English provinces, East and West, constituted by the King's
       proclamation.

          See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
          AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

    {1152}

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.
       Reconquest of West Florida by the Spanish commander at New
       Orleans.

       "In the summer of 1779 Spain had declared war against Great
       Britain. Galvez [the Spanish commander at New Orleans]
       discovered that the British were planning the surprise of New
       Orleans, and, under cover of preparations for defense, made
       haste to take the offensive. Four days before the time he had
       appointed to move, a hurricane destroyed a large number of
       houses in the town, and spread ruin to crops and, dwellings up
       and down the 'coast,' and sunk his gun flotilla. ... Repairing
       his disasters as best he could, and hastening his ostensibly
       defensive preparations, he marched, on the 22d of August,
       1779, against the British forts on the Mississippi. His ...
       little army of 1,434 men was without tents, other military
       furniture, or a single engineer. The gun fleet followed in the
       river abreast of their line of march along its shores,
       carrying one 24-pounder, five 18-pounders, and four
       4-pounders. With this force, in the space of about three
       weeks, Fort Bute on bayou Manchac, Baton Rouge and Fort
       Panmure. 8 vessels, 556 regulars, and a number of sailors,
       militia-men, and free blacks, fell into the hands of the
       Spaniards. The next year, 1780, re-enforced from Havana,
       Galvez again left New Orleans by way of the Balize with 2,000
       men, regulars, militia, and free blacks, and on the 15th of
       March took Fort Charlotte on Mobile river. Galvez next
       conceived the much larger project of taking Pensacola. Failing
       to secure re-enforcements from Havana by writing for them, he
       sailed to that place in October, to make his application in
       person, intending to move with them directly on the enemy.
       After many delays and disappointments he succeeded, and early
       in March, 1781, appeared before Pensacola with a ship of the
       line, two frigates, and transports containing 1,400 soldiers
       well furnished with artillery and ammunition. Here he was
       joined by such troops as could be spared from Mobile, and by
       Don Estevan Mirò from New Orleans, at the head of the
       Louisiana forces, and on the afternoon of the 16th of March,
       though practically unsupported by the naval fleet, until
       dishonor was staring its jealous commanders in the face, moved
       under hot fire, through a passage of great peril, and took up
       a besieging position. ... It is only necessary to state that,
       on the 9th of May, 1781, Pensacola, with a garrison of 800
       men, and the whole of West Florida, were surrendered to
       Galvez. Louisiana had heretofore been included under one
       domination with Cuba, but now one of the several rewards
       bestowed upon her governor was the captain-generalship of
       Louisiana and West Florida."

          G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
          History of New Orleans
          (United States Tenth Census, volume 19).

          ALSO IN:
          C. Gayarré,
          History of Louisiana: Spanish Domination,
          chapter 3.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.
       The question of boundaries between Spain and the United
       States, and the question of the navigation of the Mississippi.

       "By the treaty of 1783 between Great Britain on the one part
       and the United States and her allies, France and Spain, on the
       other, Great Britain acknowledged the independence of the
       colonies, and recognized as a part of their southern boundary
       a line drawn due east from a point in the Mississippi River,
       in latitude 31° north, to the middle of the Appalachicola; and
       at the same time she ceded to Spain by a separate agreement
       the two Floridas, but without defining their northern
       boundaries. This omission gave rise to a dispute between Spain
       and the United States as to their respective limits. On the
       part of Spain it was contended that by the act of Great
       Britain, of 1764, the northern boundary of West Florida had
       been fixed at the line running due east from the mouth of the
       Yazoo to the Chattahoochee, and that all south of that line
       had been ceded to her; whilst on the other hand, the United
       States as strenuously maintained that the act fixing and
       enlarging the limits of West Florida was superseded by the
       recent treaty, which extended their southern boundary to the
       31st degree of north latitude, a hundred and ten miles further
       south than the line claimed by Spain. Spain, however, had
       possession of the disputed territory by right of conquest, and
       evidently had no intention of giving it up. She strengthened
       her garrisons at Baton Rouge and Natchez, and built a fort at
       Vicksburg, and subsequently one at New Madrid, on the Missouri
       side of the Mississippi, just below the mouth of the Ohio; and
       of the latter she made a port of entry where vessels from the
       Ohio were obliged to land and declare their cargoes. She even
       denied the right of the United States to the region between
       the Mississippi and the Alleghany Mountains, which had been
       ceded to them by Great Britain, on the ground that the
       conquests made by Governor Galvez, of West Florida, and by Don
       Eugenio Pierre, of Fort St. Joseph, 'near the sources of the
       Illinois,' had vested the title to all this country in her;
       and she insisted that what she did not own was possessed by
       the Indians, and could not therefore belong to the United
       States. Even as late as 1795, she claimed to have bought from
       the Chickasaws the bluffs which bear their name, and which are
       situated on the east bank of the Mississippi some distance
       north of the most northerly boundary ever assigned by Great
       Britain to West Florida. Here, then, was cause for 'a very
       pretty quarrel,' and to add to the ill feeling which grew out
       of it, Spain denied the right of the people of the United
       States to the 'free navigation of the Mississippi,'--a right
       which had been conceded to them by Great Britain with all the
       formalities with which she had received it from France. ...
       What was needed to make the right of any value to the people
       of the Ohio valley was the additional right to take their
       produce into a Spanish port, New Orleans, and either sell it
       then and there, or else store it, subject to certain
       conditions, until such time as it suited them to transfer it
       to sea-going vessels. This right Spain would not concede; and
       as the people of the Ohio valley were determined to have it,
       cost what it might, it brought on a series of intrigues
       between the Spanish governors of Louisiana and certain
       influential citizens west of the Alleghanies which threatened
       the stability of the American Union almost before it was
       formed."

          L. Carr,
          Missouri,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Schuyler,
          American Diplomacy,
          chapter 6.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
       Continued occupation of West Florida by the Spaniards.
       Revolt of the inhabitants.
       Possession taken by the Americans from the Mississippi to the
       Perdido.

       "The success of the French in Spain, and the probability of
       that kingdom being obliged to succumb, had given occasion to
       revolutionary movements in several of the Spanish American
       provinces. This example ... had been followed also in that
       portion of the Spanish province of West Florida bordering on
       the Mississippi. The inhabitants, most of whom were of British
       or American birth, had seized the fort at Baton Rouge, had met
       in convention, and had proclaimed themselves independent,
       adopting a single star for their flag, the same symbol
       afterward assumed by the republic of Texas.
    {1153}
       Some struggles took place between the adherents of the Spanish
       connection and these revolutionists, who were also threatened
       with attack from Mobile, still held by a Spanish garrison. In
       this emergency they applied, through Holmes, governor of the
       Mississippi Territory, for aid and recognition by the United
       States. ... The president, however, preferred to issue a
       proclamation, taking possession of the east bank of the
       Mississippi, occupation of which, under the Louisiana treaty,
       had been so long delayed, not, it was said, from any defect of
       title, but out of conciliatory views toward Spain. ...
       Claiborne, governor of the Orleans Territory, then at
       Washington, was dispatched post-haste to take possession." The
       following January Congress passed an act in secret session
       "authorizing the president to take possession as well of East
       as of West Florida, under any arrangement which had been or
       might be entered into with the local authorities; or, in case
       of any attempted occupation by any foreign government, to take
       and to maintain possession by force. Previously to the passage
       of this act, the occupation of the east bank of the
       Mississippi had been already completed by Governor Claiborne;
       not, however, without some show of resistance. ... Captain
       Gaines presently appeared before Mobile with a small
       detachment of American regulars, and demanded its surrender.
       Colonel Cushing soon arrived from New Orleans with several
       gun-boats, artillery, and a body of troops. The boats were
       permitted to ascend the river toward Fort Stoddard without
       opposition. But the Spanish commandant refused to give up
       Mobile, and no attempt was made to compel him." By an act of
       Congress passed in April, 1812, "that part of Florida recently
       taken possession of, as far east as Pearl River, was annexed to
       the new state [of Louisiana]. The remaining territory, as far
       as the Perdido, though Mobile still remained in the hands of
       the Spaniards, was annexed, by another act, to the Mississippi
       Territory." A year later, in April, 1813, General Wilkinson
       was instructed to take possession of Mobile, and to occupy all
       the territory claimed, to the Perdido, which he accordingly
       did, without bloodshed.

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States, 2d series,
          chapters 23, 24, 26 (volume 3).

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
       The fugitive negroes and the first Seminole War.
       Jackson's campaign.

       "The tranquillity of Monroe's administration was soon
       seriously threatened by the renewal of trouble with the
       Southern Indians [the Seminoles, and the refugee Creeks]. ...
       The origin of the difficulty was twofold: first, the injustice
       which has always marked the treatment of Indian tribes whose
       lands were coveted by the whites; and secondly, the revival of
       the old grievance, that Florida was a refuge for the fugitive
       slaves of Georgia and South Carolina. ... The Seminoles had
       never withheld a welcome to the Georgia negro who preferred
       their wild freedom to the lash of an overseer on a cotton or
       rice plantation. The Georgians could never forget that the
       grand-children of their grandfathers' fugitive slaves were
       roaming about the Everglades of Florida. ... So long as there
       were Seminoles in Florida, and so long as Florida belonged to
       Spain, just so long would the negroes of Georgia find an
       asylum in Florida with the Seminoles. ... A war with the
       Indians of Florida, therefore, was always literally and
       emphatically a slave-hunt. A reclamation for fugitives was
       always repulsed by the Seminoles and the Spaniards, and, as
       they could be redeemed in no other way, Georgia was always
       urging the Federal Government to war."

          W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
          Popular History of the United States,
          volume 4, chapter 10.

       During the War of 1812-14, the English, who were permitted by
       Spain to make use of Florida with considerable freedom, and
       who received no little assistance from the refugee negroes and
       Creek Indians, "had built a fort on the Appalachicola River,
       about 15 miles from its mouth, and had collected there an
       immense amount of arms and ammunition. ... When the war ended,
       the English left the arms and ammunition in the fort. The
       negroes seized the fort, and it became known as the 'Negro
       Fort.' The authorities of the United States sent General
       Gaines to the Florida frontier with troops, to establish peace
       on the border. The Negro Fort was a source of anxiety both to
       the military authorities and to the slave-owners of Georgia,"
       and a pretext was soon found--whether valid or not seems
       uncertain--for attacking it. "A hot shot penetrated one of the
       magazines, and the whole fort was blown to pieces, July 27, 1816.
       There were 300 negro men, women and children, and 20 Choctaws
       in the fort; 270 were killed. Only three came out unhurt, and
       these were killed by the allied Indians. ... During 1817 there
       were frequent collisions on the frontiers between Whites and
       Indians. ... On the 20th of November, General Gaines sent a
       force of 250 men to Fowltown, the headquarters of the chief of
       the 'Redsticks,' or hostile Creeks. They approached the town
       in the early morning, and were fired on. An engagement
       followed. The town was taken and burned. ... The Indians of
       that section, after this, began general hostilities, attacked
       the boats which were ascending the Appalachicola, and
       massacred the persons in them. ... In December, on receipt of
       intelligence of the battle at Fowltown and the attack on the
       boats, Jackson was ordered to take command in Georgia. He
       wrote to President Monroe: 'Let it be signified to me through
       any channel (say Mr. J. Rhea) that the possession of the
       Floridas would be desirable to the United States, and in sixty
       days it will be accomplished.' Much was afterwards made to
       depend on this letter. Monroe was ill when it reached
       Washington, and he did not see or read it until a year
       afterwards, when some reference was made to it. Jackson
       construed the orders which he received from Calhoun with
       reference to this letter. ... He certainly supposed, however,
       that he had the secret concurrence of the administration in
       conquering Florida. ... He advanced through Georgia with great
       haste and was on the Florida frontier in March, 1818. He ...
       immediately advanced to St. Mark's, which place he captured.
       On his way down the Appalachicola he found the Indians and
       negroes at work in the fields, and unconscious of any
       impending attack. Some of them fled to St. Mark's. His theory,
       in which he supposed that he was supported by the
       administration, was that he was to pursue the Indians until he
       caught them, wherever they might go; that he was to respect
       Spanish rights as far as he could consistently with that
       purpose; and that the excuse for his proceedings was that
       Spain could not police her own territory, or restrain the
       Indians.
    {1154}
       Jackson's proceedings were based on two positive but arbitrary
       assumptions: (1) That the Indians got aid and encouragement
       from St. Mark's and Pensacola. (This the Spaniards always
       denied, but perhaps a third assumption of Jackson might be
       mentioned: that the word of a Spanish official was of no
       value.) (2) That Great Britain kept paid emissaries employed
       in Florida to stir up trouble for the United States. This
       latter assumption was a matter of profound belief generally in
       the United States." Acting upon it with no hesitation, Jackson
       caused a Scotch trader named Arbuthnot, whom he found at St.
       Mark's, and an English ex-lieutenant of marines, Ambrister by
       name, who was taken prisoner among the Seminoles, to be
       condemned by court martial and executed, although no
       substantial evidence of their being in any way answerable for
       Indian hostilities was adduced. "It was as a mere incident of
       his homeward march that Jackson turned aside and captured
       Pensacola, May 24, 1818, because he was told that some Indians
       had taken refuge there. He deposed the Spanish government, set
       up a new one, and established a garrison. He then continued
       his march homewards. "Jackson's performances in Florida were
       the cause of grave perplexities to his government, which
       finally determined "that Pensacola and St. Mark's should be
       restored to Spain, but that Jackson's course should be
       approved and defended on the grounds that he pursued his enemy
       to his refuge, and that Spain could not do the duty which
       devolved on her."

          W. G. Sumner,
          Andrew Jackson as a public man,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Parton, Life of Andrew Jackson,
          volume 2, chapters 31-39.

          J. R. Giddings,
          The Exiles of Florida,
          chapters 1-4.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821.
       Cession by Spain to the United States.

       "Jackson's vigorous proceedings in Florida would seem not to
       have been without effect. Pending the discussion in Congress
       on his conduct, the Spanish minister, under new instructions
       from home, signed a treaty for the cession of Florida, in
       extinction of the various American claims, for the
       satisfaction of which the United States agreed to pay to the
       claimants $5,000,000. The Louisiana boundary, as fixed by this
       treaty, was a compromise between the respective offers
       heretofore made, though leaning a good deal to the American
       side: the Sabine to the 32d degree of north latitude; thence a
       north meridian line to the Red River; the course of that river
       to the 100th degree of longitude east [? west] from Greenwich;
       thence north by that meridian to the Arkansas; up that river
       to its head, and to the 42d degree of north latitude; and
       along that degree to the Pacific. This treaty was immediately
       ratified by the Senate," but it was not until February, 1821,
       that the ratification of the Spanish government was received.

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          2d series, chapters 31-32 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          J. T. Morse,
          John Quincy Adams,
          pages 109-125.

          Treaties and Conventions between the United States and
          other countries (edition of 1880), pages 1016-1022.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1835-1843.
       The Second Seminole War.

       "The conflict with the Seminoles was one of the legacies left
       by Jackson to Van Buren; it lasted as long as the
       Revolutionary War, cost thirty millions of dollars, and
       baffled the efforts of several generals and numerous troops,
       who had previously shown themselves equal to any in the world.
       ... As is usually the case in Indian wars there had been wrong
       done by each side; but in this instance we were the more to
       blame, although the Indians themselves were far from being
       merely harmless and suffering innocents. The Seminoles were
       being deprived of their lands in pursuance of the general
       policy of removing all the Indians [to] west of the
       Mississippi. They had agreed to go, under pressure, and
       influenced, probably, by fraudulent representations; but they
       declined to fulfill their agreement. If they had been treated
       wisely and firmly they might probably have been allowed to
       remain without serious injury to the surrounding whites. But
       no such treatment was attempted, and as a result we were
       plunged in one of the most harassing Indian wars we ever
       waged. In their gloomy, tangled swamps, and among the unknown
       and untrodden recesses of the everglades, the Indians found a
       secure asylum; and they issued from their haunts to burn and
       ravage almost all the settled parts of Florida, fairly
       depopulating five counties. ... The great Seminole leader,
       Osceola, was captured only by deliberate treachery and breach
       of faith on our part, and the Indians were worn out rather
       than conquered. This was partly owing to their remarkable
       capacities as bush-fighters, but infinitely more to the nature
       of their territory. Our troops generally fought with great
       bravery; but there is very little else in the struggle, either
       as regards its origin or the manner in which it was carried
       on, to which an American can look back with any satisfaction."

          T. Roosevelt,
          Life of Thomas H. Benton,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          J. R. Giddings,
          The Exiles of Florida,
          chapters 7-21.

          J. T. Sprague,
          The Florida War.

          See also,
          AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1845.
       Admission into the Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845.

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY).
       Secession from the Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
       Temporary Union conquests and occupation.
       Discouragement of Unionists.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA--FLORIDA).

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1864.
       Unsuccessful National attempt to occupy the State.
       Battle of Olustee.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: FLORIDA).

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1865 (JULY).
       Provisional government set up under President Johnson's plan
       of Reconstruction.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

    FLORIDA: A. D. 1865-1868.
       Reconstruction.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.

    ----------FLORIDA: End----------

    FLORIN, The.

       "The Republic of Florence, in the year 1252, coined its golden
       florin, of 24 carats fine, and of the weight of one drachm. It
       placed the value under the guarantee of publicity, and of
       commercial good faith; and that coin remained unaltered, as
       the standard for all other values, as long as the republic
       itself endured."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 4.

    FLOTA, The.

          See PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

    FLOYD, JOHN B., Treachery of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

    FLUSHING: A. D. 1807.
       Ceded to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

    {1155}

    FLUSHING: A. D. 1809.
       Taken and abandoned by the English.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

    FOCKSHANI, Battle of (1789).

          See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

    FODHLA.

          See IRELAND: THE NAME.

    FŒDERATI OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

       The bodies of barbarians who were taken in the military
       service of the Roman empire, during the period of its decline,
       serving "under their hereditary chiefs, using the arms which
       were proper to them, from preserving their language, their
       manners and their customs, were designated by the name of
       frederati" (confederates or allies).

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          The French under the Merovingians,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hodgkin, The dynasty of Theodosius,
          chapter 4.

    FOIX, Rise of the Counts of.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

    FOIX, The house in Navarre.

          See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

    FOLCLAND.--FOLKLAND.

       Public land, among the early English. "It comprised the whole
       area that was not at the original allotment assigned to
       individuals or communities, and that was not subsequently
       divided into estates of bookland [bocland]. The folkland was
       the standing treasury of the country; no alienation of any
       part of it could be made without the consent of the national
       council; but it might be allowed to individuals to hold
       portions of it subject to rents and other services to the
       state."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 5, section 36.

       The theory here stated is questioned by Prof. Vinogradoff, who
       says: "I venture to suggest that folkland need not mean the
       land owned by the people. Bookland is land that is held by
       bookright; folkland is land that is held by folkright. The
       folkland is what our scholars have called ethel, and alod, and
       family-land, and yrfeland; it is land held under the old
       restrictive common-law, the law which keeps land in families,
       as contrasted with land which is held under a book, under a
       'privilegium,' modelled on Roman precedents, expressed in
       Latin words, armed with ecclesiastical sanctions, and making
       for free alienation and individualism."

       P. Vinogradoff,
       Folkland
       (English History Rev., January, 1893).

       ALSO IN:
       J. M. Kemble,
       The Saxons in England,
       book 1, chapter 11.

       See, also, ALOD.

    FOLIGNO, Treaty of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

    FOLKLAND.

          See FOLCLAND.

    FOLKMOOT.

          See HUNDRED:
          also SHIRE;
          also WITENAGEMOT;
          also TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING, THE NEW ENGLAND.

    FOLKTHING.--FOLKETING, The.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES
          (DENMARK--ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

    FOLKUNGAS, The.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

    FOMORIANS, OR FORMORIANS, The.

       A people mentioned in Irish legends as sea-rovers. Mr.
       Sullivan, in his article on "Celtic Literature" in the
       Encyclopædia Britannica advances the opinion that the Romans
       were the people alluded to; but the general view is quite
       different.

          See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS;
          also, NEMEDIANS.

    FONTAINE FRANĆAISE, Battle of (1595).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

    FONTAINEBLEAU: A. D. 1812-1814.
       Residence of the captive Pope.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    FONTAINEBLEAU,
       Treaties of (1807).

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807,
          and SPAIN: A. D.1807-1808.

    FONTAINEBLEAU,
       Treaties of (1814).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

    FONTAINEBLEAU DECREE, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

    FONTARABIA, Siege and Battle (1638).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

    FONTENAILLES, OR FONTENAY,
       Battle of, A. D. 841.

       In the civil war between the three grandsons of Charlemagne,
       which resulted in the partition of his empire and the definite
       separation of Germany and France, the decisive battle was
       fought, June 25, 841, at Fontenailles, or Fontenay
       (Fontanetum), near Auxerre. It was one of the fiercest and
       bloodiest fights of mediæval times, and 80,000 men are said to
       have died on the field.

          Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapter 2.

          See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 814-962.

    FONTENOY, Battle of(1745).

          See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745.

    FOOT, The Roman.

       "The unit of lineal measure [with the Romans] was the Pes,
       which occupied the same place in the Roman system as the Foot
       does in our own. According to the most accurate researches,
       the Pes was equal to, about 11.64 inches imperial measure, or
       .97 of an English foot. The Pes being supposed to represent
       the length of the foot in a well proportioned man, various
       divisions and multiples of the Pes were named after standards
       derived from the human frame. Thus: Pes=16 Digiti, i. e.
       finger-breadths, [or] 4 Palmi, i. e. hand-breadths;
       Sesquipes=l cubitus, i. e. length from elbow to extremity of
       middle finger. The Pes was also divided into 12 Pollices, i.
       e. thumb-joint-lengths, otherwise called Unciae (whence our
       word 'inch')."

          W. Ramsay,
          Manual of Roman Antiquity,
          chapter 13.

    FOOTE, Commodore.
       Gun-boat campaign on the western rivers.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
          (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

    FORBACH, OR SPICHERN, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

    FORCE BILL, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871 (APRIL).

    FORESTS, Charter of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

    FORLI, Battle of (1423).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    FORMORIANS.

          See FOMORIANS.

    FORMOSUS, Pope, A. D. 891-896.

    FORNUOVA, Battle of (1495).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

    FORT EDWARD.--FORT ERIE.--FORT FISHER, ETC.

          See EDWARD, FORT; ERIE, FORT, ETC.

    FORTRENN, Men of.

       A Pictish people who figure in early Scottish history, and
       whom Mr. Rhys derives from the tribe known to the Romans as
       Verturiones. The western part of Fife was embraced in their
       kingdom.

          J. Rhys,
          Celtic Britain,
          pages 158-159.

    FORTUNATE ISLANDS.

          See CANARY ISLANDS, DISCOVERY OF.

    {1156}

    FORTY-FIVE, The.

       The Jacobite rebellion of 1745 is often referred to as "the
       Forty-five."

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745.

    FORTY-SHILLING FREEHOLDERS.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

    FORUM, The Julian, and its extensions.

       "From the entrance of the Suburra branched out the long
       streets which penetrated the hollows between the Quirinal,
       Viminal, and Esquiline to the gates pierced in the mound of
       Servius. It was in this direction that Cæsar effected the
       first extension of the Forum, by converting the site of
       certain streets into an open space which he surrounded with
       arcades, and in the centre of which he erected his temple of
       Venus. By the side of the Julian Forum, or perhaps in its
       rear, Augustus constructed a still ampler inclosure, which he
       adorned with the temple of Mars the Avenger. Succeeding
       emperors ... continued to work out the same idea, till the
       Argiletum on the one hand, and the saddle of the Capitoline
       and Quirinal, excavated for the purpose, on the other, were
       both occupied by these constructions, the dwellings of the
       populace being swept away before them; and a space running
       nearly parallel to the length of the Roman Forum, and
       exceeding it in size, was thus devoted to public use,
       extending from the pillar of Trajan to the basilica of
       Constantine."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 40.

    FORUM BOARIUM AND VELABRUM OF ANCIENT ROME, The.

       "The Velabrum, the Forum Boarium, the Vicus Tuscus, and the
       Circus Maximus are names rich in reminiscences of the romantic
       youth and warlike manhood of the Roman people. The earliest
       dawn of Roman history begins with the union of the Capitoline
       and Palatine hills into one city. In those far-distant times,
       however, no population was settled in the Velabrum or Circus
       valley; for, as we have seen, until the drainage was
       permanently provided for by the cloacæ, these districts were
       uninhabited swamps; and the name Velabrum itself is said to
       have been derived from the boats used in crossing from one
       hill to the other. Perhaps such may not have been the case
       with the Forum Boarium, which lay between the Velabrum and the
       river. ... The limits of the Forum Boarium can be clearly
       defined. It was separated from the Velabrum at the Arch of the
       Goldsmiths. ... On the south-eastern side the Carceres of the
       Circus, and the adjoining temple on the site of S. Maria in
       Cosmedin, bounded the district, on the western the Tiber, and
       on the north western the wall of Servius. ... The immediate
       neighbourhood of the river, the Forum, the Campus Martius, and
       the Palace of the Cæsars would naturally render this quarter
       one of the most crowded thoroughfares of Rome. ... The Forum
       itself, which gave the name to the district, was probably an
       open space surrounded by shops and public buildings, like the
       Forum Romanum, but on a smaller scale. In the centre stood the
       bronze figure of a bull, brought from Ægina, either as a
       symbol of the trade in cattle to which the place owed its
       name, or, as Tacitus observes, to mark the supposed spot
       whence the plough of Romulus, drawn by a bull and a cow, first
       started in tracing out the Palatine pomœrium."

          R. Burn,
          Rome and the Campagna,
          chapter 12.

    FORUM GALLORUM, Battle of (B. C. 43).

          See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

    FORUM JULII.

       A Roman colony and naval station (modern Frejus) founded on
       the Mediterranean coast of Gaul by Augustus.

    FORUM ROMANUM, The.

       "The older Forum, or Forum Romanum, as it was called, to
       distinguish it from the later Fora, which were named after
       their respective builders [Forum of Julius Cæsar, of Augustus,
       of Nerva, of Vespasian, of Trajan, etc.], was an open space of
       an oblong shape, which extended in a south-easterly direction
       from near the depression or intermontium between the two
       summits of the Capitoline hill to a point opposite the still
       extant temple of Antoninus and Faustina. ... Round this
       confined space were grouped the most important buildings of
       Republican Rome."

          R. Burn,
          Rome and the Campagna,
          chapter 6, part 1.

       "Forum, in the literal sense of the word merely a marketplace,
       derives its name 'á ferendo,' (from bringing, getting,
       purchasing). ... Narrow is the arena on which so great a drama
       was enacted in the Republican and Imperial City! the
       ascertainable measurements of this region, according to good
       authorities, being 671 English feet in the extreme length; 202
       in the extreme breadth, and 117 feet at the narrower, the
       south-eastern, side. A wildly picturesque marshy vale,
       overshadowed by primæval forests, and shut in by rugged
       heights, was that low ground between the Palatine and
       Capitoline hills when the 'Roma Quadrata,' ascribed to
       Romulus, was founded about seven centuries and a half before
       our era. After the wars and finally confirmed alliance between
       Romans and Sabines ... the colonists agreed to unite under the
       same government, and to surround the two cities and two hills
       with a wider cincture of fortifying walls than those the still
       extant ruins of which are before us on the Palatine. Now was
       the swampy waste rendered serviceable for civic purposes; the
       forest was cut down; the stagnant marshes were drained, the
       clayey hollows filled up; the wild valley became the appointed
       arena for popular assemblage; though Dionysius tells us it was
       for some time on a spot sacred to Vulcan (the 'Vulcanale'),
       probably a terrace on the slope of the Palatine overlooking
       the Forum, that the people used to meet for political affairs,
       elections, etc. During many ages there were, it appears, no
       habitations save on the hills. ... The Forum, as an enclosed
       public place amidst buildings, and surrounded by graceful
       porticos, may be said to have owed its origin to Tarquinius
       Priscus, between the years 616 and 578 B. C. That king (Livius
       tells us) was the first who erected porticos around this area,
       and also divided the ground into lots, where private citizens
       might build for their own uses. Booths, probably wooden (the
       'tabernæ veteres'), were the first rude description of shops
       here seen. ... Uncertain is the original place of the 'Rostra
       Veteres'--the ancient tribunal for orators. No permanent
       tribunal for such purpose is known to have been placed in the
       Forum till the year of the city 417. ... In the year 336 B.
       C., the Romans having gained a naval victory over the
       citizens' of Antium, several of those enemies' ships were
       burnt, others transported to the Roman docks, and the bronzed
       prows of the latter were used to decorate a pulpit, now raised
       for public speaking, probably near the centre of the Forum."

          C. I. Hemans,
          Historic and Monumental Rome,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Lanciani,
          Ancient Rome,
          pages 75-82.

    {1157}

    FORUM TREBONII, Battle of (A. D. 251).

          See GOTHS, FIRST INVASIONS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

    FOSI, The.

          See CHAUCI.

    FOSSA.

          See CASTRA.

    FOSSE, The.

       One of the great Roman roads in Britain, which ran from
       Lincoln southwestwardly into Cornwall.

          See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

    FOSTAT.

       The original name of Cairo, Egypt, signifying "the
       Encampment."

          See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

    FOTHERINGAY CASTLE, Mary Stuart's execution at.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

    FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH, Ponce de Leon's quest of the.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

    FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND AT ATHENS.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.

    FOUR HUNDRED AT ATHENS, The.

          See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

    FOUR MASTERS, The.

       Four Irish antiquaries of 17th century, who compiled the mixed
       collection of legend and history called the "Annals of the
       Kingdom of Ireland," are commonly known as the Four Masters.
       They were Michael O'Clery, a lay brother of the order of St.
       Francis; Conaire O'Clery, brother of Michael; Cucogry or
       Peregrine O'Clery, head of the Tirconnell sept of the
       O'Clerys, to which Michael and Conaire belonged; and Ferfeasa
       O'Mulconry, of whom nothing is known, except that he was a
       native of the county of Roscommon. The "Annals" of the Four
       Masters have been translated into English from the Irish
       tongue by John O'Donovan.

          J. O'Donovan,
          Introduction to Annals of the Kingdom of
          Ireland by the Four Masters.

    FOUR MILE STRIP, Cession of the.

          See PONTIAC'S WAR.

    FOURMIGNY, Battle of (1449).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL);
          1866 (JUNE);
          1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:
       The enforcement of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871 (APRIL).

    ----------FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: End----------

    FOURTH OF JULY.

       The anniversary of the adoption of the American Declaration of
       Independence.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

    FOWEY, Essex's surrender at.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    FOWLTOWN, Battle of (1817).

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

    FOX AND NORTH COALITION, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782; 1783;
          and 1783-1787.

    FOX INDIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
          and SACS, &c.

       For an account of the massacre of Fox Indians
       at Detroit in 1712,

          See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

       For an account of the Black Hawk War,

          See ILLINOIS: A.. D. 1832.

    FRANCE:
       Gallic and Roman.

          See GAUL. A. D. 481-843.

    FRANCE:
       Under the Franks, to the division of the Empire of
       Charlemagne.

          See FRANKS.

    FRANCE: A. D. 841-911.
       Ravages and settlements of the Northmen.

          See NORMANS: A. D. 841 to 876-911.

    FRANCE: 9th Century.
       Introduction of the modern name.

       At the time of the division of the empire of Charlemagne
       between his three grand-sons, which was made a definite and
       lasting political separation by the Treaty of Verdun, A. D.
       843, "the people of the West [western Europe] had come to be
       divided, with more and more distinctness, into two classes,
       those composed of Franks and Germans, who still adhered to the
       Teutonic dialects, and those, composed of Franks,
       Gallo-Romans, and Aquitanians, who used the Romance dialects,
       or the patois which had grown out of a corrupted Latin. The
       former clung to the name of Germans, while the latter, not to
       lose all share in the glory of the Frankish name, began to
       call themselves Franci, and their country Francia Nova, or New
       France. ... Francia was the Latin name of Frankenland, and had
       long before been applied to the dominions of the Franks on
       both sides of the Rhine. Their country was then divided into
       East and West Francia; but in the time of Karl the Great
       [Charlemagne] and Ludwig Pious, we find the monk of St. Gall
       using the terms Francia Nova, in opposition to the Francia,
       'quæ dicitur antiqua.'"

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapter 18, with note.

       "As for the mere name of Francia, like other names of the
       kind, it shifted its geographical use according to the
       wanderings of the people from whom it was derived. After many
       such changes of meaning, it gradually settled down as the name
       for those parts of Germany and Gaul where it still abides.
       There are the Teutonic or Austrian [or Austrasian] Francia,
       part of which still keeps the name of Franken or Franconia,
       and the Romance or Neustrian Francia, which by various
       annexations has grown into modern France."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          volume 1, page 121.

       "As late as the reign of Frederick Barbarossa, the name of
       Frank was still used, and used too with an air of triumph, as
       equivalent to the name of German. The Kings and kingdoms of
       this age had indeed no fixed titles, because all were still
       looked on as mere portions of the great Frankish realm.
       Another step has now been taken towards the creation of modern
       France; but the older state of things has not yet wholly
       passed away. Germany has no definite name; for a long time it
       is 'Francia Orientalis,' 'Francia Teutonica'; then it becomes
       'Regnum Teutonicum,' 'Regnum Teutonicorum.' But it is equally
       clear that, within the limits of that Western or Latin France,
       Francia and Francus were fast getting their modern meanings of
       France and Frenchmen, as distinguished from Frank or German."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Franks and the Gauls
          (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7).

    {1158}

    FRANCE: A. D. 843.
       The kingdom of Charles the Bald.

       The first actual kingdom of France (Francia Nova--Francia
       Occidentalis), was formed in the partition of the empire of
       Charlemagne between his three grandsons, by the Treaty of
       Verdun, A. D. 843. It was assigned to Charles, called "the
       Bald," and comprised the Neustria of the older Frank
       divisions, together with Aquitaine. It "had for its eastern
       boundary, the Meuse, the Saône and the Rhone; which,
       nevertheless, can only be understood of the Upper Meuse, since
       Brabant was certainly not comprised in it"; and it extended
       southwards beyond the Pyrenees to the Ebro.

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 1, part 1, footnote.

       "Charles and his successors have some claim to be accounted
       French. They rule over a large part of France, and are cut
       away from their older connexion with Germany. Still, in
       reality they are Germans and Franks. They speak German, they
       yearn after the old imperial name, they have no national
       feeling at all. On the other hand, the great lords of
       Neustria, as it used to be called, are ready to move in that
       direction, and to take the first steps towards a new national
       life. They cease to look back to the Rhine, and occupy
       themselves in a continual struggle with their kings. Feudal
       power is founded, and with it the claims of the bishops rise
       to their highest point. But we have not yet come to a kingdom
       of France. ... It was no proper French kingdom; but a dying
       branch of the Empire of Charles the Great. ... Charles the
       Bald, entering on his part of the Caroling Empire, found three
       large districts which refused to recognise him. These were
       Aquitaine, whose king was Pippin II.; Septimania, in the hands
       of Bernard; and Brittany under Nominoë. He attempted to reduce
       them; but Brittany and Septimania defied him, while over
       Aquitaine he was little more than a nominal suzerain."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          volume 1, book 2, part 2, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 6, section 1.

          See, also,
          FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 814-962.

    ----------------------------------------

    A Logical Outline of French History

       (Red)   Physical or material.
       (Blue)  Ethnologilcal.
       (Green) Social and political.
       (Brown) Intellectual, moral and  religious.
       (Black) Foreign.

    IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
    INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

       The country known anciently as Gaul, and in modern times as
       France, is distinguished by no physical characteristics that
       will go far towards explaining its history. Lying within the
       middle degrees of the northern temperate zone, greatly
       diversified in its superficial features, and varied in the
       qualities of its soil, it represents a fair average of the
       more favorable conditions of human life.

    The Gauls.

       The inhabitants of the land when the Romans subdued it were a
       Celtic people, belonging to the race which has survived to the
       present day with least admixture or modification in the
       Bretons, the Welsh, the Celtic Irish and the Highland Scotch.
       The peculiar traits of the race in mind and temper are so
       visible in French history as to show that the nation has never
       ceased to be essentially Gallic in blood.

    B. C. 51-A. D. 406; Roman Gaul.

      Under the control and the teaching of Rome for four centuries
      and a half, the Gauls were perfected in her civilization and
      corrupted by the vices of her decay.

    5th Century; Frank Conquest.

       When the invasion of Teutonic barbarism broke the barrier of
       the Rhine, they were easily but not quickly overwhelmed, and
       sank under a conquest more complete than that from Rome had
       been; since the whole body of the conquerors came to dwell
       within the land, and to be neighbors and masters, at once. For
       the most part, these invaders preferred country to town, and
       carved estates for themselves in all the districts that were
       fertile and fair. The Gallo-Romans, or Romanized Gauls, were
       left to more freedom in their cities than outside; but their
       cities were blighted in industry and in trade by the common
       ruin around them. In the rural districts, few liberties or
       rights were preserved for the subjugated race.

    Feudalism.

       The form of society which the German conquerors brought with
       them into Gaul was broken by the change of circumstance, quite
       as much as the form of society which they overthrew. The camp
       gave place to the castle; the wandering war-chief acquired the
       firmer superiority of a great land-proprietor and lord; his
       warriors slipped in station from free followers to dependents,
       in divers degrees; the greater chiefs won the title of kings;
       the fiercer kings destroyed their rivals; and four or five
       centuries shaped, by slow processes that are traceable,
       indistinctly, the military structure of society called Feudal,
       which organized lawlessness with picturesque and destructive
       effects.

    A. D. 481-752. Merovingian monarchy.
    A. D. 768-814. Empire of Charlemagne.

       All authority withered, except the spiritual authority of the
       Church, which steadily grew. The royalty that had thrived for
       a time upon the distribution of lands, dignities and powers,
       lost prestige when it had expended the domains at its
       disposal, and when offices and estates were clutched in
       hereditary possession. Before it actually expired, there arose
       a family of remarkable men--great in four successive
       generations--who put its crown upon their own heads and made
       it powerful again. The last and greatest of these expanded the
       Frank kingdom into a new Roman Empire; but the energy of the
       achievement was wholly his own, and his empire fell to pieces
       when he died.

    A. D. 987. Kingdom of Hugh Capet.
    11th-12th centuries. Enfranchisement of the Communes.

       In the part which became France, royalty dwindled once more;
       the great dukes and counts nominally subject to it, in the
       feudal sense, renewed and increased their power; until one of
       their number took the throne, and bequeathed it to his heirs.

       This new line of kings won back by degrees the ascendancy of
       the crown. The small actual dominion, surrounding Paris, with
       which they began, was widened slowly by the strong,
       authoritative arm. They made themselves, in rude fashion, the
       champions of order and law. They took the people of the towns
       into alliance with them; for the towns were beginning to
       catch the spirit of the free cities of Italy, and the sturdy
       temper of the Flemish burghers, and to assume the name of
       "communes," or commons, casting off the feudal yoke that had
       been laid upon them. The kings lent their countenance to the
       communes, and the communes strengthened the hands of the
       kings. Between them and much helped by the stir of the
       Crusades, they loosened the roots of feudalism, until its
       decay set in. The king's courts and the king's officers pushed
       their jurisdiction into a widening realm, until the king's
       authority had become supreme, in fact as well as in name.

       Even the measureless misery of a hundred years of war with
       English kings brought power, in the end, to the crown, by
       weakening the greater lords, and by bringing into existence a
       fixed military force.

    A. D. 1337-1453. Hundred Years War.

       Happy accidents, shrewd marriages, and cunning intrigues
       gathered the great dukedoms, one by one, into the royal
       domain, and the solidarity of modern France was attained.

    16th-17th centuries. Aggrandisement of the Monarchy.

       But People and King stood no longer side by side. The league
       of King and Commons against the Lords had proved less happy
       than the alliance in England of Commons and Lords against the
       King. Royalty emerged from the patient struggle alone in
       possession of sovereign power. It had used the communes and
       then abused them, breaking their charters--their
       liberties--their courage--their hopes--and widening the
       distance between class and class. The "estates" of the realm
       became a memory and a name. During five hundred years, while
       the Parliament of England grew in majesty and might, the
       States-General of France were assembled but thirteen times.

    The Court.

       When royalty, at last, invented the fatal enchantments of a
       "Court," then the blighting of all other powers was soon
       complete. It drew within its spell, from all the provinces of
       France, their nobles, their men of genius, their aspiring
       spirits, and assembled them to corrupt and debase them
       together--to make them its pensioners and hirelings, its
       sycophants, its jesters, its knaves.

    Suppression of the Huguenots.

       Neither Renaissance nor Reformation could undo the spell.
       Ideas from the one and a great faith from the other joined in
       league for the liberty of both, and the thoughtful among the
       people were rallied to them with craving eagerness. But
       bigotry and frivolity ruled the Court, and the Court proved
       stronger than France. Freedom of conscience, and every species
       of freedom with it, were destroyed; by massacre, by civil war,
       by oppressive government, by banishment, by corrupting bribes.

    18th century. The "Ancien Régime."

       And always the grandeur of the monarchy increased; its rule
       grew more absolute; its Court sucked the life-blood of the
       State more remorselessly. The People starved, that the King
       might be magnificent; they perished in a thousand battles,
       that his name might be "glorious;" they went into exile,
       carrying away the arts of France, that the piety of the King
       might not be shocked by their heresies. But always, too, there
       was growing in the world, around France and in France, a
       knowledge,--an understanding,--a modern spirit,--that rebelled
       against these infamies.

    A. D. 1789-1799. Revolution.
    A. D. 1799-1815. Napoleon.

       In due time there came an end. Court, and King, and Church,
       and all that even seemed to be a part of the evil old regime,
       were whirled into a red gulf of Revolution and disappeared.
       The people, unused to Liberty, were made drunken by it, and
       went mad. In breaking the gyves of feudalism they broke every
       other restraint, and wrecked society in all its forms. Then,
       in the stupor of their debauch, they gave themselves to a new
       despot--mean, conscienceless, detestable, but transcendent in
       the genius and the energy of his selfishness--who devoured
       them like a dragon, in the hunger of his insatiate ambition,
       and persuaded them to be proud of their fate.

    A. D. 1815-1830. Bourbon Restoration.
    A. D. 1830-1848. Louis Phillippe
    A. D. 1848-1851. Second Republic.
    A. D. 1852-1870. Second Empire.
    A. D. 1870-.     Third Republic.

       Europe suppressed the intolerable adventurer, and France, for
       three-fourths of a century since, has been under an
       apprenticeship of experience, slowly learning the art of
       self-government by constitutional modes. Two monarchies, one
       republic, and a sham empire are the spoiled samples of her
       work. A third republic, now in hand, is promising better
       success. It rests with seeming stability on the support of the
       great class of peasant landowners, which the very miseries of her
       misgoverned past have created for France. Trained to pinching
       frugality by the hard conditions of the old regime; unspoiled
       by any ruinous philanthropy, like that of the English
       poor-laws; stimulated to land-buying by opportunities which
       came, first, from the impoverishment of extravagant nobles,
       and, later, from revolutionary confiscations; encouraged to
       the same acquisition by favorable laws of transfer and equal
       inheritance,--the landowning peasants of France constitute a
       Class powerful in numbers, invincible in conservatism, an
       profoundly interested in the preservation of social order.

    --------End: A Logical Outline of French History-----------

    FRANCE: A. D. 861.
       Origin of the duchy and of the house of Capet.

       In 861, Charles the Bald, king of that part of the dismembered
       empire of Charlemagne which grew into the kingdom of France,
       was struggling with many difficulties: defending himself
       against the hostile ambition of his brother, Louis the German;
       striving to establish his authority in Brittany and Aquitaine;
       harried and harassed by Norse pirates; surrounded by domestic
       treachery and feudal restiveness. All of his many foes were
       more or less in league against him, and the soul of their
       combination appears to have been a certain bold adventurer--a
       stranger of uncertain origin, a Saxon, as some say--who bore
       the name of Robert the Strong. In this alien enemy, King
       Charles, who never lacked shrewdness, discovered a possible
       friend. He opened negotiations with Robert the Strong, and a
       bargain was soon made which transferred the sword and the
       energy of the potent mercenary to the service of the king.
       "Soon after, a Placitum or Great Council was held at
       Compiègne. In this assembly, and by the assent of the
       Optimates, the Seine and its islands, and that most important
       island Paris, and all the country between Seine and Loire,
       were granted to Robert, the Duchy of France, though not yet so
       called, moreover the Angevine Marches, or County of
       Outre-Maine, all to be held by Robert-le-Fort as barriers
       against Northmen and Bretons, and by which cessions the realm
       was to be defended. Only a portion of this dominion owned the
       obedience of Charles: the Bretons were in their own country,
       the Northmen in the country they were making their own; the
       grant therefore was a license to Robert to win as much as he
       could, and to keep his acquisitions should he succeed. ...
       Robert kept the Northmen in check, yet only by incessant
       exertion. He inured the future kings of France, his two young
       sons, Eudes and Robert, to the tug of war, making them his
       companions in his enterprises. The banks of the Loire were
       particularly guarded by him, for here the principal attacks
       were directed." Robert the Strong fought valiantly, as he had
       contracted to do, for five years, or more, and then, in an
       unlucky battle with the Danes, one summer day in 866, he fell.
       "Thus died the first of the Capets." All the honors and
       possessions which he had received from the king were then
       transferred, not to his sons, but to one Hugh, Count of
       Burgundy, who became also Duke or Marquis of France and Count
       of Anjou. Twenty years later, however, the older son of
       Robert, Eudes, turns up in history again as Count of Paris,
       and nothing is known of the means by which the family, soon to
       become royal, had recovered its footing and its importance.

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.
       The end of the Carolingian monarchy and the rise of the
       Capetian.

       Charles the Bald died in 877 and was succeeded by his son
       Louis, called "the Stammerer," who reigned only two years. His
       two sons, Louis and Carloman, were joint kings for a short
       space, struggling with the Northmen and losing the provinces
       out of which Duke Boson of Provence, brother-in-law of Charles
       the Bald, formed the kingdom of Arles. Louis died in 882 and
       Carloman two years afterwards; thereupon Charles, surnamed
       "the Fat," king of Lombardy and Germany, and also emperor
       (nephew of Charles the Bald), became likewise king of France,
       and briefly reunited under his feebly handled sceptre the
       greater part of the old empire of Charlemagne: When he died,
       in 888, a party of the nobles, tired of his race, met and
       elected Count Eudes (or Odo), the valiant Count of Paris, who
       had just defended his city with obstinate courage against the
       Northmen, to be their king. The sovereignty of Eudes was not
       acknowledged by the nation at large. His opponents found a
       Carling to set up against him, in the person of the boy
       Charles,--youngest son of Louis "the Stammerer," born after
       his father's death,--who appears in history as Charles "the
       Simple." Eudes, after some years of war, gave up to Charles a
       small domain, between the Seine and the Meuse, acknowledged
       his feudal superiority and agreed that the whole kingdom
       should be surrendered to him on his (Eudes') death. In
       accordance with this agreement, Charles the Simple became sole
       king in 898, when Eudes died, and the country which
       acknowledged his nominal sovereignty fell into a more
       distracted state than ever. The Northmen established
       themselves in permanent occupation of the country on the lower
       Seine, and Charles, in 911, made a formal cession of it to
       their duke, Rollo, thus creating the great duchy of Normandy.
       In 922 the nobles grew once more disgusted with the feebleness
       of their king and crowned Duke Robert, brother of the late king
       Eudes, driving Charles into his stronghold of Laon. The
       Normans came to Charles' help and his rival Robert was killed
       in a battle.
    {1159}
       But Charles was defeated, was inveigled into the hands of one
       of the rebel Lords.--Herbert of Venmandois--and kept a
       prisoner until he died, in 929. One Rodolf of Burgundy had
       been chosen king, meantime, and reigned until his death, in
       936. Then legitimacy triumphed again, and a young son of
       Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England, was sent
       for and crowned. This king--Louis IV.--his son, Lothair, and
       his grandson, Louis V., kept possession of the shaking throne
       for half-a-century; but their actual kingdom was much of the
       time reduced to little more than the royal city of Laon and
       its immediate territories. When Louis died, in 987, leaving no
       nearer heir than his uncle, Charles, Duke of Lorraine, there
       was no longer any serious attempt to keep up the Carolingian
       line. Hugh, Duke of France--whose grandfather Robert, and
       whose grand-uncle Eudes had been crowned kings, before him,
       and whose father, "Hugh the Great," had been the king-maker of
       the period since--was now called to the throne and settled
       himself firmly in the seat which a long line of his
       descendants would hold. He was known as Hugh Capet to his
       contemporaries, and it is thought that he got the name from
       his wearing of the hood, cap, or cape of St. Martin--he being
       the abbot of St. Martin at Tours, in addition to his other
       high dignities.

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          volume 1, book 2, part 2, chapter 5;
          book 3, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          book 1, chapter 5 (volume l).

          C. F. Keary,
          The Vikings in Western Christendom,
          chapters 11 and 13-15.

          See, also, LAON.

    FRANCE: A. D. 987.
       Accession of Hugh Capet.
       The kingdom of the early Capetians.

       "On the accession of the third race [the Capetians], France,
       properly so called, only comprised the territory between the
       Somme and the Loire; it was bounded by the counties of
       Flanders and Vermandois on the north; by Normandy and Brittany
       on the west; by the Champagne on the east; by the duchy of
       Aquitaine on the south. The territory within these bounds was
       the duchy of France, the patrimonial possession of the Capets,
       and constituted the royal domain. The great fiefs of the
       crown, in addition to the duchy of France, were the duchy of
       Normandy, the duchy of Burgundy, nearly the whole of Flanders,
       formed into a county, the county of Champagne, the duchy of
       Aquitaine, and the county of Toulouse. ... The sovereigns of
       these various states were the great vassals of the crown and
       peers of France; Lorraine and a portion of Flanders were
       dependent on the Germanic crown, while Brittany was a fief of
       the duchy of Normandy. ... The county of Barcelona beyond the
       Alps was also one of the great fiefs of the crown of France."

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France: second epoch,
          book 1, chapter 2.

       "With the exception of the Spanish March and of part of
       Flanders, all these states have long been fully incorporated
       with the French monarchy. But we must remember that, under the
       earlier French Kings, the connexion of most of these provinces
       with their nominal suzerain was even looser than the connexion
       of the German princes after the Peace of Westphalia with the
       Viennese Emperors. A great French Duke was as independent
       within his own dominions as an Elector of Saxony or Bavaria,
       and there were no common institutions, no Diet or assembly of
       any kind, to bring him into contact either with his liege lord
       or with his fellow-vassals. Aquitaine and Toulouse ... seem
       almost to have forgotten that there was any King of the French
       at all, or at all events that they had anything to do with him.
       They did not often even pay him the compliment of waging war
       upon him, a mode of recognition of his existence which was
       constantly indulged in by their brethren of Normandy and
       Flanders."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Franks and the Gauls
          (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7).

       "When France was detached from the Empire in the ninth
       century, of all three imperial regions she was the one which
       seemed least likely to form a nation. There was no unity in
       the country west of the Scheldt, the Meuse, and the Rhone.
       Various principalities, duchies, or counties were here formed,
       but each of them was divided into secular fiefs and
       ecclesiastical territories. Over these fiefs and territories
       the authority of the duke or the count, which was supposed to
       represent that of the king, was exercised only in case these
       seigneurs had sufficient power, derived from their own
       personal estates. Destitute of domains and almost starving,
       the king, in official documents, asked what means he might
       find on which to live with some degree of decency. From time
       to time, amid this chaos, he discussed the theory of his
       authority. He was a lean and solemn phantom, straying about
       among living men who were very rude and energetic. The phantom
       kept constantly growing leaner, but royalty did not vanish.
       People were accustomed to its existence, and the men of those
       days could not conceive of a revolution. By the election of
       Hugh Capet, in 987, royalty became a reality, because the
       king, as Duke of Francia, had lands, money, and followers. It
       would be out of place to seek a plan of conduct and a
       methodical line of policy in the actions of the Capetians, for
       they employed simultaneously every sort of expedient. During
       more than three centuries they had male offspring; thus the
       chief merit of the dynasty was that it endured. As always
       happens, out of the practice developed a law; and this happy
       accident produced a lawful hereditary succession, which was a
       great element of strength. Moreover the king had a whole
       arsenal of rights: old rights of Carolingian royalty,
       preserving, the remembrance of imperial power, which the study
       of the Roman law was soon to resuscitate, transforming these
       apparitions into formidable realities; old rights conferred by
       the coronation, which were impossible to define, and hence
       incontestable; and rights of suzerainty, newer and more real,
       which were definitely determined and codified as feudalism
       developed and which, joined to the other rights mentioned
       above, made the king proprietor of France. These are the
       elements that Capetian royalty contributed to the play of
       fortuitous circumstances."

          E. Lavisse,
          General View of the Political History of Europe,
          chapter 3.

          See, also, TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.

    {1160}

    FRANCE: A. D. 987-1327.
       The Feudal Period.

       "The period in the history of France, of which we are about to
       write, began with the consecration of Hugues Capet, at Reims,
       the 3rd of July, 987, but it is a period which would but
       improperly take its name from the Capetians; for throughout
       this time royalty was, as it were, annihilated in France; the
       social bond was broken, and the country which extends from the
       Rhine to the Pyrenees, and from the English Channel to the
       Gulf of Lyon, was governed by a confederation of princes
       rarely under the influence of a common will, and united only
       by the Feudal System. While France was confederated under
       feudal administration, the legislative power was suspended.
       Hugues Capet and his successors, until the accession of St.
       Louis, had not the right of making laws; the nation had no
       diet, no regularly constituted assemblies whose authority it
       acknowledged. The Feudal System, tacitly adopted, and
       developed by custom, was solely acknowledged by the numerous
       sovereigns who divided the provinces among themselves. It
       replaced the social bond, the monarch, and the legislator. ...
       The period ... is therefore like a long interregnum, during
       which the royal authority was suspended, although the name of
       king was always preserved. He who bore this title in the midst
       of a republic of princes was only distinguished from them by
       some honorary prerogative, and he exercised over them scarcely
       any authority. Until very near the end of the 11th century,
       these princes were scarcely less numerous than the castles
       which covered France. No authority was acknowledged at a
       distance, and every fortress gave its lord rank among the
       sovereigns. The conquest of England by the Normans broke the
       equilibrium between the feudal lords; one of the confederate
       princes, become a king in 1066, gradually extended, until
       1179, his domination over more than half of France; and
       although it was not he who bore the title of king of the
       French, it may be imagined that in time the rest of the
       country would also pass under his yoke. Philip the August and
       his son, during the forty-six last years of the same period,
       reconquered almost all the fiefs which the English kings had
       united, brought the other great vassals back to obedience, and
       changed the feudal confederation which had ruled France into a
       monarchy, which incorporated the Feudal System in its
       constitution."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          France Under the Feudal System
          (translated by W. Bellingham), chapter 1.

       "The feudal period, that is, the period when the feudal system
       was the dominant fact of our country, ... is comprehended
       between Hugh Capet and Philippe de Valois, that is, it
       embraces the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. ... At the end of
       the 10th century, royalty and the commons were not visible, or
       at all events scarcely visible. At the commencement of the
       14th century, royalty was the head of the state, the commons
       were the body of the nation. The two forces to which the
       feudal system was to succumb had then attained, not, indeed,
       their entire development, but a decided preponderance. ...
       With the 14th century, the character of war changed. Then
       began the foreign wars; no longer a vassal against suzerain,
       or vassal against vassal, but nation against nation,
       government against government. On the accession of Philippe de
       Valois, the great wars between the French and the English
       broke out--the claims of the kings of England, not upon any
       particular fief, but upon the whole land, and upon the throne
       of France--and they continued up to Louis XI. They were no
       longer feudal, but national wars; a certain proof that the
       feudal period stopped at this limit, that another society had
       already commenced."

          F. P. Guizot,
          History of Civilization,
          2d course, lecture 1.

    FRANCE: A. D. 996.
       Accession of King Robert II.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1031.
       Accession of King Henry I.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1060.
       Accession of King Philip I.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1070-1125.
       Enfranchisement of Communes.

       "The establishment of the commune of Mans, towards the year
       1070, was not a fact, isolated, and without respect to what
       passed in the rest of France; it was, on the contrary, a
       symptom of the great revolution which was working in the
       opinions, the manners, and the condition of the mass of the
       people; a symptom which, bearing a certain date, must serve to
       establish the epoch of a crowd of analogous efforts made in
       the other towns of France. History has not preserved the
       memory of these different efforts, but it has shown us the
       results. During the two following centuries, the cities ceased
       not to obtain charters, to found or secure by legitimate
       authority, the immunities and franchises which constituted the
       communal rights. ... All, or nearly all had, however, already
       conquered liberty; they had experienced how advantageous it
       was to be governed by themselves, and the high price which
       they put upon the favor they solicited, bears witness to their
       experience. The enfranchisement of the communes is almost
       universally reported in the ... reign ... of Louis the Fat;
       and the honor of this great revolution, which created the
       third estate [tiers-état], and liberty in France, has been
       given either to the generosity or the wise policy of that
       prince. There is doubtless some truth in this opinion, since
       we find in France no communal charter anterior to the reign of
       Louis VI., and he is also the first king who was seen to ally
       himself with the burgesses, to make war on the nobility.
       However, the idea which is formed of this event, when one
       attributes it to the act of the monarch's will, or the effect
       of his system, is completely erroneous. The French people owed
       whatever degree of liberty it enjoyed in the middle ages, to
       its own valor; it acquired it as liberty must always be
       acquired, at the sword's point; it profitted by the divisions,
       the imprudence, the weakness, or the crimes of its lords, lay
       or ecclesiastic, to seize it from and in spite of them. ...
       The origin of every commune was, as indicated by the different
       names by which they are designated, a communion, a conjuration,
       or confederation, of the inhabitants of a town who were
       mutually engaged to defend each other. The first act of the
       commune was the occupation of a tower in which was set up a
       clock or belfry; and the first clause of the oath of all the
       communers, was to repair in arms, when the bell sounded, at
       the place assigned them, to defend each other. From this first
       engagement resulted that of submitting to magistrates named by
       the communers: it was the mayors, echevins, and juries, in
       northern France, and consuls or syndics in southern France, to
       whom the consent of all abandoned the sole right of directing
       the common efforts. Thus the militia was first created; the
       magistracy came afterwards. ... The reign of Phillip I. had
       been but a long anarchy. During those forty-eight years the
       royal government had not existed, and no other had
       efficaciously taken its place. At the same time, greatly
       differing from the other feudal monarchies, all legislative
       power was suspended in France. There were no diets like those
       of the kingdoms of Germany and Italy, no parliament like that
       of England, no cortes like those of Spain, no field of March
       like that of the antient Frankish kings, no assemblages, in
       fine, which bound by their acts the great vassals and their
       subjects, and which could submit them to common laws.
    {1161}
       The French had not desired a participation in the sovereignty
       which they could only acquire by sacrificing their
       independence. Thus, two great vassals, or the subjects of two
       great vassals, could scarcely believe themselves compatriots.
       ... The anarchy which was found in the great state of the
       French monarchy, because all the relations between the king
       and the count were relaxed, was found also in the petty state
       of the county of Paris, or of the duchy of France; for the
       lords and barons of the crown's domains no better obeyed or
       respected more the prerogatives of their lord, than the great
       vassals those of the suzerain. The anarchy was complete, the
       disorder seemed carried to its height, and never had the
       social bond in France been nearer to being broken: yet never
       had France made so real a progress as during these forty-eight
       years. Phillip, at his death, left his son quite another
       people to that which he had received from his father: the most
       active monarch would never have done so much for France as she
       had without him done for herself during his sleep. The towns
       were more numerous, more populous, more opulent, and more
       industrious; property had acquired a security unknown in the
       preceding centuries; justice was distributed between equals,
       and by equals; and the liberty of the burgesses, conquered by
       arms, was defended with energy."

          J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
          France under the Feudal System,
          chapters 9 and 12.

       "Liberty ... was to have its beginning in the towns, in the
       towns of the centre of France, which were to be called
       privileged towns, or communes, and which would either receive
       or extort their franchises. ... All coveted a few franchises
       or privileges, and offered to purchase them; for, needy and
       wretched as they were, poor artisans, smiths and weavers,
       suffered to cluster for shelter at the foot of a castle, or
       fugitive serfs crowding round a church, they could manage to
       find money; and men of this stamp were the founders of our
       liberties. They willingly starved themselves to procure the
       means of purchase; and king and barons rivalled each other in
       selling charters which fetched so high a price. This
       revolution took place all over the kingdom under a thousand
       different forms, and with but little disturbance; so that it
       has only attracted notice with regard to some towns of the
       Oise and the Somme, which, placed in less favorable
       circumstances, and belonging to two different lords, one a
       layman, the other ecclesiastical, resorted to the king for a
       solemn guarantee of concessions often violated, and maintained
       a precarious liberty at the cost of several centuries of civil
       war. To these towns the name of communes has been more
       particularly applied; and the wars they had to wage form a
       slight but dramatic incident in this great revolution, which
       was operating silently and under different forms in all the
       towns of the north of France. 'Twas in brave and choleric
       Picardy, whose commons had so soundly beaten the Normans--in
       the country of Calvin, and of so many other revolutionary
       spirits--that these explosions took place. Noyon, Beauvais,
       Laon, three ecclesiastical lordships, were the first communes;
       to these may be added St. Quentin. Here the Church had laid
       the foundations of a powerful democracy. ... The king has been
       said to be the founder of the communes; but the reverse is
       rather the truth: it is the communes that established the
       king. Without them, he could not have beaten off the Normans;
       and these conquerors of England and the Two Sicilies would
       probably have conquered France. It was the communes, or, to
       use a more general and exact term, the bourgeoisies, which,
       under the banner of the saint of the parish, enforced the
       common peace between the Oise and the Loire; while the king,
       on horseback, bore in front the banner of the abbey of St.
       Denys."

          M. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 4, chapter 4.

          See, also, COMMUNES.

       The following comments on the passages quoted above are made
       by a good authority: "The general view taken of this subject
       of the enfranchisement of the communes by historians who wrote
       at the middle of the century is now being seriously modified.
       The studies of Luchaire have shown, I think, that such
       statements as Sismondi's, which attribute everything to the
       people, are exaggerations. 'Liberty,' as it existed in the
       communes, was only corporate or aristocratic privilege. As for
       the national assemblages, there were great councils held, such
       as those which existed under the Norman monarchs in England,
       and they issued the 'assizes,' which was a common form of
       legislation in the Middle Ages. It was not, of course,
       legislation, in its modern sense. Michelet is quite too
       flowery, poetical, democratic, to be safely followed."

    FRANCE: A. D. 1096.
       Departure of the First Crusaders.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1100.
       The extent of the kingdom.

       "When Louis [VI.] was adopted by his father in 1100, the crown
       had as its own domain only the county of Paris, Hurepoix, the
       Gatinais, the Orléanis, half the county of Sens, the French
       Vexin, and Bourges, together with some ill-defined rights over
       the episcopal cities of Rheims, Beauvais, Laon, Noyon,
       Soissons, Amiens. And even within these narrow limits the
       royal power was but thinly spread over the surface. The barons
       in their castles were in fact independent, and oppressed the
       merchants and poor folk as they would. The king had also
       acknowledged rights of suzerainty over Champagne, Burgundy,
       Normandy, Brittany, Flanders, and Boulogne; but, in most
       cases, the only obedience the feudal lords stooped to was that
       of duly performing the act of homage to the king on first
       succession to a fief. He also claimed suzerainty, which was
       not conceded, over the South of France; over Provence and
       Lorraine he did not even put forth a claim of lordship."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          volume 1, book 3, chapter 5.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1101.
       Disastrous Crusade of French princes and knights.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1106-1119.
       War with Henry I. of England and Normandy.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

    {1162}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1108-1180.
       The reigns of Louis VI., Louis VII. and
       accession of Philip II.
       Gain and loss of Aquitaine.

       "Louis VI., or 'the Fat' was the first able man whom the line
       of Hugh Capet had produced since it mounted the throne. He
       made the first attempt at curbing the nobles, assisted by
       Suger, the Abbot of St. Denys. The only possibility of doing
       this was to obtain the aid of one party of nobles against
       another; and when any unusually flagrant offence had been
       committed, Louis called together the nobles, bishops, and
       abbots of his domain, and obtained their consent and
       assistance in making war on the guilty man, and overthrowing
       his castle, thus, in some degree, lessening the sense of utter
       impunity which had caused so many violences and such savage
       recklessness. He also permitted a few of the cities to
       purchase the right of self-government. ... The royal authority
       had begun to be respected by 1137, when Louis VI. died, having
       just effected the marriage of his son, Louis VII., with
       Eleanor, the heiress of the Dukes of Aquitaine--thus hoping to
       make the crown really more powerful than the great princes who
       owed it homage. At this time lived the great St. Bernard,
       Abbot of Clairvaux, who had a wonderful influence over men's
       minds. ... Bernard roused the young king Louis VII., to go on
       the second crusade [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149], which was
       undertaken by the Emperor and the other princes of Europe to
       relieve the distress of the kingdom of Palestine. ... Though
       Louis did reach Palestine, it was with weakened forces; he
       could effect nothing by his campaign, and Eleanor, who had
       accompanied him, seems to have been entirely corrupted by the
       evil habits of the Franks settled in the East. Soon after his
       return, Louis dissolved his marriage; and Eleanor became the
       wife of Henry, Count of Anjou, who soon after inherited the
       kingdom of England as our Henry II., as well as the duchy of
       Normandy, and betrothed his third son to the heiress of
       Brittany [see AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152]. Eleanor's marriage
       seemed to undo all that Louis VI. had done in raising the
       royal power; for Henry completely overshadowed Louis, whose
       only resource was in feeble endeavours to take part against
       him in his many family quarrels. The whole reign of Louis the
       Young, the title that adhered to him on account of his simple,
       childish nature, is only a record of weakness and disaster,
       till he died in 1180. ... Powerful in fact as Henry II. was,
       it was his gathering so large a part of France under his rule
       which was, in the end, to build up the greatness of the French
       kings. What had held them in check was the existence of the
       great fiefs or provinces, each with its own line of dukes or
       counts, and all practically independent of the king. But now
       nearly all the provinces of southern and western France were
       gathered into the hand of a single ruler; and though he was a
       Frenchman in blood, yet, as he was King of England, this ruler
       seemed to his French subjects no Frenchman, but a foreigner.
       They began therefore to look to the French king to free them
       from a foreign ruler; and the son of Louis VII., called Philip
       Augustus, was ready to take advantage of their disposition."

          C. M. Yonge,
          History of France
          (History Primers), chapter 1, sections 6-7.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.
       The kingdom extended by Philip Augustus.
       Normandy, Maine and Anjou recovered from the English kings.

       "Louis VII. ascended the throne [A. D. 1137] with better
       prospects than his father. He had married Eleanor, heiress of
       the great duchy of Guienne [or Aquitaine]. But this union,
       which promised an immense accession of strength to the crown,
       was rendered unhappy by the levities of that princess.
       Repudiated by Louis, who felt rather as a husband than a king,
       Eleanor immediately married Henry II. of England, who, already
       inheriting Normandy from his mother and Anjou from Ins father,
       became possessed of more than one-half of France, and an
       over-match for Louis, even if the great vassals of the crown
       had been always ready to maintain its supremacy. One might
       venture perhaps to conjecture that the sceptre of France would
       eventually have passed from the Capets to the Plantagenets, if
       the vexatious quarrel with Becket at one time, and the
       successive rebellions fomented by Louis at a later period, had
       not embarrassed the great talents and ambitious spirit of
       Henry. But the scene quite changed when Philip Augustus, son
       of Louis VII., came upon the stage [A. D. 1180]. No prince
       comparable to him in systematic ambition and military
       enterprise had reigned in France since Charlemagne. From his
       reign the French monarchy dates the recovery of its lustre. He
       wrested from the count of Flanders the Vermandois (that part
       of Picardy which borders on the Isle of France and Champagne),
       and, subsequently, the County of Artois. But the most
       important conquests of Philip were obtained against the kings
       of England. Even Richard I., with all his prowess, lost ground
       in struggling against an adversary not less active, and more
       politic, than himself: But when John not only took possession
       of his brother's dominions, but confirmed his usurpation by
       the murder, as was very probably surmised, of the heir,
       Philip, artfully taking advantage of the general indignation,
       summoned him as his vassal to the court of his peers. John
       demanded a safe-conduct. Willingly, said Philip; let him come
       unmolested. And return? inquired the English envoy. If the
       judgment of his peers permit him, replied the king. By all the
       saints of France, he exclaimed, when further pressed, he shall
       not return unless acquitted. The bishop of Ely still
       remonstrated that the duke of Normandy could not come without
       the king of England; nor would the barons of that country
       permit their sovereign to run the risk of death or
       imprisonment. What of that, my lord bishop? cried Philip. It
       is well known that my vassal the duke of Normandy acquired
       England by force. But if a subject obtains any accession of
       dignity, shall his paramount lord therefore lose his rights?
       ... John, not appearing at his summons, was declared guilty of
       felony, and his fiefs confiscated. The execution of this
       sentence was not intrusted to a dilatory arm. Philip poured
       his troops into Normandy, and took town after town, while the
       king of England, infatuated by his own wickedness and
       cowardice, made hardly an attempt at defence. In two years
       [A. D. 1203-1204] Normandy, Maine, and Anjou were
       irrecoverably lost. Poitou and Guienne resisted longer; but
       the conquest of the first was completed [A. D. 1224] by Louis
       VIII., successor of Philip."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 1, part 1.

          ALSO IN:
          K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
          volume 2, chapter 9.

          See, also,
          ENGLAND: A. D. 1205;
          and ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1188-1190.
       Crusade of Philip Augustus.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1201-1203.
       The Fifth Crusade, and its diversion against Constantinople.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

    A. D. 1209-1229.
       The Albigensian wars and their effects.

          See ALBIGENSES.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1212.
       The Children's Crusade.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1214.
       Nationalizing effects of the Battle of Bouvines.

          See BOUVINES.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1223.
       Accession of King Louis VIII.

    {1163}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270.
       Reign and character of Louis IX. (Saint Louis).
       His great civilizing work and influence.

       "Of the forty-four years of St. Louis' reign, nearly fifteen,
       with a long interval of separation, pertained to the
       government of Queen Blanche of Castille, rather than that of
       the king her son. Louis, at his accession in 1226, was only
       eleven; and he remained a minor up to the age of twenty-one,
       in 1236, for the time of majority in the case of royalty was
       not yet specially and rigorously fixed. During those ten years
       Queen Blanche governed France; not at all, as is commonly
       asserted, with the official title of regent, but simply as
       guardian of the king her son. With a good sense really
       admirable in a person so proud and ambitious, she saw that
       official power was ill suited to her woman's condition, and
       would weaken rather than strengthen her; and she screened
       herself from view behind her son. He it was who, in [1236],
       wrote to the great vassals bidding them to his consecration;
       he it was who reigned and commanded; and his name alone
       appeared on royal decrees and on treaties. It was not until
       twenty-two years had passed, in 1248, that Louis, on starting
       for the crusade, officially delegated to his mother the kingly
       authority, and that Blanche, during her son's absence, really
       governed with the title of regent. ... During the first period
       of his government, and so long as her son's minority lasted,
       Queen Blanche had to grapple with intrigues, plots,
       insurrections, and open war; and, what was still worse for
       her, with the insults and calumnies of the crown's great
       vassals, burning to seize once more, under a woman's
       government, the independence and power which had been
       effectually disputed with them by Philip Augustus. Blanche
       resisted their attempts, at one time with open and persevering
       energy, at another dexterously with all the tact, address, and
       allurements of a woman. Though she was now forty years of age
       she was beautiful, elegant, attractive, full of resources and
       of grace. ... The malcontents spread the most odious scandals
       about her. ... Neither in the events nor in the writings of
       the period is it easy to find anything which can authorize the
       accusations made by the foes of Queen Blanche. ... She
       continued her resistance to the pretensions and machinations
       of the crown's great vassals, whether foes or lovers, and she
       carried forward, in the face and in the teeth of all, the
       extension of the domains and the power of the kingship. We
       observe in her no prompting of enthusiasm, of sympathetic
       charitableness, or of religious scrupulousness; that is, none
       of those grand moral impulses which are characteristic of
       Christian piety and which were predominant in St. Louis.
       Blanche was essentially politic and concerned with her
       temporal interests and successes; and it was not from her
       teaching or her example that her son imbibed those sublime and
       disinterested feelings which stamped him the most original and
       the rarest on the roll of glorious kings. What St. Louis really
       owed to his mother, and it was a great deal, was the steady
       triumph which, whether by arms or by negotiation, Blanche
       gained over the great vassals, and the preponderance which,
       amidst the struggles of the feudal system, she secured for the
       kingship of her son in his minority. ... When Louis reached
       his majority, his entrance upon personal exercise of the
       kingly power produced no change in the conduct of public
       affairs. ... The kingship of the son was a continuance of the
       mother's government. Louis persisted in struggling for the
       preponderance of the crown against the great vassals;
       succeeded in taming Peter Mauclerc, the turbulent count of
       Brittany; wrung from Theobald IV., count of Champagne, the
       rights of suzerainty in the countships of Chartres, Blois, and
       Sancerre, and the viscountship of Châteaudun; and purchased
       the fertile countship of Mâcon from its possessor. It was
       almost always by pacific procedure, by negotiations ably
       conducted, and conventions faithfully executed, that he
       accomplished these increments of the kingly domain; and when
       he made war on any of the great vassals, he engaged therein
       only on their provocation, to maintain the rights or honour of
       his crown, and he used victory with as much moderation as he
       had shown before entering upon the struggle. ... When war was
       not either a necessity or a duty, this brave and brilliant
       knight, from sheer equity and goodness of heart, loved peace
       rather than war. The successes he had gained in his campaign
       of 1242 [against the count of La Marche and Henry III., of
       England, whose mother had become the wife of La Marche] were
       not for him the first step in an endless career of glory and
       conquest; he was anxious only to consolidate them whilst
       securing, in Western Europe, for the dominions of his
       adversaries as well as for his own, the benefits of peace. He
       entered into negotiations, successively, with the count of la
       Marche, the king of England, the count of Toulouse, the king
       of Aragon, and the various princes and great feudal lords who
       had been more or less engaged in the war; and in January,
       1243, says the latest and most enlightened of his biographers
       [M. Felix Faure], 'the treaty of Lorris marked the end of
       feudal troubles for the whole duration of St. Louis' reign. He
       drew his sword no more, save only against the enemies of the
       Christian faith and Christian civilization, the Mussulmans.'"

          G. Masson,
          Saint Louis and the Thirteenth Century,
          pages 44-56.

       "St. Louis ... by this war of 1242 finished those contests for
       the crown with its vassals which had been going on since the
       time of his ancestor, Louis the Fat. But it was not by warfare
       that he was to aid in breaking down the strongholds of
       feudalism. The vassals might have been beaten time and again,
       and yet the spirit of feudalism, still surviving, would have
       raised up new champions to contend against the crown. St.
       Louis struck at the spirit of the Middle Age, and therein
       insured the downfall of its forms and whole embodiment. He
       fought the last battles against feudalism, because, by a surer
       means than battling, he took, and unconsciously, the
       life-blood from the opposition to the royal authority.
       Unconsciously, we say; he did not look on the old order of
       things as evil, and try to introduce a better; he did not
       selfishly contend for the extension of his own power; he was
       neither a great reformer, nor a (so-called) wise king. He
       undermined feudalism, because he hated injustice; he warred
       with the Middle Age, because he could not tolerate its
       disregard of human rights; and he paved the way for
       Philip-le-bel's struggle with the papacy, because he looked
       upon religion and the church as instruments for man's
       salvation, not as tools for worldly aggrandizement.
    {1164}
       He is, perhaps, the only monarch on record who failed in most
       of what he undertook of active enterprise, who was under the
       control of the prejudices of his age, who was a true
       conservative, who never dreamed of effecting great social
       changes,--and who yet, by his mere virtues, his sense of duty,
       his power of conscience, made the mightiest and most vital
       reforms. One of these reforms was the abolition of the trial
       by combat. ... It is not our purpose to follow Louis either in
       his first or second crusade. If the great work of his life was
       not to be done by fighting at home, still less was it to be
       accomplished by battles in Egypt or Tunis. His mission was
       other and greater than he dreamed of, and his service to
       Christendom was wholly unlike that which he proposed to
       himself. ... In November, 1244, he took the cross; but it was
       June of 1248 before he was able to leave Paris to embark upon
       his cherished undertaking. ...

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

       On the fifth of June, 1249, he landed in Egypt, which was
       to be conquered before Palestine could be safely attacked. On
       the seventh of June, Damietta was entered, and there the
       French slept and feasted, wasting time, strength, and money,
       until the twentieth of the following November. Then came the
       march southward; the encampment upon the Nile; the terrors of
       the Greek fire; the skirmishes which covered the plain with
       dead; the air heavy with putridity and pestilence; the putrid
       water; the fish fat with the flesh of the dead; sickness,
       weakness, retreat, defeat, captivity. On the sixth of April,
       1250, Louis and his followers were prisoners to the
       Mussulmans; Louis might have saved himself, but would not quit
       his followers; he had been faithful thus far, and would be
       till death. ... On the eighth of May, 1250, Louis was a
       freeman, and it was not until the twenty-fifth of April, 1254,
       that he set sail to return to his native shores, where
       Blanche, who had been regent during his absence, had some
       months since yielded up her breath. On the seventh of
       September, he entered Paris, sad and worn. ... And scarce had
       he landed, before he began that course of legislation which
       continued until once more he embarked upon the crusade. ... In
       his first legislative action, Louis proposed to himself these
       objects,--to put an end to judicial partiality, to prevent
       needless and oppressive imprisonment for debt, to stop
       unfounded criminal prosecutions, and to mitigate the horrors
       of legalized torture. In connection with these general topics,
       he made laws to bear oppressively upon the Jews, to punish
       prostitution and gambling, and to diminish intemperance. And
       it is worthy of remark, that this last point was to be
       attained by forbidding innkeepers to sell to any others than
       travellers,--a measure now (six hundred years later) under
       discussion in some parts of our Union, with a view to the same
       end. But the wish which this rare monarch had to recompense
       all who had been wronged by himself and forefathers was the
       uppermost wish of his soul. He felt that to do justice himself
       was the surest way to make others willing to do it. Commissioners
       were sent into every province of the kingdom to examine each
       alleged case of royal injustice, and with power in most
       instances to make instant restitution. He himself went forth
       to hear and judge in the neighborhood of his capital, and as
       far north as Normandy. ... As he grew yet older, the spirit of
       generosity grew stronger daily in his bosom. He would have no
       hand in the affairs of Europe, save to act, wherever he could,
       as peacemaker. Many occasions occurred where all urged him to
       profit by power and a show of right, a naked legal title, to
       possess himself of valuable fiefs; but Louis shook his head
       sorrowfully and sternly, and did as his inmost soul told him
       the law of God directed. ... There had been for some reigns
       back a growing disposition to refer certain questions to the
       king's tribunals, as being regal, not baronial, questions.
       Louis the Ninth gave to this disposition distinct form and
       value, and, under the influence of the baron-hating legists,
       he so ordained, in conformity with the Roman law, that, under
       given circumstances, almost any case might be referred to his
       tribunal. This, of course, gave to the king's judgment-seat
       and to him more of influence than any other step ever taken
       had done. It was, in substance, an appeal of the people from
       the nobles to the king, and it threw at once the balance of
       power into the royal hands. ... It became necessary to make
       the occasional sitting of the king's council or parliament,
       which exercised certain judicial functions, permanent; and to
       change its composition, by diminishing the feudal and
       increasing the legal or legist element. Thus everywhere, in
       the barons' courts, the king's court, and the central
       parliament, the Roman, legal, organized element began to
       predominate over the German, feudal, barbaric tendencies, and
       the foundation-stones of modern society were laid. But the
       just soul of Louis and the prejudices of his Romanized
       counsellors were not arrayed against the old Teutonic
       barbarism alone, with its endless private wars and judicial
       duels; they stood equally opposed to the extravagant claims of
       the Roman hierarchy. ... The first calm, deliberate,
       consistent opposition to the centralizing power of the great
       see was that offered by its truest friend and most honest
       ally, Louis of France. From 1260 to 1268, step by step was
       taken by the defender of the liberties of the Gallican church,
       until, in the year last named, he published his 'Pragmatic
       Sanction' [see below], his response, by advice of his wise
       men, to the voice of the nation, the Magna Charta of the
       freedom of the church of France, upon whose vague articles,
       the champions of that freedom could write commentaries, and
       found claims, innumerable. ... But the legislation of Louis
       did not stop with antagonism to the feudal system and to the
       unauthorized claims of the church; it provided for another
       great grievance of the Middle Age, that lying and unequal
       system of coinage which was a poison to honest industry and
       commercial intercourse. ... And now the great work of Louis
       was completed; the barons were conquered, the people
       protected, quiet prevailed through the kingdom, the national
       church was secured in her liberties. The invalid of Egypt, the
       sojourner of Syria, had realized his dreams and purposes of
       good to his own subjects, and once again the early vision of
       his manhood, the recovery of Palestine, haunted his slumbering
       and his waking hours. ... On the sixteenth of March, 1270, he
       left Paris for the seashore; on the first of July, he sailed
       from France. The sad, sad story of this his last earthly doing
       need not be here repeated."

          See CRUSADES: A.. D. 1270-1271.

          Saint Louis of France
          (North American Review, April, 1846).

       On the part performed by Louis IX. in the founding of
       absolutism in France,

          See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

    {1165}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1252.
       The Crusading movement of the Pastors.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1252.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1266.
       Acquisition of the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies by
       Charles of Anjou, the king's brother.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1268.
       The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis.
       Assertion of the rights of the Gallican Church.

       "The continual usurpations of the popes produced the
       celebrated Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis [about A.. D.
       1268]. This edict, the authority of which, though probably
       without cause, has been sometimes disputed, contains three
       important provisions; namely, that all prelates and other
       patrons shall enjoy their full rights as to the collation of
       benefices, according to the canons; that churches shall
       possess freely their rights of election; and that no tax or
       pecuniary exaction shall be levied by the pope, without
       consent of the king and of the national church. We do not
       find, however, that the French government acted up to the
       spirit of this ordinance."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 7, part 2.

       "This Edict appeared either during the last year of Clement
       IV., ... or during the vacancy in the Pontificate. ... It
       became the barrier against which the encroachments of the
       ecclesiastical power were destined to break; nor was it swept
       away till a stronger barrier had arisen in the unlimited power
       of the French crown." It "became a great Charter of
       Independence to the Gallican Church."

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 11, chapter 4 (volume 5).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1270-1285.
       The sons of St. Louis.
       Origin of the Houses of Valois and Bourbon.

       St. Louis left several sons, the elder of whom succeeded him
       as Philippe III., and his youngest son was Robert, Count of
       Clermont and Lord of Bourbon, the ancestor of all the branches
       of the House of Bourbon. Philippe III. died in 1285, when he
       was succeeded by his son, Philippe IV. A younger son, Charles,
       Count of Valois, was the ancestor of the Valois branch of the
       royal family.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1285-1314.
       Reign of Philip IV.
       His conflict with the Pope and his destruction of the
       Templars.

       Philippe IV., called "le Bel" (the Handsome), came to the
       throne on the death of his father, Philippe "le Hardi," in
       1285. He was presently involved in war with Edward I. of
       England, who crossed to Flanders in 1297, intending to invade
       France, but was recalled by the revolt in Scotland, under
       Wallace, and peace was made in 1303. The Flemings, who had
       provoked Philippe by their alliance with the English, were
       thus left to suffer his resentment. They bore themselves
       valiantly in a war which lasted several years, and inflicted
       upon the knights of France a fearful defeat at Courtrai, in
       1302. In the end, the French king substantially failed in his
       designs upon Flanders.

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.

       "It is probable that this long struggle would have been still
       protracted, but for a general quarrel which had sprung up some
       time before its close, between the French king and Pope
       Boniface VIII., concerning the [taxation of the clergy and
       the] right of nomination to vacant bishoprics within the
       dominions of Philippe. The latter, on seeing Bernard Saissetti
       thrust into the Bishopric of Pamiers by the pontiff's sole
       authority, caused the Bishop to be arrested by night, and,
       after subjecting him to various indignities, consigned him to
       prison on a charge of treason, heresy, and blasphemy. Boniface
       remonstrated against this outrage and violence in a bull known
       in history, by its opening words 'Ausculta, fili,' in which he
       asserted his power 'over nations and kingdoms, to root out and
       to pull down, to destroy and to throw down, to build and to
       plant,' and concluded by informing Philippe that he had
       summoned all the superior clergy of France to an assembly at
       Rome on the 1st of the following November, in order to
       deliberate on the remedies for such abuses as those of which
       the king had been guilty. Philippe, by no means intimidated by
       this measure, convoked a full and early assembly of the three
       estates of his kingdom, to decide upon the conduct of him whom
       the orthodox, up to that time, had been in the habit of deeming
       infallible. This (10th April 1302) was the first meeting of a
       Parliament, properly so called, in France. ... The chambers
       unanimously approved and applauded the conduct of the king,
       and resolved to maintain the honour of the crown and the
       nation from foreign insult or domination; and to mark their
       decision more conclusively, they concurred with the sovereign
       in prohibiting the clergy from attending the Pope's summons to
       Rome. The papal bull was burned as publicly as possible. ...
       The Pope, alarmed at these novel and bold proceedings, sought
       instantly to avert their consequences by soothing
       explanations; but Philippe would not now be turned aside from
       his course. He summoned a convocation of the Gallican
       prelates, in which by the mouth of William de Nogaret, his
       chancellor, he represented the occupier of St. Peter's chair
       as the father of lies and an evil-doer; and he demanded the
       seizure of this pseudo-pope, and his imprisonment until he
       could be brought before a legitimate tribunal to receive the
       punishment due to his numerous crimes. Boniface now declared
       that the French king was excommunicated, and cited him by his
       confessor to appear in the papal court at Rome within three
       months, to make submission and atonement for his contumacy.
       ... While this unseemly quarrel ... seemed to be growing
       interminable in its complexities, the daring of a few men
       opened a shorter path to its end than could have been
       anticipated. William of Nogaret associating to him Sciarra
       Colonna, a noble Roman, who, having been driven from his
       native city by Boniface and subjected to various hardships,
       had found refuge in Paris, passed, with a train of three
       hundred horsemen, and a much larger body of picked infantry,
       secretly into Italy, with the intention of surprising the Pope
       at his summer residence in his native town of Anagni. ... The
       papal palace was captured after a feeble resistance, and the
       cardinals and personal attendants of the Pontiff fled for
       their lives. ... The Condottieri ... dragged the Pope from his
       throne, and conveying him into the street, mounted him upon a
       lean horse without saddle or bridle, with his head to the
       animal's tail, and thus conducted him in a sort of pilgrimage
       through the town. He was then consigned prisoner to one of the
       chambers of his palace and placed under guard; while the body
       of his captors dispersed themselves through the splendid
       apartments in eager pursuit of plunder. Three days were thus
       occupied; but at the end of that time the ... people of Anagni
       ... took arms in behalf of their fellow-townsman and spiritual
       father, and falling upon the French while still indulging in
       the licence of the sack, drove Nogaret and Colonna from their
       quarters, and either expelled or massacred the whole of their
       followers."
    {1166}
       The Pope returned to Rome in so great a rage that his reason
       gave way, and soon afterwards he was found dead in his bed.
       "The scandal of these proceedings throughout Christendom was
       immense; and Philippe adopted every precaution to avert evil
       consequences from himself by paying court to Benedict XI. who
       succeeded to the tiara. This Pope, however, though he for some
       time temporised, could not be long deaf to the loud voices of
       the clergy which called for punishment upon the oppressors of
       the church. Ere he had reigned nine months he found himself
       compelled to excommunicate the plunderers of Anagni; and a few
       days afterwards he perished, under circumstances which leave
       little doubt of his having been poisoned. ... The king of
       France profitted largely by the crime; since, besides gaining
       time for the subsidence of excitement, he was subsequently
       enabled, by his intrigues, to procure the election of a person
       pledged not only to grant him absolution for all past
       offences, but to stigmatise the memory of Boniface, to restore
       the deposed Colonna to his honours and estates, to nominate
       several French ecclesiastics to the college of cardinals, and
       to grant to the king the tenths of the Gallican church for a
       term of five years. The pontiff who thus seems to have been
       the first of his race to lower the pretensions of his office,
       was Bertrand de Goth, originally a private gentleman of
       Bazadors, and subsequently promoted to the Archiepiscopal See
       of Bordeaux. He assumed the title of Clement V., and after
       receiving investiture at Lyons, fixed the apostolic residence
       at Avignon, where it continued, under successive occupants,
       for a period, the length of which caused it to be denominated
       by the Italians the Babylonian captivity. This quarrel
       settled, Philippe engaged in another undertaking, the
       safe-conduct of which required all his skill and
       unscrupulousness. This important enterprise was no less than
       the destruction and plunder of the military order of Knights
       Templars. ... Public discontent ... had, by a variety of
       circumstances, been excited throughout the realm. Among the
       number of exactions, the coin had been debased to meet the
       exigencies of the state, and this obstructing the operations
       of commerce, and inflicting wrongs to a greater or less extent
       upon all classes, everyone loudly complained of injustice,
       robbery and oppression, and in the end several tumults
       occurred, in which the residence of the king himself was
       attacked, and the whole population were with difficulty
       restrained from insurrection. In Burgundy, Champagne, Artois
       and Forez, indeed, the nobles, and burgess class having for
       the first time made common cause of their grievances, spoke
       openly of revolt against the royal authority, unless the
       administration should be reformed, and equity be substituted
       in the king's courts for the frauds, extortions and
       malversations, which prevailed. The sudden death of
       Philippe--owing to a fall from his horse while hunting the
       wild boar in the forest of Fontainebleau--on the 29th of
       November, 1314, delivered the people from their tyrant, and
       the crown from the consequences of a general rebellion. Pope
       Clement, the king's firm friend, had gone to his last account
       on the 20th of the preceding April. Louis X., le Hutin (the
       Quarrelsome), ascended the throne at the mature age of
       twenty-five."

          G. M. Bussey and T. Gaspey,
          Pictorial History of France,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          See, also, PAPACY: A.D. 1294-1348,
          and TEMPLARS: A.D. 1307-1314.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1314-1328.
       Louis X., Philip V., Charles IV.
       Feudal reaction.

       Philip-le-Bel died in 1314. "With the accession of his son,
       Louis X., so well surnamed Hutin (disorder, tumult), comes a
       violent reaction of the feudal, local, provincial spirit,
       which seeks to dash in pieces the still feeble fabric of
       unity, demands dismemberment, and claims chaos. The Duke of
       Brittany arrogates the right of judgment without appeal; so
       does the exchequer of Rouen. Amiens will not have the king's
       sergeants subpœna before the barons, or his provosts remove
       any prisoner from the town's jurisdiction. Burgundy and Nevers
       require the king to respect the privileges of feudal justice.
       ... The common demand of the barons is that the king shall
       renounce all intermeddling with their men. ... The young
       monarch grants and signs all; there are only three points to
       which he demurs, and which he seeks to defer. The Burgundian
       barons contest with him the jurisdiction over the rivers,
       roads, and consecrated places. The nobles of Champagne doubt
       the king's right to lead them to war out of their own
       province. Those of Amiens, with true Picard impetuosity,
       require without any circumlocution, that all gentlemen may war
       upon each other, and not enter into securities, but ride, go,
       come, and be armed for war, and pay forfeit to one another.
       ... The king's reply to these absurd and insolent demands is
       merely: 'We will order examination of the registers of my lord
       St. Louis, and give to the said nobles two trustworthy
       persons, to be nominated by our council, to verify and inquire
       diligently into the truth of the said article.' The reply was
       adroit enough. The general cry was for a return to the good
       customs of St. Louis: it being forgotten that St. Louis had
       done his utmost to put a stop to private wars. But by thus
       invoking the name of St. Louis, they meant to express their
       wish for the old feudal independence--for the opposite of the
       quasi-legal, the venal, and pettifogging government of
       Philippe-le-Bel. The barons set about destroying, bit by bit,
       all the changes introduced by the late king. But they could
       not believe him dead so long as there survived his Alter Ego,
       his mayor of the palace, Enguerrand de Marigny, who, in the
       latter years of his reign, had been coadjutor and rector of
       the kingdom, and who had allowed his statue to be raised in
       the palace by the side of the king's. His real name was Le
       Portier; but along with the estates he bought the name of
       Marigny. ... It was in the Temple, in the very spot where
       Marigny had installed his master for the spoliation of the
       Templars, that the young king Louis repaired to hear the
       solemn accusation brought against him. His accuser was
       Philippe-le-Bel's brother, the violent Charles of Valois, a
       busy man, of mediocre abilities, who put himself at the head
       of the barons. ... To effect his destruction, Charles of
       Valois had recourse to the grand accusation of the day, which
       none could surmount.
    {1167}
       It was discovered, or presumed, that Marigny's wife or sister,
       in order to effect his acquittal, or bewitch the king, had
       caused one Jacques de Lor to make certain small figures: 'The
       said Jacques, thrown into prison, hangs himself in despair,
       and then his wife, and Enguerrand's sisters are thrown into
       prison, and Enguerrand himself, condemned before the knights
       ... is hung at Paris on the thieves' gibbet.' ... Marigny's
       best vengeance was that the crown, so strong in his care, sank
       after him into the most deplorable weakness. Louis-le-Hutin,
       needing money for the Flemish war, treated as equal with
       equal, with the city of Paris. The nobles of Champagne and
       Picardy hastened to take advantage of the right of private war
       which they had just reacquired, and made war on the countess of
       Artois, without troubling themselves about the judgment
       rendered by the king, who had awarded this fief to her. All
       the barons had resumed the privilege of coining; Charles of
       Valois, the king's uncle, setting them the example. But
       instead of coining for their own domains only, conformably to
       the ordinances of Philippe-le-Hardi and Philippe-le-Bel, they
       minted coin by wholesale, and gave it currency throughout the
       kingdom. On this, the king had perforce to arouse himself, and
       return to the administration of Marigny and of
       Philippe-le-Bel. He denounced the coinage of the barons,
       (November the 19th, 1315;) ordained that it should pass
       current on their own lands only; and fixed the value of the
       royal coin relatively to thirteen different coinages, which
       thirty-one bishops or barons had the right of minting on their
       own territories. In St. Louis's time, eighty nobles had enjoyed
       this right. The young feudal king, humanized by the want of
       money, did not disdain to treat with serfs and with Jews. ...
       It is curious to see the son of Philippe-le-Bel admitting
       serfs to liberty [see SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE]; but it is
       trouble lost. The merchant vainly swells his voice and
       enlarges on the worth of his merchandise; the poor serfs will
       have none of it. Had they buried in the ground some bad piece
       of money, they took care not to dig it up to buy a bit of
       parchment. In vain does the king wax wroth at seeing them dull
       to the value of the boon offered. At last, he directs the
       commissioners deputed to superintend the enfranchisement, to
       value the property of such serfs as preferred 'remaining in
       the sorriness (chétiveté) of slavery,' and to tax them 'as
       sufficiently and to such extent as the condition and wealth of
       the individuals may conveniently allow, and as the necessity of
       our war requires.' But with all this it is a grand spectacle
       to see proclamation made from the throne itself of the
       imprescriptible right of every man to liberty. The serfs do
       not buy this right, but they will remember both the royal
       lesson, and the dangerous appeal to which it instigates
       against the barons. The short and obscure reign of
       Philippe-le-Long [Philip V., 1316-1322] is scarcely less
       important as regards the public law of France, than even that
       of Philippe-le-Bel. In the first place, his accession to the
       throne decides a great question. As Louis Hutin left his queen
       pregnant, his brother Philippe is regent and guardian of the
       future infant. This child dies soon after its birth, and
       Philippe proclaims himself king to the prejudice of a daughter
       of his brother's; a step which was the more surprising from
       the fact that Philippe-le-Bel had maintained the right of
       female succession in regard to Franche-Comté and Artois. The
       barons were desirous that daughters should be excluded from
       inheriting fiefs, but that they should succeed to the throne
       of France; and their chief, Charles of Valois, favored his
       grand-niece against his nephew Philippe. Philippe assembled
       the States, and gained his cause, which, at bottom, was good,
       by absurd reasons. He alleged in his favor the old German law
       of the Franks, which excluded daughters from the Salic land;
       and maintained that the crown of France was too noble a fief
       to fall into hands used to the distaff ('pour tomber en
       quenouille')--a feudal argument, the effect of which was to
       ruin feudality. ... By thus rejecting the right of the
       daughters at the very moment it was gradually triumphing over
       the fiefs, the crown acquired its character of receiving
       always without ever giving; and a bold revocation, at this
       time, of an donations made since St. Louis's day, seems to
       contain the principle of the inalienableness of the royal
       domain. Unfortunately, the feudal spirit which resumed
       strength under the Valois in favor of private wars, led to
       fatal creations of appanages, and founded, to the advantage of
       the different branches of the royal family, a princely
       feudality as embarrassing to Charles VI. and Louis XI., as the
       other had been to Philippe-le-Bel. This contested succession
       and disaffection of the barons force Philippe-le-Long into the
       paths of Philippe-le-Bel. He flatters the cities, Paris, and,
       above all, the University,--the grand power of Paris. He
       causes his barons to take the oath of fidelity to him, in
       presence of the masters of the university, and with their
       approval. He wishes his good cities to be provided with
       armories; their citizens to keep their arms in a sure place;
       and appoints them a captain in each bailiwick or district,
       (March the 12th, 1316). ... Praiseworthy beginnings of order
       and of government brought no relief to the sufferings of the
       people. During the reign of Louis Hutin, a horrible mortality
       had swept off, it was said, the third of the population of the
       North. The Flemish war had exhausted the last resources of the
       country. ... Men's imaginations becoming excited, a great
       movement took place among the people. As in the days of St.
       Louis, a multitude of poor people, of peasants, of shepherds
       or pastoureaux, as they were called, flock together and say
       that they seek to go beyond the sea, that they are destined to
       recover the Holy Land. ... They wended their way towards the
       South, everywhere massacring the Jews; whom the king's
       officers vainly tried to protect. At last, troops were got
       together at Toulouse, who fell upon the Pastoureaux, and
       hanging them up by twenties and thirties the rest dispersed.
       ... Philippe-le-Long ... was seized with fever in the course
       of the same year, (A. D. 1321,) in the month of August,
       without his physicians being able to guess its cause. He
       languished five months, and died. ... His brother Charles
       [Charles IV., 1322-1328] succeeded him, without bestowing a
       thought more on the rights of Philippe's daughter; than
       Philippe had done to those of Louis's daughter. The period of
       Charles's reign is as barren of facts with regard to France,
       as it is rich in them respecting Germany, England, and
       Flanders. The Flemings imprison their count. The Germans are
       divided between Frederick of Austria and Lewis of Bavaria, who
       takes his rival prisoner at Muhldorf. In the midst of the
       universal divisions, France seems strong from the circumstance
       of its being one. Charles-le-Bel interferes in favor of the
       count of Flanders.
    {1168}
       He attempts, with the pope's aid, to make himself emperor; and
       his sister, Isabella, makes herself actual queen of England by
       the murder of Edward II. ... Charles-le-Bel ... died almost at
       the same time as Edward, leaving only a daughter; so that he
       was succeeded by a cousin of his. All that fine family of
       princes who had sat near their father at the Council of Vienne
       was extinct. In the popular belief, the curses of Boniface had
       taken effect. ... This memorable epoch, which depresses
       England so low, and in proportion, raises France so high,
       presents, nevertheless, in the two countries two analogous
       events: In England, the barons have overthrown Edward II. In
       France, the feudal party places on the throne the feudal
       branch of the Valois."

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          books 5-6 (volume l).

          See, also, VALOIS, THE HOUSE OF.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1314-1347.
       The king's control of the Papacy in its contest with the
       emperor.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
       The extent of the royal domain.
       The great vassals.
       The possessions of foreign princes in France.

       On the accession of the House of Valois to the French throne,
       in the person of Philip VI. (A. D. 1328), the royal domain had
       acquired a great increase of extent. In the two centuries
       since Philip I. it had gained, "by conquest, by confiscation,
       or by inheritance, Berry, or the Viscounty of Bourges,
       Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Poitou, Valois, Vermandois, the
       counties of Auvergne, and Boulogne, a part of Champagne and
       Brie, Lyonnais, Angoumois, Marche, nearly the whole of
       Languedoc, and, lastly, the kingdom of Navarre, which
       belonging in her own right to queen Jeanne, mother of the last
       three Capetians [Jeanne, heiress of the kingdom of Navarre and
       of the counties of Champagne and Brie, was married to Philip
       IV., and was the mother of Louis X., Philip V. and Charles
       IV.], Charles IV. united with the crown. But the custom among
       the kings of giving apanages or estates to the princes of
       their house detached afresh from the domain a great part of
       the reunited territories, and created powerful princely
       houses, of which the chiefs often made themselves formidable
       to the monarchs. Among these great houses of the Capetian
       race, the most formidable were: the house of Burgundy, which
       traced back to king Robert; the house of Dreux, issue of a son
       of Louis the Big, and which added by a marriage the duchy of
       Brittany to the county of that name; the house of Anjou, issue
       of Charles, brother of Saint Louis, which was united in 1290
       with that of Valois; the house of Bourbon, descending from
       Robert, Count of Clermont, sixth son of Saint Louis; and the
       house of Alençon, which traced back to Philip III., and
       possessed the duchy of Alençon and Perche. Besides these great
       princely houses of Capetian stock, which owed their grandeur
       and their origin to their apanages, there were many others
       which held considerable rank in France, and of which the
       possessions were transmissible to women; while the apanages
       were all masculine fiefs. The most powerful of these houses
       were those of Flanders, Penthièvre, Châtillon, Montmorency,
       Brienne, Coucy, Vendôme, Auvergne, Foix, and Armagnac. The
       vast possessions of the two last houses were in the country of
       the Langue d'Oc. The counts of Foix were also masters of
       Bearn, and those of Armagnac possessed Fezensac, Rouergue, and
       other large seigniories. Many foreign princes, besides, had
       possessions in France at the accession of the Valois. The king
       of England was lord of Ponthieu, of Aunis, of Saintonge, and
       of the duchy of Aquitaine; the king of Navarre was count of
       Evreux, and possessor of many other towns in Normandy; the
       king of Majorca was proprietor of the seigniory of
       Montpellier; the duke of Lorraine, vassal of the German
       empire, paid homage to the king of France for many fiefs that
       he held in Champagne; and, lastly, the Pope possessed the
       county Venaissin, detached from Provence."

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France,
          volume 1, page 224.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
       Accession of King Philip VI.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1328.
       The splendor of the Monarchy on the eve of the calamitous
       wars.

       "Indisputably, the king of France [Philip VI., or Philip de
       Valois] was at this moment [A. D. 1328] a great king. He had
       just reinstated Flanders in its state of dependence on him.
       The king of England had done him homage for his French
       provinces. His cousins reigned at Naples and in Hungary. He
       was protector of the king of Scotland. He was surrounded by a
       court of kings--by those of Navarre, Majorca, Bohemia; and
       the Scottish monarch was often one of the circle. The famous
       John of Bohemia, of the house of Luxembourg, and father to the
       emperor Charles IV., declared that he could not live out of
       Paris, 'the most chivalrous residence in the world.' He
       fluttered over all Europe, but ever returned to the court of
       the great king of France--where was kept up one constant
       festival, where jousts and tournaments ever went on, and the
       romances of chivalry, king Arthur and the round table, were
       realized."

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 6, chapter 1.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339.
       The claim of Edward III. of England to the French crown.

       "History tells us that Philip, king of France, surnamed the
       Fair, had three sons, beside his beautiful daughter Isabella,
       married to the king of England [Edward II.]. These three sons
       were very handsome. The eldest, Lewis, king of Navarre during
       the lifetime of his father, was called Lewis Hutin [Louis X.];
       the second was named Philip the Great, or the Long [Philip
       V.]; and the third, Charles [Charles IV.]. All these were
       kings of France, after their father Philip, by legitimate
       succession, one after the other, without having by marriage
       any male heirs; yet, on the death of the last king, Charles,
       the twelve peers and barons of France did not give the kingdom
       to Isabella, the sister, who was queen of England, because
       they said and maintained, and still do insist, that the
       kingdom of France is so noble that it ought not to go to a
       woman; consequently neither to Isabella, nor to her son, the
       king of England [Edward III.]; for they hold that the son of a
       woman cannot claim any right of succession, where that woman
       has none herself. For these reasons the twelve peers and
       barons of France unanimously gave the kingdom of France to the
       lord Philip of Valois, nephew to king Philip, and thus put
       aside the queen of England, who was sister to Charles, the
       late king of France, and her son. Thus, as it seemed to many
       people, the succession went out of the right line; which has
       been the occasion of the most destructive wars and
       devastations of countries, as well in France as elsewhere, as
       you will learn hereafter; the real object of this history
       being to relate the great enterprises and deeds of arms
       achieved in these wars, for from the time of good Charlemagne,
       king of France, never were such feats performed."

          J. Froissart, Chronicles (Johnes'),
          book 1, chapter 4.

       France in 1154 At the Accession of Henry II. (Anjou)
       Showing how he Acquired his fiefs in France.

       Acquired By Henry From Matilda.

       Acquired By Henry From His Father Goeffrey Of Anjou.

       Acquired By Henry From His Wife Eleanor Of Aquitaine

       French Crown Lands

       Other Vassal Lands.

    ------------------

       France in 1180
       At The Accession Of Philip Augustus
       Showing The Lands Acquired By The Crown During His Reign.

       Crown Lands At Accession Of Philip

       Acquired During His Reign Form Angevins

       Acquired During His Reign From Other Vassals

       Angevin Lands (1223)

       Other Vassal Lands

    ------------------

       France at the death of Philip IV (The Fair) 1314

    ------------------

       France at the Peace of Bretigny

    -------End: Maps of France----------------

    {1169}

       "From the moment of Charles IV.'s death [A. D. 1328], Edward
       III. of England buoyed himself up with a notion of his title
       to the crown of France, in right of his mother Isabel, sister
       to the three last kings. We can have no hesitation in
       condemning the injustice of this pretension. Whether the Salic
       law were or were not valid, no advantage could be gained by
       Edward. Even if he could forget the express or tacit decision
       of all France, there stood in his way Jane, the daughter of
       Louis X., three [daughters] of Philip the Long, and one of
       Charles the Fair. Aware of this, Edward set up a distinction,
       that, although females were excluded from succession, the same
       rule did not apply to their male issue; and thus, though his
       mother Isabel could not herself become queen of France, she
       might transmit a title to him. But this was contrary to the
       commonest rules of inheritance; and if it could have been
       regarded at all, Jane had a son, afterwards the famous king of
       Navarre [Charles the Bad], who stood one degree nearer to the
       crown than Edward. It is asserted in some French authorities
       that Edward preferred a claim to the regency immediately after
       the decease of Charles the Fair, and that the States-General,
       or at least the peers of France, adjudged that dignity to
       Philip de Valois. Whether this be true or not, it is clear
       that he entertained projects of recovering his right as early,
       though his youth and the embarrassed circumstances of his
       government threw insuperable obstacles in the way of their
       execution. He did liege homage, therefore, to Philip for
       Guienne, and for several years, while the affairs of Scotland
       engrossed his attention, gave no signs of meditating a more
       magnificent enterprise. As he advanced in manhood, and felt
       the consciousness of his strength, his early designs grew
       mature, and produced a series of the most important and
       interesting revolutions in the fortunes of France."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 1, part l.

          See, also, SALIC LAW: APPLICATION TO THE
          REGAL SUCCESSION IN FRANCE.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
       The beginning of the "Hundred Years War."

       It was not until 1337 that Edward III. felt prepared to assert
       formally his claim to the French crown and to assume the title
       of King of France. In July of the following year he began
       undertakings to enforce his pretended right, by crossing with
       a considerable force to the continent. He wintered at Antwerp,
       concerting measures with the Flemings, who had espoused his
       cause, and arranging an alliance with the emperor-king of
       Germany, whose name bore more weight than his arms. In 1339 a
       formal declaration of hostilities was made and the long
       war--the Hundred Years War, as it has been called--of English
       kings for the sovereignty of France, began. "This great war
       may well be divided into five periods. The first ends with the
       Peace of Bretigny in 1360 (A. D. 1337-1360), and includes the
       great days of Crécy [1346] and Poitiers [1356], as well as the
       taking of Calais: the second runs to the death of Charles the
       Wise in 1380; these are the days of Du Guesclin and the
       English reverses: the third begins with the renewal of the war
       under Henry V. of England, and ends with the Regency of the
       Duke of Bedford at Paris, including the field of Azincourt
       [1415] and the Treaty of Troyes (A. D. 1415-1422): the fourth
       is the epoch of Jeanne Darc and ends with the second
       establishment of the English at Paris (A. D. 1428-1431): and
       the fifth and last runs on to the final expulsion of the
       English after the Battle of Castillon in 1453. Thus, though it
       is not uncommonly called the Hundred Years War, the struggle
       really extended over a period of a hundred and sixteen years."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          book 4, chapters 1-7.

       "No war had broken out in Europe, since the fall of the Roman
       Empire, so memorable as that of Edward III. and his successors
       against France, whether we consider its duration, its object,
       or the magnitude and variety of its events. It was a struggle
       of one hundred and twenty years, interrupted but once by a
       regular pacification, where the most ancient and extensive
       dominion in the civilised world was the prize, twice lost and
       twice recovered in the conflict. ... There is, indeed, ample
       room for national exultation at the names of Crecy, Poitiers
       and Azincourt. So great was the disparity of numbers upon
       those famous days, that we cannot, with the French historians,
       attribute the discomfiture of their hosts merely to mistaken
       tactics and too impetuous valour. ... These victories, and the
       qualities that secured them, must chiefly be ascribed to the
       freedom of our constitution, and to the superior condition of
       the people. Not the nobility of England, not the feudal
       tenants, won the battles of Crecy and Poitiers; for these were
       fully matched in the ranks of France; but the yeomen who drew
       the bow with strong and steady arms, accustomed to use it in
       their native fields, and rendered fearless by personal
       competence and civil freedom. ... Yet the glorious termination
       to which Edward was enabled, at least for a time, to bring the
       contest, was rather the work of fortune than of valour and
       prudence. Until the battle of Poitiers [A. D. 1356] he had
       made no progress towards the conquest of France. That country
       was too vast, and his army too small, for such a revolution.
       The victory of Crecy gave him nothing but Calais. ... But at
       Poitiers he obtained the greatest of prizes, by taking
       prisoner the king of France. Not only the love of freedom
       tempted that prince to ransom himself by the utmost
       sacrifices, but his captivity left France defenceless and
       seemed to annihilate the monarchy itself. ... There is no
       affliction which did not fall upon France during this
       miserable period. ... Subdued by these misfortunes, though
       Edward had made but slight progress towards the conquest of
       the country, the regent of France, afterwards Charles V.,
       submitted to the peace of Bretigni [A. D. 1360]. By this
       treaty, not to mention less important articles, all Guienne,
       Gascony, Poitou, Saintonge, the Limousin, and the Angoumois,
       as well as Calais, and the county of Ponthieu, were ceded in
       full sovereignty to Edward; a price abundantly compensating
       his renunciation of the title of France, which was the sole
       concession stipulated in return."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 1, part 2.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Froissart,
          Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
          book 1, chapters 1-212.

          W. Longman, History of Edward III.,
          volume 1, chapters 6-22.

          F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France,
          chapter 20.

          D. F. Jamison,
          Life and Times of Bertrand du Guesclin,
          volume 1, chapters 4-10.

          See, also, POITIERS, BATTLE OF.

    {1170}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348.
        The Black Plague.

       "Epochs of moral depression are those, too, of great motality.
       ... In the last years of Philippe de Valois' reign, the
       depopulation was rapid. The misery and physical suffering
       which prevailed were insufficient to account for it; for they
       had not reached the extreme at which they subsequently
       arrived. Yet, to adduce but one instance, the population of a
       single town, Narbonne, fell off in the space of four or five
       years from the year 1399, by 500 families. Upon this too tardy
       diminution of the human race followed extermination,--the great
       black plague, or pestilence, which at once heaped up mountains
       of dead throughout Christendom. It began in Provence, in the
       year 1347, on All Saints' Day, continued sixteen months, and
       carried off two-thirds of the inhabitants. The same wholesale
       destruction befell Languedoc. At Montpellier, out of twelve
       consuls, ten died. At Narbonne, 30,000 persons perished. In
       several places, there remained only a tithe of the
       inhabitants. All that the careless Froissart says of this
       fearful visitation, and that only incidentally, is--'For at
       this time there prevailed throughout the world generally a
       disease called epidemy, which destroyed a third of its
       inhabitants.' This pestilence did not break out in the north
       of the kingdom until August, 1348, where it first showed
       itself at Paris and St. Denys. So fearful were its ravages at
       Paris, that, according to some, 800, according to others, 500,
       daily sank under it. ... As there was neither famine at the time
       nor want of food, but, on the contrary great abundance, this
       plague was said to proceed from infection of the air and of
       the springs. The Jews were again charged with this, and the
       people cruelly fell upon them."

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 6, chapter 1.

          See BLACK DEATH.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1350.
       Accession of King John II.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.
       The States-General and Etienne Marcel.

       "The disaster of Poitiers [1356] excited in the minds of the
       people a sentiment of national grief, mixed with indignation
       and scorn at the nobility who had fled before an army so
       inferior in number. Those nobles who passed through the cities
       and towns on their return from the battle were pursued with
       imprecations and outrages. The Parisian bourgeoisie, animated
       with enthusiasm and courage, took upon itself at all risks the
       charge of its own defense; whilst, the eldest son of the king,
       a youth of only nineteen, who had been one of the first to
       fly, assumed the government as lieutenant of his father. It
       was at the summons of this prince that the states assembled
       again at Paris before the time which they had appointed. The
       same deputies returned to the number of 800, of whom 400 were
       of the bourgeoisie; and the work of reform, rudely sketched in
       the preceding session, was resumed under the same influence,
       with an enthusiasm which partook of the character of
       revolutionary impulse. The assembly commenced by concentrating
       its action in a committee of twenty-four members,
       deliberating, as far as appears, without distinction of
       orders; it then intimated its resolutions under the form of
       petitions, which were as follow: The authority of the states
       declared supreme in all affairs of administration and finance,
       the impeachment of all the counsellors of the king, the
       dismissal in a body of the officers of justice, and the
       creation of a council of reformers taken from the three
       orders; lastly, the prohibition to conclude any truce without
       the assent of the three states, and the right on their part to
       re-assemble at their own will without a royal summons. The
       lieutenant of the king, Charles Duke of Normandy, exerted in
       vain the resources of a precocious ability to escape these
       imperious demands: he was compelled to yield everything. The
       States governed in his name; but dissension, springing from
       the mutual jealousy of the different orders, was soon
       introduced into their body. The preponderating influence of
       the bourgeois appeared intolerable to the nobles, who, in
       consequence, deserted the assembly and retired home. The
       deputies of the clergy remained longer at their posts, but
       they also withdrew at last; and, under the name of the
       States-General, none remained but the representatives of the
       cities, alone charged with all the responsibilities of the
       reform and the affairs of the kingdom. Bowing to a necessity
       of central action, they submitted of their own accord to the
       deputation of Paris; and soon, by the tendency of
       circumstances, and in consequence of the hostile attitude of
       the Regent, the question of supremacy of the states became a
       Parisian question, subject to the chances of a popular émeute
       and the guardianship of the municipal power. At this point
       appears a man whose character has grown into historical
       importance in our days from our greater facilities of
       understanding it, Etienne [Stephen] Marcel, 'prévôt des
       marchands'--that is to say, mayor of the municipality of
       Paris. This échevin of the 14th century, by a remarkable
       anticipation, designed and attempted things which seem to
       belong only to recent revolutions. Social unity, and
       administrative uniformity; political rights, co-extensive and
       equal with civil rights; the principle of public authority
       transferred from the crown to the nation; the States-General
       changed, under the influence of the third order, into a
       national representation; the will of the people admitted as
       sovereign in the presence of the depositary of the royal
       power; the influence of Paris over the provinces, as the head
       of opinion and centre of the general movement; the democratic
       dictatorship, and the influence of terror exercised in the
       name of the common weal; new colours assumed and carried as a
       sign of patriotic union and symbol of reform; the transference
       of royalty itself from one branch of the family to the other,
       with a view to the cause of reform and the interest of the
       people--such were the circumstances and the scenes which have
       given to our own as well as the preceding century their
       political character. It is strange to find the whole of it
       comprised in the three years over which the name of the Prévôt
       Marcel predominates. His short and stormy career was, as it
       were, a premature attempt at the grand designs of Providence,
       and the mirror of the bloody changes of fortune through which
       those designs were destined to advance to their accomplishment
       under the impulse of human passions. Marcel lived and died for
       an idea--that of hastening on, by the force of the masses, the
       work of gradual equalisation commenced by the kings
       themselves; but it was his misfortune and his crime to be
       unrelenting in carrying out his convictions. To the
       impetuosity of a tribune who did not shrink even from murder
       he added the talent of organization; he left in the grand
       city, which he had ruled with a stern and absolute sway,
       powerful institutions, noble works, and a name which two
       centuries afterwards his descendants bore with pride as a
       title of nobility."

          A. Thierry,
          Formation and Progress of the Tiers Etat,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          See, also,
          STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14th CENTURY.

    {1171}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1358.
       The insurrection of the Jacquerie.

       "The miseries of France weighed more and more heavily on the
       peasantry; and none regarded them. They stood apart from the
       cities, knowing little of them; the nobles despised them and
       robbed them of their substance or their labour. ... At last
       the peasantry (May, 1358), weary of their woes, rose up to
       work their own revenge and ruin. They began in the Beauvais
       country and there fell on the nobles, attacking and destroying
       castles, and slaying their inmates: it was the old unvarying
       story. They made themselves a kind of king, a man of Clermont
       in the Beauvoisin, named William Callet. Froissart imagines
       that the name 'Jacques Bonhomme' meant a particular person, a
       leader in these risings. Froissart however had no accurate
       knowledge of the peasant and his ways. Jacques Bonhomme was
       the common nickname, the 'Giles' or 'Hodge' of France, the
       name of the peasant generally; and from it such risings as
       this of 1358 came to be called the 'Jacquerie,' or the
       disturbances of the 'Jacques.' The nobles were soon out
       against them, and the whole land was full of anarchy. Princes
       and nobles, angry peasants with their 'iron shod sticks and
       knives,' free-lances, English bands of pillagers, all made up
       a scene of utter confusion: 'cultivation ceased, commerce
       ceased, security was at an end.' The burghers of Paris and
       Meaux sent a force to help the peasants, who were besieging
       the fortress at Meaux, held by the nobles; these were suddenly
       attacked and routed by the Captal de Buch and the Count de Foix,
       'then on their return from Prussia.' The King of Navarre also
       fell on them, took by stratagem their leader Callet, tortured
       and hanged him. In six weeks the fire was quenched in blood."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          chapter 2, section 3.

       "Froissard relates the horrible details of the Jacquerie with
       the same placid interest which characterises his descriptions
       of battles, tournaments, and the pageantry of chivalry. The
       charm and brilliancy of his narrative have long popularised
       his injustice and his errors, which are self-apparent when
       compared with the authors and chroniclers of his time. ... The
       chronicles contemporary of the Jacquerie confine themselves to
       a few words on the subject, although, with the exception of
       the Continuator of Nangis, they were all hostile to the cause
       of the peasants. The private and local documents on the
       subject say very little more. The Continuator of Nangis has
       drawn his information from various sources. He takes care to
       state that he has witnessed almost all he relates. After
       describing the sufferings of the peasants, he adds that the
       laws of justice authorised them to rise in revolt against the
       nobles of France. His respected testimony reduces the
       insurrection to comparatively small proportions. The hundred
       thousand Jacques of Froissard are reduced to something like
       five or six thousand men, a number much more probable when it
       is considered that the insurrection remained a purely local
       one, and that, in consequence of the ravages we have
       mentioned, the whole open country had lost about two-thirds of
       its inhabitants. He states very clearly that the peasants
       killed indiscriminately, and without pity, men and children,
       but he does not say anything of those details of atrocity
       related by Froissard. He only alludes once to a report of some
       outrages offered to some noble ladies; he speaks of it as a
       vague rumour. He describes the insurgents, after the first
       explosion of their vindictive fury, as pausing--amazed at
       their own boldness, and terrified at their own crimes, and the
       nobles, recovering from their terror, taking immediate
       advantage of this sudden torpor and paralysis--assembling and
       slaughtering all, innocent and guilty, burning houses and
       villages. If we turn to other writers contemporary with the
       Jacquerie, we find that Louvet, author of the 'History of the
       District of Beauvais,' does not say much on the subject, and
       evinces also a sympathy for the peasants: the paucity of his
       remarks on a subject represented by Froissard as a gigantic,
       bloody tragedy, raises legitimate doubts as to the veracity of
       the latter. There is another authority on the events of that
       period, which may be considered as more weighty, in
       consequence of its ecclesiastical character; it is the
       'cartulaire,' or journal of the Abbot of Beauvais. ... There
       is no trace in it of the horror and indescribable terror ...
       [the rising] must have inspired if the peasants had committed
       the atrocities attributed to them by the feudal historian,
       Froissard. On the contrary, the vengeance of the peasants
       falls into the shade, as it were, in contrast with the
       merciless reaction of the nobles, along with the sanguinary
       oppression of the English. The writer of the 'Abbey of
       Beauvais,' and the anonymous monk, 'Continuator of Nangis,'
       concur with each other in their account of the Jacquerie.
       Their judgments are similar, and they manifest the same
       moderation. Their opinions, moreover, are confirmed by a
       higher authority, a testimony that must be considered as
       indisputable, namely, the letters of amnesty of the Regent of
       France, which are all preserved; they bear the date of 10th
       August 1358, and refer to all the acts committed on the
       occasion of the Jacquerie. In these he proves himself more
       severe upon the reaction of the nobles than on the revolt of
       the peasants. ... There is not the slightest allusion to the
       monstrosities related by Froissard, which the Regent could not
       have failed to stigmatise, as he is well known for having
       entertained an unscrupulous hatred to any popular movement, or
       any claims of the people. The manner, on the contrary, in
       which the Jacquerie are represented in this official document,
       is full of signification; it represents the men of the open
       country assembling spontaneously in various localities, in
       order to deliberate on the means of resisting the English, and
       suddenly, as with a mutual agreement, turning fiercely on the
       nobles, who were the real cause of their misery, and of the
       disgrace of France, on the days of Crecy and Poitiers. ... It
       has also been forgotten that many citizens took an active part
       in the Jacquerie. The great chronicles of France state that
       the majority were peasants, labouring people, but that there
       were also among them citizens, and even gentlemen, who, no
       doubt, were impelled by personal hatred and vengeance. Many
       rich men joined the peasants, and became their leaders. The
       bourgeoisie, in its struggles with royalty, could not refuse
       to take advantage of such a diversion; and Beauvais, Senlis,
       Amiens, Paris, and Meaux accepted the Jacquerie. Moreover,
       almost all the poorer classes of the cities sympathised with
       the revolted peasants.
    {1172}
       The Jacquerie broke out on the 21st of May 1358, and not in
       November 1357, as erroneously stated by Froissard, in the
       districts around Beauvais and Clermont-sur-Oise. The peasants,
       merely armed with pikes, sticks, fragments of their ploughs,
       rushed on their masters, murdered their families, and burned
       down their castles. The country comprised between Beauvais and
       Melun was the principal scene of this war of extermination.
       ... The Jacquerie had commenced on the 21st of May. On the 9th
       of June ... it was already terminated. It was, therefore, in
       reality, an insurrection of less than three weeks' duration.
       The reprisals of the nobles had already commenced on the 9th
       of June, and continued through the whole of July, and the
       greater part of August. Froissard states that the Jacquerie
       lasted over six weeks, thus comprising in his reckoning three
       weeks of the ferocious vengeance of the nobles, and casting on
       Jacques Bonhomme the responsibility of the massacres of which
       he had been the victim, as well as those he had committed in
       his furious despair."

          Prof. De Vericour,
          The Jacquerie
          (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir J. Froissart,
          Chronicles
          (Johnes' translation),
          book 1, chapter 181.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.
       English conquests recovered.

       The Peace of Bretigny brought little peace to France or little
       diminution of the troubles of the kingdom. In some respects
       there was a change for the worse introduced. The armies which
       had ravaged the country dissolved into plundering bands which
       afflicted it even more. Great numbers of mercenaries from both
       sides were set free, who gathered into Free Companies, as they
       were called, under leaders of fit recklessness and valor, and
       swarmed over the land, warring on all prosperity and all the
       peaceful industries of the time, seeking booty wherever it
       might be found.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

       Civil war, too, was kept alive by the intrigues and
       conspiracies of the Navarrese king, Charles the Bad; and war
       in Brittany, over a disputed succession to the dukedom, was
       actually stipulated for, by French and English, in their
       treaty of general peace. But when the chivalric but hapless
       King John died, in 1364, the new king, Charles V., who had
       been regent during his captivity, developed an unexpected
       capacity for government. He brought to the front the famous
       Breton warrior Du Guesclin-rough, ignorant, unchivalric--but a
       fighter of the first order in his hard-fighting day. He
       contrived with adroitness to rid France, mostly, of the Free
       Companies, by sending them, with Du Guesclin at their head,
       into Spain, where they drove Peter the Cruel from the throne
       of Castile, and fought the English, who undertook, wickedly
       and foolishly, to sustain him. The Black Prince won a great
       battle, at Najara or Navarette (A. D. 1367), took Du Guesclin
       prisoner and restored the cruel Pedro to his throne. But it
       was a victory fatal to English interests in France. Half the
       army of the English prince perished of a pestilent fever
       before he led it back to Aquitaine, and he himself was marked
       for early death by the same malady. He had been made duke of
       Aquitaine, or Guienne, and held the government of the country.
       The war in Spain proved expensive; he taxed his Gascon and
       Aquitanian subjects heavily. He was ill, irritable, and
       treated them harshly. Discontent became widely spread, and the
       king of France subtly stirred it up until he felt prepared to
       make use of it in actual war. At last, in 1368, he challenged
       a rupture of the Peace of Bretigny by summoning King Edward,
       as his vassal, to answer complaints from Aquitaine. In April
       of the next year he formally declared war and opened
       hostilities the same day. His cunning policy was not to fight,
       but to waste and wear the enemy out. Its wisdom was well-proved
       by the result. Day by day the English lost ground; the footing
       they had gained in France was found to be everywhere insecure.
       The dying Black Prince achieved one hideous triumph at
       Limoges, where he fouled his brilliant fame by a monstrous
       massacre; and thence he was carried home to end his days in
       England. In 1376 he died, and one year later his father, King
       Edward, followed him to the grave, and a child of eleven
       (Richard II.) came to the English throne. But the same
       calamity befell France in 1380, when Charles the Wise died,
       leaving an heir to the throne only twelve years of age. In
       both kingdoms the minority of the sovereign gave rise to
       factious intrigues and distracting feuds. The war went on at
       intervals, with frequent truces and armistices, and with
       little result beyond the animosities which it kept alive. But
       the English possessions, by this time, had been reduced to
       Calais and Guines, with some small parts of Aquitaine
       adjoining the cities of Bordeaux and Bayonne. And thus, it may
       be said, the situation was prolonged through a generation,
       until Henry V. of England resumed afresh the undertaking of
       Edward III.

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 22.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 6, chapter 4.

          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          book 2, chapter 6.

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 9.

          D. F. Jamison,
          Life and Times of Du Guesclin.

          Froissart, Chronicles
          (Johnes' translation),
          book 1.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1364.
       Accession of King Charles V.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1378.
       Acquisitions in the Rhone valley legal conferred by the
       Emperor.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1380.
       Accession of King Charles VI.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.
       The reign of the Dukes.
       The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.

       "Charles VI. had arrived at the age of eleven years and some
       months when his father died [A. D. 1380]. His three paternal
       uncles, the Dukes of Anjou, Berry, and Burgundy, and his
       maternal uncle, the Duke of Bourbon, disputed among themselves
       concerning his guardianship and the regency. They agreed to
       emancipate the young King immediately after his coronation,
       which was to take place during the year, and the regency was
       to remain until that period in the hands of the eldest, the
       Duke of Anjou." But the Duke of Anjou was soon afterwards
       lured into Italy by the fatal gift of a claim to the crown of
       Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.], and perished in striving
       to realize it. The surviving uncles misgoverned the country
       between them until 1389, when the young king was persuaded to
       throw off their yoke. The nation rejoiced for three years in
       the experience and the prospect of administrative reforms; but
       suddenly, in July, 1392, the young king became demented, and
       "then commenced the third and fatal epoch of that disastrous
       reign. The faction of the dukes again seized power," but only
       to waste and afflict the kingdom by dissensions among
       themselves.
    {1173}
       The number of the rival dukes was now increased by the
       addition of the Duke of Orleans, brother of the king, who
       showed himself as ruthless and rapacious as any. "Charles was
       still considered to be reigning; each one sought in turn to
       get possession of him, and each one watched his lucid moments
       in order to stand well in power. His flashes of reason were
       still more melancholy than his fits of delirium. Incapable of
       attending to his affairs, or of having a will of his own,
       always subservient to the dominant party, he appeared to
       employ his few glimmerings of reason only in sanctioning the
       most tyrannical acts and the most odious abuses. It was in
       this manner that the kingdom of France was governed during
       twenty-eight years." In 1404, the Duke of Burgundy, Philip
       the Bold, having died, the Duke of Orleans acquired supreme
       authority and exercised it most oppressively. But the new Duke
       of Burgundy, John the Fearless, made his appearance on the
       scene ere long, arriving from his county of Flanders with an
       army and threatening civil war. Terms of peace, however, were
       arranged between the two dukes and an apparent reconciliation
       took place. On the very next day the Duke of Orleans was
       assassinated (A. D. 1407), and the Duke of Burgundy openly
       proclaimed his instigation of the deed. Out of that
       treacherous murder sprang a war of factions so deadly that
       France was delivered by it to foreign conquest, and destroyed,
       we may say, for the time being, as a nation. The elder of the
       young princes of Orleans, sons of the murdered duke, had
       married a daughter of Count Bernard of Armagnac, and Count
       Bernard became the leader of the party which supported them
       and sought to avenge them, as against the Duke of Burgundy and
       his party. Hence the former acquired the name of Armagnacs;
       the latter were called Burgundians. Armagnac led an army of
       Gascons [A. D. 1410] and threatened Paris, "where John the
       Fearless caressed the vilest populace. Burgundy relied on the
       name of the king, whom he held in his power, and armed in the
       capital a corps of one hundred young butchers or
       horse-knackers, who, from John Caboche, their chief, took the
       name of Cabochiens. A frightful war, interrupted by truces
       violated on both sides, commenced between the party of
       Armagnac and that of Burgundy. Both sides appealed to the
       English, and sold France to them. The Armagnacs pillaged and
       ravaged the environs of Paris with unheard of cruelties, while
       the Cabochiens caused the capital they defended to tremble.
       The States-General, convoked for the first time for thirty
       years, were dumb--without courage and without strength. The
       Parliament was silent, the university made itself the organ of
       the populace, and the butchers made the laws. They pillaged,
       imprisoned and slaughtered with impunity, according to their
       savage fury, and found judges to condemn their victims. ...
       The reaction broke out at last. Tired of so many atrocities,
       the bourgeoisie took up arms, and shook off the yoke of the
       horse-knackers. The Dauphin was delivered by them. He mounted
       on horseback, and, at the head of the militia, went to the
       Hôtel de Ville, from which place he drove out Caboche and his
       brigands. The counter revolution was established. Burgundy
       departed, and the power passed to the Armagnacs. The princes
       re-entered Paris, and King Charles took up the oriflamme (the
       royal standard of France), to make war against John the
       Fearless, whose instrument he had been a short time before.
       His army was victorious. Burgundy submitted, and the treaty of
    Arras [A. D. 1415] suspended the war, but not the executions and
       the ravages. Henry V., King of England, judged this a
       propitious moment to descend upon France, which had not a
       vessel to oppose the invaders."

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France,
          volume 1, pages 266-279.

          ALSO IN:
          E. de Monstrelet,
          Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
          volume 1, book 1, chapters 1-140.

          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          book 2, chapters 8-9.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1383.
       Pope Urban's Crusade against the Schismatics.

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1396.
       The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the king.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1415.
       The Hundred Years War renewed by Henry V. of England.

       "When Henry V. resolved to recover what he claimed as the
       inheritance of his predecessors, he had to begin, it may be
       said, the work of conquest over again. Allies, however, he
       had, whose assistance he was to find very useful. The dynasty
       of De Montfort had been established in possession of the
       dukedom of Britanny in a great measure by English help, and
       though the relations between the two countries had not been
       invariably friendly since that time, the sense of this
       obligation, and, still more powerfully, a jealous fear of the
       French king, inclined Britanny to the English alliance. The
       Dukes of Burgundy, though they had no such motives of
       gratitude towards England, felt a far stronger hostility
       towards France. The feud between the rival factions which went
       by the names of Burgundians and Armagnacs had now been raging
       for several years; and though the attitude of the Burgundians
       varied--at the great struggle of Agincourt they were allies,
       though lukewarm and even doubtful allies, of the French--they
       ultimately ranked themselves decidedly on Henry's side. In
       1414, then, Henry formally demanded, as the heir of Isabella,
       mother of his great-grandfather Edward, the crown of France.
       This claim the French princes wholly refused to consider.
       Henry then moderated his demands so far, at least, as to allow
       Charles to remain in nominal possession of his kingdom; but
       ... France was to cede to England, no longer as a feudal
       superior making a grant to a vassal, but in full sovereignty,
       the provinces of Normandy, Maine, and Anjou, together with all
       that was comprised in the ancient duchy of Aquitaine. Half,
       too, of Provence was claimed, and the arrears of the ransom of
       King John, amounting to 1,200,000 crowns, were also to be
       paid. Finally, the French king was to give his youngest
       daughter, Katharine, in marriage to Henry, with a portion of
       2,000,000 crowns. The French ministers offered, in answer, to
       yield the duchy of Aquitaine, comprising the provinces of
       Anjou, Gascony, Guienne, Poitou, and to give the hand of the
       princess Katharine with a dowry of 600,000 crowns.
       "Negotiations went on through several months, with small
       chance of success, while Henry prepared for war. His
       preparations were completed in the summer of 1415, and on the
       11th of August in that year he set sail from Southampton, with
       an army of 6,000 men-at-arms and 24,000 archers, very
       completely equipped, and accompanied with cannon and other
       engines of war.
    {1174}
       Landing in the estuary of the Seine, the invaders first
       captured the important Norman seaport of Harfleur, after a
       siege of a month, and expelled the inhabitants from the town.
       It was an important acquisition; but it had cost the English
       heavily. They were ill-supplied with food; they had suffered
       from much rain; 2,000 had died of an epidemic of dysentery.
       The army was in no condition for a forward movement. "The
       safest course would now have been to return at once; and this
       seems to have been pressed upon the king by the majority of
       his counsellors. But this prudent advice did not approve
       itself to Henry's adventurous temper. ... He determined ... to
       make what may be called a military parade to Calais. This
       involved a march of not less than 150 miles through a hostile
       country, a dangerous, and, but that one who cherishes such
       designs as Henry's must make a reputation for daring, a
       useless operation; but the king's determined will overcame all
       opposition." Leaving a strong garrison at Harfleur, Henry set
       out upon his march. Arrived at the Somme, his further progress
       was disputed, and he was forced to make a long detour before
       he could effect a crossing of the river. On the 24th of
       October, he encountered the French army, strongly posted at
       the village of Azincour or Agincourt, barring the road to
       Calais; and there, on the morning of the 25th, after a night
       of drenching rain, the great battle, which shines with so
       dazzling a glory in English history, was fought. There seems
       to be no doubt that the English were greatly outnumbered by
       the French--according to Monstrelet they were but one to six;
       but the masses on the French side were unskilfully handled and
       no advantage was got from them. The deadly shafts of the
       terrible English archers built such a rampart of corpses in
       their front that it actually sheltered them from the charge of
       the French cavalry. "Everywhere the French were routed, slain,
       or taken. The victory of the English was complete. ... The
       French loss was enormous. Monstrelet gives a long list of the
       chief princes and nobles who fell on that fatal field. ... We
       are disposed to trust his estimate, which, including princes,
       knights and men-at-arms of every degree, he puts at 10,000.
       ... Only 1,600 are said to have been 'of low degree.' ... The
       number of knights and gentlemen taken prisoners was 1,500.
       Among them were Charles, Duke of Orleans, and the Duke of
       Bourbon, both princes of the blood-royal. ... Brilliant as was
       the victory which Henry had won at Agincourt, it had, it may
       be said, no immediate results. ... The army resumed its
       interrupted march to Calais, which was about forty miles
       distant. At Calais a council of war was held, and the
       resolution to return to England unanimously taken. A few days
       were allowed for refreshment, and about the middle of November
       the army embarked."

          A. J. Church,
          Henry the Fifth,
          chapters 6-10.

          ALSO IN:
          E. de Monstrelet,
          Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
          volume 1, book 1, chapters 140-149.

          J. E. Tyler,
          Henry of Monmouth,
          chapters 19-23.

          G M. Towle,
          History of Henry V.,
          chapters 7-8.

          Lord Brougham,
          History of England and France
          under the House of Lancaster.

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History:
          second series, chapters 24-26.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.
       Massacre of Armagnacs.
       The murder of the Duke of Burgundy.

       "The captivity of so many princes of the blood as had been
       taken prisoner at Agincourt might have seemed likely at least
       to remove some of the elements of discord; but it so happened
       that the captives were the most moderate and least ambitious
       men. The gentle, poetical Duke of Orleans, the good Duke of
       Bourbon, and the patriotic and gallant Arthur de Richemont,
       had been taken, while the savage Duke of Burgundy and the
       violent Gascon Count of Armagnac, Constable of France,
       remained at the head of their hostile factions. ... The Count
       d'Armagnac now reigned supreme; no prince of the blood came to
       the councils, and the king and dauphin were absolutely in his
       hands. ... The Duke of Burgundy was, however, advancing with
       his forces, and the Parisians were always far more inclined to
       him than to the other party. ... For a whole day's ride round
       the environs of the city, every farmhouse had been sacked or
       burnt. Indeed, it was said in Paris a man had only to be
       called a Burgundian, or anywhere else in the Isle of France an
       Armagnac, to be instantly put to death. All the soldiers who
       had been posted to guard Normandy and Picardy against the
       English were recalled to defend Paris against the Duke of
       Burgundy; and Henry V. could have found no more favourable
       moment for a second expedition." The English king took
       advantage of his opportunity and landed in Normandy August 1,
       1417, finding nobody to oppose him in the field. The factions
       were employed too busily in cutting each other's throats,--
       especially after the Burgundians had regained possession of
       Paris, which they did in the following spring. Thereupon the
       Parisian mob rose and ferociously massacred all the partisans
       of Armagnac, while the Burgundians looked and approved. "The
       prison was forced; Armagnac himself was dragged out and slain
       in the court. ... The court of each prison became a
       slaughter-house; the prisoners were called down one by one,
       and there murdered, till the assassins were up to their ankles
       in blood. The women were as savage as the men, and dragged the
       corpses about the streets in derision. The prison slaughter
       had but given a passion for further carnage; and the murderers
       broke open the houses in search of Armagnacs, killing not only
       men, but women, children, and even new-born babes, to whom in
       their diabolical frenzy they refused baptism, as being little
       Armagnacs. The massacre lasted from four o'clock on Sunday
       morning to ten o'clock on Monday. Some say that 3,000
       perished, others 1,600, and the Duke of Burgundy's servants
       reported the numbers as only 400." Meantime Henry V. was
       besieging Rouen, and starving Paris by cutting off the
       supplies for which it depended on the Seine. In August there
       was another rising of the Parisian mob and another massacre.
       In January, 1419, Rouen surrendered, and attempts at peace
       followed, both parties making a truce with the English
       invader. The imperious demands of King Henry finally impelled
       the two French factions to draw together and to make a common
       cause of the deliverance of the kingdom. At least that was the
       profession with which the Dauphin and the Duke of Burgundy
       met, in July, and went through the forms of a reconciliation.
       Perhaps there were treacherous intentions on both sides. On
       one side the treachery was consummated a month later
       (September 10, 1419), when, a second meeting between Duke John
       the Fearless and the Dauphin taking place at the Bridge of
       Montereau, the Duke was basely assassinated in the Dauphin's
       presence.
    {1175}
       This murder, by which the Armagnacs, who controlled the young
       Dauphin, hoped to break their rivals down, only kindled afresh
       the passions which were destroying France and delivering it an
       easy prey to foreign conquest.

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          second series, chapters 28-29.

          ALSO IN:
          E. de Monstrelet,
          Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
          volume 1, book 1, chapters 150-211.

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 9, chapter 2.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.
       Burgundy's revenge.
       Henry the Fifth's triumph.
       Two kings in Paris.
       The Treaty of Troyes.
       Death of Henry.

       "Whilst civil war was ... penetrating to the very core of the
       kingship, foreign war was making its way again into the
       kingdom. Henry V., after the battle of Agincourt, had returned
       to London, and had left his army to repose and reorganize
       after its sufferings and its losses. It was not until eighteen
       months afterwards, on the 1st of August, 1417, that he landed
       at Touques, not far from Honfleur, with fresh troops, and
       resumed his campaign in France. Between 1417 and 1419 he
       successively laid siege to nearly all the towns of importance
       in Normandy, to Caen, Bayeux, Falaise, Evreux, Coutances,
       Laigle, St. Lô, Cherbourg, &c., &c. Some he occupied after a
       short resistance, others were sold to him by their governors;
       but when, in the month of July, 1418, he undertook the siege
       of Rouen, he encountered there a long and serious struggle.
       Rouen had at that time, it is said, a population of 150,000
       souls, which was animated by ardent patriotism. The Rouennese,
       on the approach of the English, had repaired their gates,
       their ramparts, and their moats; had demanded reinforcements
       from the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy; and had
       ordered every person incapable of bearing arms or procuring
       provisions for ten months to leave the city. Twelve thousand
       old men, women and children were thus expelled, and died
       either round the place or whilst roving in misery over the
       neighbouring country. ... Fifteen thousand men of
       city-militia, 4,000 regular soldiers, 300 spearmen and as many
       archers from Paris, and it is not quite known how many
       men-at-arms sent by the Duke of Burgundy, defended Rouen for
       more than five months amidst all the usual sufferings of
       strictly-besieged cities." On the 13th of January, 1419, the
       town was surrendered. "It was 215 years since Philip Augustus
       had won Rouen by conquest from John Lackland, King of
       England." After this great success there were truces brought
       about between all parties, and much negotiation, which came to
       nothing--except the treacherous murder of the Duke of
       Burgundy, as related above. Then the situation changed. The
       son and successor of the murdered duke, afterwards known as
       Philip the Good, took sides, at once, with the English king
       and committed himself to a war of revenge, indifferent to the
       fate of France. "On the 17th of October [1419] was opened at
       Arras a congress between the plenipotentiaries of England and
       those of Burgundy. On the 20th of November a special truce was
       granted to the Parisians, whilst Henry V., in concert with
       Duke Philip of Burgundy, was prosecuting the war against the
       dauphin. On the 2d of December the bases were laid of an
       agreement between the English and the Burgundians. The
       preliminaries of the treaty, which was drawn up in accordance
       with these bases, were signed on the 9th of April, 1420, by
       King Charles VI. [now controlled by the Burgundians], and on
       the 20th communicated at Paris by the chancellor of France to
       the parliament." On the 20th of May following, the treaty,
       definitive and complete, was signed by Henry V. and
       promulgated at Troyes. By this treaty of Troyes, Princess
       Catherine, daughter of the King of France, was given in
       marriage to King Henry; Charles VI. was guaranteed his
       possession of the French crown while he lived; on his death,
       "the crown and kingdom of France, with all their rights and
       appurtenances," were solemnly conveyed to Henry V. of England
       and his heirs, forever. "The revulsion against the treaty of
       Troyes was real and serious, even in the very heart of the
       party attached to the Duke of Burgundy. He was obliged to lay
       upon several of his servants formal injunctions to swear to
       this peace, which seemed to them treason. ... In the duchy of
       Burgundy the majority of the towns refused to take the oath to
       the King of England. The most decisive and the most helpful
       proof of this awakening of national feeling was the ease
       experienced by the dauphin, who was one day to be Charles
       VII., in maintaining the war which, after the treaty of
       Troyes, was, in his father's and his mother's name, made upon
       him by the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy. This war
       lasted more than three years. Several towns, amongst others,
       Melun, Crotoy, Meaux, and St. Riquier, offered an obstinate
       resistance to the attacks of the English and Burgundians. ...
       It was in Perche, Anjou, Maine, on the banks of the Loire, and
       in Southern France, that the dauphin found most of his
       enterprising and devoted partisans. The sojourn made by Henry
       V. at Paris, in December, 1420, with his wife, Queen
       Catherine, King Charles VI., Queen Isabel, and the Duke of
       Burgundy, was not, in spite of galas and acclamations, a
       substantial and durable success for him. ... Towards the end
       of August, 1422, Henry V. fell ill; and, too stout-hearted to
       delude himself as to his condition, he ... had himself removed
       to Vincennes, called his councillors about him, and gave them
       his last royal instructions. ... He expired on the 31st of
       August, 1422, at the age of thirty-four."

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 23.

       At Paris, "the two sovereigns [Henry V. and Charles VI.] kept
       distinct courts. That of Henry was by far the most splendidly
       equipped and numerously attended of the two. He was the rising
       sun, and all men looked to him. All offices of trust and
       profit were at his disposal, and the nobles and gentlemen of
       France flocked into his ante-chambers."

          A. J. Church,
          Henry the Fifth,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          E. de Monstrelet,
          Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
          volume 1, book 1, chapters 171-264.

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 9, chapters 2-3.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1422.
       Accession of King Charles VII.

    {1176}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
       The Mission of the Maid.

       "France divided--two kings, two regencies, two armies, two
       governments, two nations, two nobilities, two systems of
       justice--met face to face: father, son, mother, uncles,
       nephews, citizens, and strangers, fought for the right, the
       soil, the throne, the cities, the spoil and the blood of the
       nation. The King of England died at Vincennes [August 31,
       1422], and was shortly followed [October 22] by Charles VI.,
       father of the twelve children of Isabel, leaving the kingdom
       to the stranger and to ruin. The Duke of Bedford insolently
       took possession of the Regency in the name of England, pursued
       the handful of nobles who wished to remain French with the
       dauphin, defeated them at the battle of Verneuil [August
       17,1424], and exiled the queen, who had become a burden to the
       government after having been an instrument of usurpation. He
       then concentrated the armies of England, France and Burgundy
       round Orleans, which was defended by some thousands of the
       partisans of the dauphin, and which comprised almost all that
       remained of the kingdom of France. The land was everywhere
       ravaged by the passing and repassing of these bands--sometimes
       friends, sometimes enemies--driving each other on, wave after
       wave, like the billows of the Atlantic; ravaging crops,
       burning towns, dispersing, robbing, and ill-treating the
       population. In this disorganization of the country, the young
       dauphin, sometimes awakened by the complaints of his people,
       at others absorbed in the pleasures natural to his age, was
       making love to Agnes Sorel in the castle of Loches. ... Such
       was the state of the nation when Providence showed it a savior
       in a child." The child was Jeanne D'Arc, or Joan of Arc,
       better known in history as the Maid of Orleans,--daughter of a
       peasant who tilled his own few acres at the village of
       Domrémy, in Upper Lorraine. Of the visions of the pious young
       maiden--of the voices she heard--of the conviction which came
       upon her that she was called by God to deliver her
       country--and of the enthusiasm of faith with which she went
       about her mission until all people bent to her as the
       messenger and minister of God--the story is a familiar one to
       all. In April, 1429, Joan was sent by the king, from Blois,
       with 10,000 or 12,000 men, to the succour of Orleans, where
       Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans, was in command. She reformed
       the army, purged it of all vile followers, and raised its
       confidence to that frenzied pitch which nothing can resist. On
       the 8th of May the English abandoned the siege and Orleans was
       saved. "Joan wasted no time in vain triumphs. She brought back
       the victorious army to the dauphin, to assist him in
       reconquering city after city of his kingdom. The dauphin and
       the queens received her as the messenger of God, who had found
       and recovered the lost keys of the kingdom. 'I have only
       another year,' she remarked, with a sad presentiment, which
       seemed to indicate that her victory led to the scaffold; 'I
       must therefore set to work at once.' She begged the dauphin to
       go and be crowned at Rheims, although that city and the
       intermediate provinces were still in the power of the
       Burgundians, Flemings, and English." Counsellors and generals
       opposed; but the sublime faith of the Maid overcame all
       opposition and all difficulties. The king's route to Rheims
       was rapidly cleared of his enemies. At Patay (June 18, 1429)
       the English suffered a heavy defeat and their famous soldier,
       Lord Talbot, was taken prisoner. Troyes, Chalons and Rheims
       opened their gates. "The Duke of Bedford, the regent, remained
       trembling in Paris. 'All our misfortunes,' he wrote to the
       Cardinal of Winchester, 'are owing to a young witch, who, by
       her sorcery, has restored the courage of the French.' ... The
       king was crowned [July 17, 1429], and Joan's mission was
       accomplished. 'Noble king,' said she, embracing his knees in
       the Cathedral after the coronation, 'now is accomplished the
       will of God, which commanded me to bring you to this city of
       Rheims to receive your holy unction--now that you at last are
       king, and that the kingdom of France is yours.' ... From that
       moment a great depression, and a fatal hesitation seem to have
       come over her. The king, the people, and the army, to whom she
       had given victory, wished her to remain always their
       prophetess, their guide, and their enduring miracle. But she
       was now only a weak woman, lost amid courts and camps, and she
       felt her weakness beneath her armor. Her heart alone remained
       courageous, but had ceased to be inspired." She urged an
       attack on Paris (Sept. 8, 1429) and experienced her first
       failure, being grievously wounded in the assault. The
       following spring, Compiègne being besieged, she entered the
       town to take part in the defence. The same evening (May 24,
       1430) she led a sortie which was repulsed, and she was taken
       prisoner in the retreat. Some think she was betrayed by the
       commandant of the town, who ordered the raising of the
       drawbridge just as her horse was being spurred upon it. Once
       in the hands of her enemies, the doom of the unfortunate Maid
       was sealed. Sir Lionel de Ligny, her captor, gave his prisoner
       to the count of Luxembourg, who yielded her to the Duke of
       Burgundy, who surrendered her to the English, who delivered
       her to the Inquisition, by which she was tried, condemned and
       burned to death, at Rouen, as a witch (May 30, 1431). "It was
       a complex crime, in which each party got rid of
       responsibility, but in which the accusation rests with Paris
       [the University of Paris was foremost among the pursuers of
       the wonderful Maid], the cowardice with Luxembourg, the
       sentence with the Inquisition, the blame and punishment with
       England, and the disgrace and ingratitude with France. This
       bartering about Joan by her enemies, of whom the fiercest were
       her countrymen, had lasted six months. ... During these six
       months, the influence of this goddess of war upon the troops
       of Charles VII.--her spirit, which still guided the camp and
       council of the king--the patriotic, though superstitious,
       veneration of the people, which her captivity only
       doubled,--and, lastly, the absence of the Duke of Burgundy,
       ... all these causes had brought reverse after reverse upon
       the English, and a series of successes to Charles VII. Joan,
       although absent, triumphed everywhere."

          A. de Lamartine,
          Memoirs of Celebrated Characters: Joan of Arc.

       "It seems natural to ask what steps the King of France had
       taken ... to avert her doom. If ever there had been a
       sovereign indebted to a subject, that sovereign was Charles
       VII., that subject Joan of Arc. ... Yet, no sooner was she
       captive than she seems forgotten. We hear nothing of any
       attempt at rescue, of any proposal for ransom; neither the
       most common protest against her trial, nor the faintest threat
       of reprisals; nay, not even after her death, one single
       expression of regret! Charles continued to slumber in his
       delicious retreats beyond the Loire, engrossed by dames of a
       very different character from Joan's, and careless of the
       heroine to whom his security in that indolence was due. Her
       memory on the other hand was long endeared to the French
       people, and long did they continue to cherish a romantic hope
       that she might still survive.
    {1177}
       So strong was this feeling, that in the year 1436 advantage
       was taken of it by a female imposter, who pretended to be Joan
       of Arc escaped from her captivity. She fixed her abode at
       Metz, and soon afterwards married a knight of good family, the
       Sire des Armoises. Strange to say, it appears from a contemporary
       chronicle, that Joan's two surviving brothers acknowledged
       this woman as their sister. Stranger still, other records
       prove that she made two visits to Orleans, one before and one
       after her marriage, and on each occasion was hailed as the
       heroine returned. ... The brothers of Joan of Arc might
       possibly have hopes of profit by the fraud; but how the people
       of Orleans, who had seen her so closely, who had fought side
       by side with her in the siege, could be deceived as to the
       person, we cannot understand, nor yet what motive they could
       have in deceiving. The interest which Joan of Arc inspires at
       the present day extends even to the house where she dwelt, and
       to the family from which she sprung. Her father died of grief
       at the tidings of her execution; her mother long survived it,
       but fell into great distress. Twenty years afterwards we find
       her in receipt of a pension from the city of Orleans; three
       francs a month; 'to help her to live.' Joan's brothers and
       their issue took, the name of Du Lis from the Lily of France,
       which the King had assigned as their arms. ... It will be easy
       to trace the true character of Joan. ... Nowhere do modern
       annals display a character more pure--more generous--more
       humble amidst fancied visions and undoubted victories--more
       free from all taint of selfishness--more akin to the champions
       and martyrs of old times. All this is no more than justice and
       love of truth would require us to say. But when we find some
       French historians, transported by an enthusiasm almost equal
       to that of Joan herself, represent her us filling the part of
       a general or statesman--as skilful in leading armies, or
       directing councils--we must withhold our faith. Such skill,
       indeed, from a country girl, without either education or
       experience, would be, had she really possessed it, scarcely
       less supernatural than the visions which she claimed. But the
       facts are far otherwise. In affairs of state, Joan's voice was
       never heard; in affairs of war, all her proposals will be
       found to resolve themselves into two--either to rush headlong
       upon the enemy, often in the very point where he was
       strongest, or to offer frequent and public prayers to the
       Almighty. We are not aware of any single instance in which her
       military suggestions were not these, or nearly akin to these.
       ... Of Joan's person no authentic resemblance now remains. A
       statue to her memory had been raised upon the bridge at
       Orleans, at the sole charge ... of the matrons and maids of
       that city: this probably preserved some degree of likeness,
       but unfortunately perished in the religious wars of the
       sixteenth century. There is no portrait extant; the two
       earliest engravings are of 1606 and 1612, and they greatly
       differ."

          Lord Mahon,
          Historical Essays,
          pages 53-57.

       "A few days before her death, when urged to resume her woman's
       dress, she said: 'When I shall have accomplished that for
       which I was sent from God, I will take the dress of a woman.'
       Yet, in one sense her mission did end at Rheims. The faith of
       the people still followed her, but her enemies--not the
       English, but those in the heart of the court of Charles--began
       to be too powerful for her. We may, indeed, conceive what a
       hoard of envy and malice was gathering in the hearts of those
       hardened politicians at seeing themselves superseded by a
       peasant girl. They, accustomed to dark and tortuous ways,
       could not comprehend or coalesce with the divine simplicity of
       her designs and means. A successful intrigue was formed
       against her. It was resolved to keep her still in the camp as
       a name and a figure, but to take from her all power, all voice
       in the direction of affairs. So accordingly it was done. ...
       Her ways and habits during the year she was in arms are
       attested by a multitude of witnesses. Dunois and the Duke of
       Alençon bear testimony to what they term her extraordinary
       talents for war, and to her perfect fearlessness in action;
       but in all other things she was the most simple of creatures.
       She wept when she first saw men slain in battle, to think that
       they should have died without confession. She wept at the
       abominable epithets which the English heaped upon her; but she
       was without a trace of vindictiveness. 'Ah, Glacidas, Glacidas!'
       she said to Sir William Glasdale at Orleans, 'you have called
       me foul names; but I have pity upon your soul and the souls of
       your men. Surrender to the King of Heaven!' And she was once
       seen, resting the head of a wounded Englishman on her lap,
       comforting and consoling him. In her diet she was abstemious
       in the extreme, rarely eating until evening, and then for the
       most part, only of bread and water sometimes mixed with wine.
       In the field she slept in her armour, but when she came into a
       city she always sought out some honourable matron, under whose
       protection she placed herself; and there is wonderful evidence
       of the atmosphere of purity which she diffused around her, her
       very presence banishing from men's hearts all evil thoughts
       and wishes. Her conversation, when it was not of the war, was
       entirely of religion. She confessed often, and received
       communion twice in the week. 'And it was her custom,' says
       Dunois, 'at twilight every day, to retire to the church and
       make the bells be rung for half an hour, and she gathered the
       mendicant religious who followed the King's army, and made
       them sing an antiphon of the Blessed Mother of God.' From
       presumption, as from superstition, she was entirely free. When
       women brought her crosses and chaplets to bless, she said:
       'How can I bless them? Your own blessing would be as good as
       mine.'"

          J. O'Hagan,
          Joan of Arc,
          pages 61-66.

       "What is to be thought of her? What is to be thought of the
       poor shepherd girl from the hills and forests of Lorraine,
       that--like the Hebrew shepherd boy from the hills and forests
       of Judea--rose suddenly out of the quiet, out of the safety,
       out of the religious inspiration, rooted in deep pastoral
       solitudes, to a station in the van of armies, and to the more
       perilous station at the right hand of kings? The Hebrew boy
       inaugurated his patriotic mission by an act, by a victorious
       act, such as no man could deny. But so did the girl of
       Lorraine, if we read her story as it was read by those who saw
       her nearest. Adverse armies bore witness to the boy as no
       pretender; but so they did to the gentle girl. Judged by the
       voices of all who saw them from a station of good-will, both
       were found true and loyal to any promises involved in their
       first acts. Enemies it was that made the difference between
       their subsequent fortunes.
    {1178}
       The boy rose to a splendour, and a noonday prosperity, both
       personal and public, that rang through the records of his
       people, and became a by-word amongst his posterity for a
       thousand years, until the sceptre was departing from Judah.
       The poor, forsaken girl, on the contrary, drank not herself
       from that cup of rest which she had secured for France. ...
       This pure creature--pure from every suspicion of even a
       visionary self-interest, even as she was pure in senses more
       obvious--never once did this holy child, as regarded herself,
       relax from her belief in the darkness that was travelling to
       meet her. She might not prefigure the very manner of her
       death; she saw not in vision, perhaps, the aerial altitude of
       the fiery scaffold, the spectators without end on every road
       pouring into Rouen as to a coronation, the surging smoke, the
       volleying flames, the hostile faces all around, the pitying
       eye that lurked but here and there, until nature and
       imperishable truth broke loose from artificial
       restraints;--these might not be apparent through the mists of
       the hurrying future. But the voice that called her to death,
       that she heard for ever."

          T. De Quincey,
          Joan of Arc (Collected Writings, volume 5).

       A discussion of doubts that have been raised concerning the
       death of Joan at the stake will be found in

          Octave Delepierre's
          Historical Difficulties and Contested Events,
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 10.

          E. de Monstrelet,
          Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
          book 2, chapters 57-105.

          H. Parr,
          Life and Death of Joan of Arc.

          J. Tuckey,
          Joan of Arc.

          Mrs. A. E. Bray,
          Joan of Arc.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.
       The English expelled.

       "In Joan of Arc the English certainly destroyed the cause of
       their late reverses. But the impulse had been given, and the
       crime of base vengeance could not stay it. Fortune declared
       every where and in every way against them. In vain was Henry
       VI. brought to Paris, crowned at Notre Dame, and made to
       exercise all the functions of royalty in court and parliament.
       The duke of Burgundy, disgusted with the English, became at
       last reconciled to Charles; who spared no sacrifice to win the
       support of so powerful a subject. The amplest possible amends
       were made for the murder of the late duke. The towns beyond
       the Somme were ceded to Burgundy, and the reigning duke [but
       not his successors] was exempted from all homage towards the
       king of France. Such was the famous treaty of Arras [September
       21, 1435], which restored to Charles his throne, and deprived
       the English of all hopes of retaining their conquests in the
       kingdom. The crimes and misrule of the Orleans faction were
       forgotten; popularity ebbed in favour of Charles. ... One of
       the gates of Paris was betrayed by the citizens to the
       constable and Dunois [April, 1436]. Willoughby, the governor,
       was obliged to shut himself up in the Bastile with his
       garrison, from whence they retired to Rouen. Charles VII.
       entered his capital, after twenty years' exclusion from it, in
       November, 1437. Thenceforward the war lost its serious
       character. Charles was gradually established on his throne,
       and the struggle between the two nations was feebly carried
       on, broken merely by a few sieges and enterprises, mostly to
       the disadvantage of the English. ... There had been frequent
       endeavours and conferences towards a peace between the French
       and English. The demands on either side proved irreconcilable.
       A truce was however concluded, in 1444, which lasted four
       years; it was sealed by the marriage of Henry VI. with
       Margaret of Anjou, daughter of Réné, and granddaughter of
       Louis, who had perished while leading an army to the conquest
       of Naples. ... In 1449 the truce was allowed to expire. The
       quarrels of York and Lancaster had commenced, and England was
       unable to defend her foreign possessions. Normandy was
       invaded. The gallant Talbot could not preserve Rouen with a
       disaffected population, and Charles recovered without loss of
       blood [1449] the second capital of his dominions. The only
       blow struck by the English for the preservation of Normandy
       was at Fourmigny near Bayeux. ... Normandy was for ever lost
       to the English after this action or skirmish. The following
       year Guyenne was invaded by the count de Dunois. He met with
       no resistance. The great towns at that day had grown wealthy,
       and their maxim was to avoid a siege at all hazards." Lord
       Talbot was killed in an engagement at Castillon (1450), and
       "with that hero expired the last hopes of his country in
       regard to France. Guyenne was lost [A. D. 1453] as well as
       Normandy, and Calais remained to England the only fruit of so
       much blood spilt and so many victories achieved."

          E. E. Crowe,
          History of France,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 11.

          E. de Monstrelet,
          Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
          book 2, chapter 109, book 3, chapter 65.

          See, also,
          AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1438.
       Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
       Reforming decrees of the Council of Basel adopted for the
       Gallican church.

       After the rupture between the reforming Council of Basel and
       Pope Eugenius IV. (see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448), Charles VII.
       of France "determined to adopt in his own kingdom such of the
       decrees of the Council as were for his advantage, seeing that
       no opposition could be made by the Pope. Accordingly a Synod
       was summoned at Bourges on May 1, 1438. The embassadors of
       Pope and Council urged their respective causes. It was agreed
       that the King should write to Pope and Council to stay their
       hands in proceeding against one another; meanwhile, that the
       reformation be not lost, some of the Basel decrees should be
       maintained in France by royal authority. The results of the
       synod's deliberation were laid before the King, and on July 7
       were made binding as a pragmatic sanction on the French
       Church. The Pragmatic Sanction enacted that General Councils
       were to be held every ten years, and recognised the authority
       of the Council of Basel. The Pope was no longer to reserve any
       of the greater ecclesiastical appointments, but elections were
       to be duly made by the rightful patrons. Grants to benefices
       in expectancy, 'whence all agree that many evils arise,' were
       to cease, as well as reservations. In all cathedral churches,
       one prebend was to be given to a theologian who had studied
       for ten years in a university, and who was to lecture or
       preach at least once a week. Benefices were to be conferred in
       future, one-third on graduates, two-thirds on deserving
       clergy. Appeals to Rome, except for important causes, were
       forbidden. The number of Cardinals was to be 24, each of the
       age of 30 at least. Annates and first-fruits were no longer to
       be paid to the Pope, but only the necessary legal fees on
       institution. Regulations were made for greater reverence in
       the conduct of Divine service; prayers were to be said by the
       priest in an audible voice; mummeries in churches were
       forbidden, and clerical concubinage was to be punished by
       suspension for three months. Such were the chief reforms of
       its own special grievances, which France wished to establish.
       It was the first step in the assertion of the rights of
       national Churches to arrange for themselves the details of
       their own ecclesiastical organisation."

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
          book 3, chapter 9 (volume 2).

    {1179}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1447.
       Origin of the claims of the house of Orleans to the duchy of
       Milan.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.
       The reconstructed kingdom.
       The new plant of Absolutism.

       "At the expulsion of the English, France emerged from the
       chaos with an altered character and new features of
       government. The royal authority and supreme jurisdiction of
       the parliament were universally recognised. Yet there was a
       tendency towards insubordination left among the great
       nobility, arising in part from the remains of old feudal
       privileges, but still more from that lax administration which,
       in the convulsive struggles of the war, had been suffered to
       prevail. In the south were some considerable vassals, the
       houses of Foix, Albret, and Armagnac, who, on account of their
       distance from the seat of empire, had always maintained a very
       independent conduct. The dukes of Britany and Burgundy were of
       a more formidable character, and might rather be ranked among
       foreign powers than privileged subjects. The princes, too, of
       the royal blood, who, during the late reign, had learned to
       partake or contend for the management, were ill-inclined
       towards Charles VII., himself jealous, from old recollections
       of their ascendancy. They saw that the constitution was
       verging rapidly towards an absolute monarchy, from the
       direction of which they would studiously be excluded. This
       apprehension gave rise to several attempts at rebellion during
       the reign of Charles VII., and to the war, commonly entitled,
       for the Public Weal ('du bien public'), under Louis XI. Among
       the pretenses alleged by the revolters in each of these, the
       injuries of the people were not forgotten; but from the people
       they received small support. Weary of civil dissension, and
       anxious for a strong government to secure them from
       depredation, the French had no inducement to intrust even
       their real grievances to a few malcontent princes, whose
       regard for the common good they had much reason to distrust.
       Every circumstance favoured Charles VII. and his son in the
       attainment of arbitrary power. The country was pillaged by
       military ruffians. Some of these had been led by the dauphin
       to a war in Germany, but the remainder still infested the high
       roads and villages. Charles established his companies of
       ordonnance, the basis of the French regular army, in order to
       protect the country from such depredators. They consisted of
       about nine thousand soldiers, all cavalry, of whom fifteen
       hundred were heavy-armed; a force not very considerable, but
       the first, except mere body-guards, which had been raised in
       any part of Europe as a national standing army. These troops
       were paid out of the produce of a permanent tax, called the
       taille; an innovation still more important than the former.
       But the present benefit cheating the people, now prone to
       submissive habits, little or no opposition was made, except in
       Guienne, the inhabitants of which had speedy reason to regret
       the mild government of England, and vainly endeavoured to
       return to its protection. It was not long before the new
       despotism exhibited itself in its harshest character. Louis
       XI., son of Charles VII., who during his father's reign, had
       been connected with the discontented princes, came to the
       throne greatly endowed with those virtues and vices which
       conspire to the success of a king."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 1, part 2.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1458-1461.
       Renewed submission of Genoa to the King, and renewed revolt.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1461.
       Accession of King Louis XI.
       Contemporary portrait of him by Commines.

       "Of all the princes that I ever knew, the wisest and most
       dexterous to extricate himself out of any danger or difficulty
       in time of adversity, was our master King Louis XI. He was the
       humblest in his conversation and habit, and the most painful
       and indefatigable to win over any man to his side that he
       thought capable of doing him either mischief or service:
       though he was often refused, he would never give over a man
       that he wished to gain, but still pressed and continued his
       insinuations, promising him largely, and presenting him with
       such sums and honours as he knew would gratify his ambition;
       and for such as he had discarded in time of peace and
       prosperity, he paid dear (when he had occasion for them) to
       recover them again; but when he had once reconciled them, he
       retained no enmity towards them for what had passed, but
       employed them freely for the future. He was naturally kind and
       indulgent to persons of mean estate, and hostile to all great
       men who had no need of him. Never prince was so conversable,
       nor so inquisitive as he, for his desire was to know everybody
       he could; and indeed he knew all persons of any authority or
       worth in England, Spain, Portugal and Italy, in the
       territories of the Dukes of Burgundy and Bretagne, and among
       his own subjects; and by those qualities he preserved the
       crown upon his head, which was in much danger by the enemies
       he had created to himself upon his accession to the throne.
       But above all, his great bounty and liberality did him the
       greatest service: and yet, as he behaved himself wisely in
       time of distress, so when he thought himself a little out of
       danger, though it were but by a truce, he would disoblige the
       servants and officers of his court by mean and petty ways,
       which were little to his advantage; and as for peace, he could
       hardly endure the thoughts of it. He spoke slightingly of most
       people, and rather before their faces, than behind their
       backs, unless he was afraid of them, and of that sort there
       were a great many, for he was naturally somewhat timorous.
       When he had done himself any prejudice by his talk, or was
       apprehensive he should do so, and wished to make amends, he
       would say to the person whom he had disobliged, 'I am sensible
       my tongue has done me a great deal of mischief; but, on the
       other hand, it has sometimes done me much good; however, it is
       but reason I should make some reparation for the injury.' And
       he never used this kind of apologies to any person, but he
       granted some favour to the person to whom he made it, and it
       was always of considerable amount. It is certainly a great
       blessing from God upon any prince to have experienced
       adversity as well as prosperity, good as well as evil, and
       especially if the good outweighs the evil, as it did in the
       king our master.
    {1180}
       I am of opinion that the troubles he was involved in, in his
       youth, when he fled from his father, and resided six years
       together with Philip Duke of Burgundy, were of great service
       to him; for there he learned to be complaisant to such as he
       had occasion to use, which was no slight advantage of
       adversity. As soon as he found himself a powerful and crowned
       king, his mind was wholly bent upon revenge; but he quickly
       found the inconvenience of this, repented by degrees of his
       indiscretion, and made sufficient reparation for his folly and
       error, by regaining those he had injured, as shall be related
       hereafter. Besides, I am very confident that if his education
       had not been different from the usual education of such nobles
       as I have seen in France, he could not so easily have worked
       himself out of his troubles; for they are brought up to
       nothing but to make themselves ridiculous, both in their
       clothes and discourse; they have no knowledge of letters; no
       wise man is suffered to come near them, to improve their
       understandings; they have governors who manage their business,
       but they do nothing themselves."--Such is the account of Louis
       XI. which Philip de Commines gives in one of the early
       chapters of his delightful Memoirs. In a later chapter he
       tells naively of the king's suspicions and fears, and of what
       he suffered, at the end of his life, as the penalty of his
       cruel and crafty dealings with his subjects: "Some five or six
       months before his death, he began to suspect everybody,
       especially those who were most capable and deserving of the
       administration of affairs. He was afraid of his son, and
       caused him to be kept close, so that no man saw or discoursed
       with him, but by his special command. At last he grew
       suspicious of his daughter, and of his son-in-law the Duke of
       Bourbon, and required an account of what persons came to speak
       with them at Plessis, and broke up a council which the Duke of
       Bourbon was holding there, by his order. ... Behold, then, if
       he had caused many to live under him in continual fear and
       apprehension, whether it was not returned to him again; for of
       whom could he be secure when he was afraid of his son-in-law,
       his daughter, and his own son? I speak this not only of him,
       but of all other princes who desire to be feared, that
       vengeance never falls on them till they grow old, and then, as
       a just penance, they are afraid of everybody themselves; and
       what grief must it have been to this poor King to be tormented
       with such terrors and passions? He was still attended by his
       physician, Master James Coctier, to whom in five months' time
       he had given fifty-four thousand crowns in ready money,
       besides the bishopric of Amiens for his nephew, and other
       great offices and estates for himself and his friends; yet
       this doctor used him very roughly indeed; one would not have
       given such outrageous language to one's servants as he gave
       the King, who stood in such awe of him, that he durst not
       forbid him his presence. It is true he complained of his
       impudence afterwards, but he durst not change him as he had
       done all the rest of his servants; because he had told him
       after a most audacious manner one day, 'I know well that some
       time or other you will dismiss me from court, as you have done
       the rest; but be sure (and he confirmed it with a great oath)
       you shall not live eight days after it'; with which expression
       the King was so terrified, that ever after he did nothing but
       flatter and bribe him, which must needs have been a great
       mortification to a prince who had been humbly obeyed all his
       life by so many good and brave men. The King had ordered
       several cruel prisons to be made; some were cages of iron, and
       some of wood, but all were covered with iron plates both
       within and without, with terrible locks, about eight feet wide
       and seven high; the first contriver of them was the Bishop of
       Verdun, who was immediately put in the first of them that was
       made, where he continued fourteen years. Many bitter curses he
       has had since for his invention, and some from me as I lay in
       one of them eight months together in the minority of our
       present King. He also ordered heavy and terrible fetters to be
       made in Germany, and particularly a certain ring for the feet,
       which was extremely hard to be opened, and fitted like an iron
       collar, with a thick weighty chain, and a great globe of iron
       at the end of it, most unreasonably heavy, which engines were
       called the King's Nets. ... As in his time this barbarous
       variety of prisons was invented, so before he died he himself
       was in greater torment, and more terrible apprehension than
       those whom he had imprisoned; which I look upon as a great
       mercy towards him, and as it part of his purgatory; and I have
       mentioned it here to show that there is no person, of what
       station or dignity soever, but suffers some time or other,
       either publicly or privately, especially if he has caused
       other people to suffer. The King, towards the latter end of
       his days, caused his castle of Plessis-les-Tours to be
       encompassed with great bars of iron in the form of thick
       grating, and at the four corners of the house four
       sparrow-nests of iron, strong, massy, and thick, were built.
       The grates were without the wall on the other side of the
       ditch, and sank to the bottom. Several spikes of iron were
       fastened into the wall, set as thick by one another as was
       possible, and each furnished with three or four points. He
       likewise placed ten bow-men in the ditches, to shoot at any
       man that durst approach the castle before the opening of the
       gates; and he ordered they should lie in the ditches, but
       retire to the sparrow-nests upon occasion. He was sensible
       enough that this fortification was too weak to keep out an
       army, or any great body of men, but he had no fear of such an
       attack; his great apprehension was, that some of the nobility
       of his kingdom, having intelligence within, might attempt to
       make themselves masters of the castle by night. ... Is it
       possible then to keep a prince (with any regard to his
       quality) in a closer prison than he kept himself? The cages
       which were made for other people were about eight feet square;
       and he (though so great a monarch) had but a small court of
       the castle to walk in, and seldom made use of that, but
       generally kept himself in the gallery, out of which he went
       into the chambers on his way to mass, but never passed through
       the court. ... I have not recorded these things merely to
       represent our master as a suspicious and mistrustful prince;
       but to show, that by the patience which he expressed in his
       sufferings (like those which he inflicted on other people),
       they may be looked upon, in my judgment, as a punishment which
       our Lord inflicted upon him in this world, in order to deal
       more mercifully with him in the next, as well in regard to
       those things before-mentioned as to the distempers of his
       body, which were great and painful, and much dreaded by him
       before they came upon him; and, likewise, that those princes
       who may be his successors, may learn by his example to be more
       tender and indulgent to their subjects, and less severe in
       their punishments than our master had been: although I will
       not censure him, or say I ever saw a better prince; for though
       he oppressed his subjects himself he would never see them
       injured by anybody else."

          Philip de Commines,
          Memoirs,
          book 1, chapter 10,
          and book 6, chapter 11.

    {1181}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.
       The character and reign of Louis XI.
       The League of the Public Weal.

       "Except St. Louis, he [Louis XI.] was the first, as, indeed
       (with the solitary exception of Louis Philippe), he is still
       the only king of France whose mind was ever prepared for the
       duties of that high station by any course of severe and
       systematic study. Before he ascended the throne of his
       ancestors he had profoundly meditated the great Italian
       authors, and the institutions and maxims of the Italian
       republics. From those lessons he had derived a low esteem of
       his fellowmen, and especially of those among them upon whom
       wealth, and rank, and power had descended as an hereditary
       birthright. ... He clearly understood, and pursued with
       inflexible steadfastness of purpose the elevation of his
       country and the grandeur of his own royal house and lineage;
       but he pursued them with a torpid imagination, a cold heart,
       and a ruthless will. He regarded mankind as a physiologist
       contemplates the living subjects of his science, or as a
       chess-player surveys the pieces on his board. ... It has been
       said of Louis XI., that the appearance of the men of the
       Revolution of 1789 first made him intelligible. ... Louis was
       the first of the terrible Ideologists of France--of that class
       of men who, to enthrone an idolized idea, will offer whole
       hecatombs of human sacrifices at the shrine of their idol. The
       Idea of Louis was that of levelling all powers in the state,
       in order that the administration of the affairs, the
       possession of the wealth, and the enjoyment of the honours of
       his kingdom might be grasped by himself and his successors as
       their solitary and unrivalled dominion. ... Before his
       accession to the throne, all the great fiefs into which France
       had been divided under the earlier Capetian kings had, with
       the exception of Bretagne, been either annexed to the royal
       domain, or reduced to a state of dependence on the crown. But,
       under the name of Apanages, these ancient divisions of the
       kingdom into separate principalities had reappeared. The
       territorial feudalism of the Middle Ages seemed to be reviving
       in the persons of the younger branches of the royal house. The
       Dukes of Burgundy had thus become the rulers of a state [see
       BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467] which, under the government of more
       politic princes, might readily, in fulfillment of their
       desires, have attained the rank of an independent kingdom. The
       Duke of Bretagne, still asserting the peculiar privileges of
       his duchy, was rather an ally than a subject of the king of
       France. Charles, Duke of Berri, the brother of Louis, aspired
       to the possession of the same advantages. And these three
       great territorial potentates, in alliance with the Duc de
       Bourbon and the Comte de St. Pol, the brothers-in-law of Louis
       and of his queen, united together to form that confederacy
       against him to which they gave the very inappropriate title of
       La Ligue du Bien Public. It was, however, a title which
       recognized the growing strength of the Tiers Étât, and of that
       public opinion to which the Tiers Étât at once gave utterance
       and imparted authority. Selfish ambition was thus compelled to
       assume the mask of patriotism. The princes veiled their
       insatiable appetite for their own personal advantages under
       the popular and plausible demands of administrative
       reforms--of the reduction of imposts--of the government of
       the people by their representatives--and, consequently, of the
       convocation of the States-General. To these pretensions Louis
       was unable to make any effectual resistance." An indecisive
       but bloody battle was fought at Montlehery, near Paris (July
       16, 1465), from which both armies retreated with every
       appearance of defeat. The capital was besieged ineffectually
       for some weeks by the League; then the king yielded, or seemed
       to do so, and the Treaty of Conflans was signed. "He assented,
       in terms at least, to all the demands of his antagonists. He
       granted to the Duke of Berri the duchy of Normandy as an
       apanage transmissible in perpetuity to his male heirs. ... The
       confederates then laid down their arms. The wily monarch bided
       his time. He had bestowed on them advantages which he well
       knew would destroy their popularity and so subvert the basis
       of their power, and which he also knew the state of public
       opinion would not allow them to retain. To wrest those
       advantages from their hands, it was only necessary to comply
       with their last stipulation, and to convene the
       States-General. They met accordingly, at Tours, on the 6th of
       April, 1468." As Louis had anticipated--or, rather, as he had
       planned--the States-General cancelled the grant of Normandy to
       the Duke of Berri (which the king had been able already to
       recover possession of, owing to quarrels between the dukes of
       Berri and Brittany) and, generally, took away from the princes
       of the League nearly all that they had extorted in the Treaty
       of Conflans. On the express invitation of the king they
       appointed a commission to reform abuses in the
       government--which commission "attempted little and effected
       nothing"--and, then, having assisted the cunning king to
       overcome his threatening nobles, the States-General were
       dissolved, to meet no more while Louis XI. occupied the
       throne. In a desperate situation he had used the dangerous
       weapon against his enemies with effect; he was too prudent to
       draw it from the sheath a second time.

          Sir J. Stephen,
          Lectures on the History of France,
          lecture 11.

       "The career of Louis XI. presents a curious problem. How could
       a ruler whose morality fell below that of Jonathan Wild yet
       achieve some of the greatest permanent results of patriotic
       statesmanship, and be esteemed not only by himself but by so
       calm an observer as Commines the model of kingly virtue? As to
       Louis's moral character and principles, or want of principle,
       not a doubt can be entertained. To say he committed the acts
       of a villain is to fall far short of the truth. ... He
       possessed a kind of religious belief, but it was a species of
       religion which a respectable heathen would have scorned. He
       attempted to bribe heaven, or rather the saints, just as he
       attempted to win over his Swiss allies--that is, by gifts of
       money. ... Yet this man, who was daunted by no cruelty, and
       who could be bound by no oath save one, did work which all
       statesmen must admire, and which French patriots must
       fervently approve.
    {1182}
       He was the creator of modern France. When he came to the
       throne it seemed more than likely that an utterly selfish and
       treacherous nobility would tear the country in pieces. The
       English still threatened to repeat the horrors of their
       invasions. The House of Burgundy overbalanced the power of the
       crown, and stimulated lawlessness throughout the whole
       country. The peasantry were miserably oppressed, and the
       middle classes could not prosper for want of that rule of law
       which is the first requisite for civilization. When Louis
       died, the existence of France and the power of the French
       crown was secured: 'He had extended the frontiers of his
       kingdom; Picardy, Provence, Burgundy, Anjou, Maine, Roussillon
       had been compelled to acknowledge the immediate authority of
       the crown.' He had crushed the feudal oligarchy; he had seen
       his most dangerous enemy destroyed by the resistance of the
       Swiss; he had baffled the attempt to construct a state which
       would have imperilled the national existence of France; he had
       put an end to all risk of English invasion; and he left France
       the most powerful country in Europe. Her internal government
       was no doubt oppressive, but, at any rate, it secured the rule
       of law; and his schemes for her benefit were still unfinished.
       He died regretting that he could not carry out his plans for
       the reform of the law and for the protection of commerce; and,
       in the opinion of Commines, if God had granted him the grace
       of living five or six years more, he would greatly have
       benefited his realm. He died commending his soul to the
       intercession of the Virgin, and the last words caught from his
       lips were: 'Lord, in thee have I trusted; let me never be
       confounded.' Nor should this be taken as the expression of
       hopeless self-delusion or gratuitous hypocrisy. In the opinion
       of Commines, uttered after the king's death, 'he was more
       wise, more liberal, and more virtuous in all things than any
       contemporary sovereign.' The expressions of Commines were, it
       may be said, but the echo of the low moral tone of the age.
       This, no doubt, is true; but the fact that the age did not
       condemn acts which, taken alone, seem to argue the utmost
       depravity, still needs explanation. The matter is the more
       worthy of consideration because Louis represents, though in an
       exaggerated form, the vices and virtues of a special body of
       rulers. He was the incarnation, so to speak, of kingcraft. The
       word and the idea it represents have now become out of date,
       but for about two centuries--say, roughly, from the middle of
       the seventeenth century--the idea of a great king was that of
       a monarch who ruled by means of cunning, intrigue, and
       disregard of ordinary moral rules. We here come across the
       fact which explains both the career and the reputation of
       Louis and of others, such as Henry VII. of England, who were
       masters of kingcraft. The universal feeling of the time,
       shared by subjects no less than by rulers, was that a king was
       not bound by the rules of morality, and especially by the
       rules of honesty, which bind other men. Until you realize this
       fact, nothing is more incomprehensible than the adulation
       lavished by men such as Bacon or Casaubon on a ruler such as
       James I. ... The real puzzle is to ascertain how this feeling
       that kings were above the moral law came into existence. The
       facts of history afford the necessary explanation. When the
       modern European world was falling into shape the one thing
       required for national prosperity was the growth of a power
       which might check the disorders of the feudal nobility, and
       secure for the mass of the people the blessings of an orderly
       government. The only power which, in most cases, could achieve
       this end, was the crown. In England the monarchs put an end to
       the wars of the nobility. In France the growth of the monarchy
       secured not only internal quiet, but protection from external
       invasion. In these and in other cases the interest of the
       crown and the interest of the people became for a time
       identical. ... Acts which would have seemed villainous when
       done to promote a purely private interest, became mere devices
       of statesmanship when performed in the interest of the public.
       The maxims that the king can do no wrong, and that the safety
       of the people is the highest law, blended together in the
       minds of ambitious rulers. The result was the production of
       men like Louis XI."

          A. V. Dicey,
          Willert's Louis XI.
          (The Nation, December 7, 1876).

       "A careful examination of the reign of Louis the Eleventh has
       particularly impressed upon me one fact, that the ends for
       which he toiled and sinned throughout his whole life were
       attained at last rather by circumstances than by his labours.
       The supreme object of all his schemes was to crush that most
       formidable of all his foes, Burgundy. And yet had Charles
       confined his ambition within reasonable limits, had he
       possessed an ordinary share of statecraft, and, above all,
       could he have controlled those fiery passions, which drove him
       to the verge of madness, he would have won the game quite
       easily. Louis lacked one of the essential qualities of
       statecraft--patience; and was wholly destitute of that
       necessity of ambition--boldness. An irritable restlessness
       was one of the salient points of his character. His courtiers
       and attendants were ever intriguing to embroil him in war,
       'because,' says Comines, 'the nature of the King was such,
       that unless he was at war with some foreign prince, he would
       certainly find some quarrel or other at home with his
       servants, domestics, or officers, for his mind must be always
       working.' His mood was ever changing, and he was by turns
       confiding, suspicious, avaricious, prodigal, audacious, and
       timid. He frequently nullified his most crafty schemes by
       impatience for the result. He would sow the seed with the
       utmost care, but he could not wait for the fructification. In
       this he was false to the practice of those Italian statesmen
       who were avowedly his models. It was this irritable
       restlessness which brought down upon him the hatred of all
       classes, from the noble to the serf; for we find him at one
       time cunningly bidding for popularity, and immediately
       afterwards destroying all he had gained by some rash and
       inconsiderate act. His extreme timidity hampered the execution
       of all his plans. He had not even the boldness of the coward
       who will fight when all the strength is on his own side.
       Constantly at war, during a reign of twenty-two years there
       were fought but two battles, Montlehéry and Guingette, both of
       which, strange to say, were undecided, and both of which were
       fought against his will and counsel. ... He left France larger
       by one-fourth than he had inherited it; but out of the five
       provinces which he acquired, Provence was bequeathed him,
       Roussillon was pawned to him by the usurping King of Navarre,
       and Burgundy was won for him by the Swiss. His triumphs were
       much more the result of fortune than the efforts of his own
       genius."

          Louis the Eleventh
          (Temple Bar, volume 46, pages 523-524).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 13.

          P. F. Willert,
          The Reign of Louis XI.

          J. F. Kirk,
          History of Charles the Bold,
          book 1, chapters 4-6.

          P. de Commines,
          Memoirs,
          book 1.

          E. de Monstrelet,
          Chronicles
          (Johnes' translation),
          book 3, chapters 99-153.

    {1183}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1467-1477.
       The troubles of Louis XI. with Charles the Bold, of Burgundy.
       Death of the Duke and Louis' acquisition of Burgundy.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468, to 1477.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1483.
       The kingdom as left by Louis XI.

       Louis XI., who died Aug. 30, A. D. 1483, "had joined to the
       crown Berry, the apanage of his brother, Provence, the duchy
       of Burgundy, Anjou, Maine, Ponthieu, the counties of Auxerre,
       of Mâcon, Charolais, the Free County, Artois, Marche,
       Armagnac, Cerdagne, and Roussilon. ... The seven latter
       provinces did not yet remain irrevocably united with France:
       one part was given anew in apanage, and the other part
       restored to foreign sovereigns, and only returned one by one
       to the crown of France. ... The principal work of Louis XI.
       was the abasement of the second feudality, which had raised
       itself on the ruins of the first, and which, without him,
       would have replunged France into anarchy. The chiefs of that
       feudality were, however, more formidable, since, for the most
       part, they belonged to the blood royal of France. Their
       powerful houses, which possessed at the accession of that
       prince a considerable part of the kingdom, were those of
       Orleans, Anjou, Burgundy, and Bourbon. They found themselves
       much weakened at his death, and dispossessed in great part, as
       we have seen in the history of the reign, by confiscations,
       treaties, gifts or heritages. By the side of these houses,
       which issued from that of France, there were others whose
       power extended still, at this period, in the limits of France
       proper, over vast domains. Those of Luxembourg and La Mark
       possessed great wealth upon the frontier of the north; that of
       Vaudemont had inherited Lorraine and the duchy of Bar; the
       house of La Tour was powerful in Auvergne; in the south the
       houses of Foix and Albert ruled, the first in the valley of
       Ariége, the second between the Adour and the Pyrenees. In the
       west the house of Brittany had guarded its independence; but
       the moment approached when this beautiful province was to be
       forever united with the crown. Lastly, two foreign sovereigns
       held possessions in France; the Pope had Avignon and the
       county Venaissin; and the Duke of Savoy possessed, between the
       Rhone and the Saône, Bugey and Valromey. The time was still
       distant when the royal authority would be seen freely
       exercised through every territory comprised in the natural
       limits of the kingdom. But Louis XI. did much to attain this
       aim, and after him no princely or vassal house was powerful
       enough to resist the crown by its own forces, and to put the
       throne in peril."

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France,
          volume 1, pages 315-318,
          and foot-note.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1483.
       Accession of King Charles VIII.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1485-1487.
       The League of the Princes.

       Charles VIII., son and successor of Louis XI., came to the
       throne at the age of thirteen, on the death of his father in
       1483. His eldest sister, Anne, married to the Lord of Beaujeu,
       made herself practically regent of the kingdom, by sheer
       ability and force of character; and ruled during the minority,
       pursuing the lines of her father's policy. The princes of the
       blood-royal, with the Dukes of Orleans and Bourbon at their
       head, formed a league against her. They were supported by many
       nobles, including Philip de Commines, the Count of Dunois and
       the Prince of Orange. They also received aid from the Duke of
       Brittany, and from Maximilian of Austria, who now controlled
       the Netherlands. Anne's general, La Trémouille, defeated the
       league in a decisive battle (A. D. 1487) near St. Aubin du
       Cormier, where the Duke of Orleans, the Prince of Orange, and
       many nobles and knights were made prisoners. The Duke and the
       Prince were sent to Anne, who shut them up in strong places,
       while most of their companions were summarily executed.

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France,
          volume 1, book 3, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          ch. 26.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1491.
       Brittany, the last of the great fiefs, united to the crown.
       The end of the Feudal System.

       See BRITTANY: A. D. 1491.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515.
       The reigns of Charles VIII. and Louis XII.
       Their Italian Expeditions and Wars.
       The effects on France.
       Beginning of the Renaissance.

       Louis XI. was succeeded by his son, Charles VIII., a boy of
       thirteen years, whose elder sister Anne governed the kingdom
       ably until he came of age. She dealt firmly with a rebellion
       of the nobles and suppressed it. She frustrated an intended
       marriage of Anne of Brittany with Maximilian of Austria, which
       would have drawn the last of the great semi-independent fiefs
       into a dangerous relationship, and she made Charles instead of
       his rival the husband of the Breton heiress. When Charles, who
       had little intelligence, assumed the government, he was
       excited with dreams of making good the pretensions of the
       Second House of Anjou to the Kingdom of Naples. Those
       pretensions, which had been bequeathed to Louis XI., and which
       Charles VIII. had now inherited, had the following origin: "In
       the eleventh century, Robert Guiscard, of the Norman family of
       Hauteville, at the head of a band of adventurers, took
       possession of Sicily and South Italy, then in a state of
       complete anarchy. Roger, the son of Robert, founded the
       Kingdom of the Two Sicilies under the Pope's suzerainty. In
       1189 the Guiscard family became extinct, whereupon the German
       Emperor laid claim to the kingdom in right of his wife
       Constance, daughter of one of the Norman kings. The Roman
       Pontiffs, dreading such powerful neighbours, were adverse to
       the arrangement, and in 1254 King Conrad, being succeeded by
       his son Conradin, still a minor, furnished a pretext for
       bestowing the crown of the Two Sicilies on Charles d' Anjou,
       brother of St. Louis. Manfred, guardian of the boy Conradin,
       and a natural son of the Emperor Frederick II., raised an army
       against Charles d' Anjou, but was defeated, and fell in the
       encounter of 1266. Two years later, Prince Conradin was
       cruelly beheaded in Naples. Before his death, however, he made
       a will, by which he invested Peter III. of Aragon, son-in-law
       of Manfred, with full power over the Two Sicilies, exhorting
       him to avenge his death [see ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].
    {1184}
       This bequest was the origin of the rivalry between the houses
       of Aragon and Anjou, a rivalry which developed into open
       antagonism when the island of Sicily was given up to Peter of
       Aragon and his descendants, while Charles d' Anjou still held
       Naples for himself and his heirs [see ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300].
       In 1435 Joan II., Queen of Naples, bequeathed her estates to
       Alfonso V. of Aragon, surnamed the Magnanimous, to the
       exclusion of Louis III. of Anjou. After a long and bloody
       struggle, Alfonso succeeded in driving the Anjou dynasty out
       of Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414]. Louis
       III. was the last representative of this once-powerful family.
       He returned to France, survived his defeat two-and-twenty
       years, and by his will left all his rights to the Count of
       Maine, his nephew, who, on his death, transferred them to
       Louis XI. The wily Louis was not tempted to claim this
       worthless legacy. His successor, Charles VIII., less
       matter-of-fact, and more romantic, was beguiled into a series
       of brilliant, though sterile, expeditions, disastrous to
       national interests, neglecting the Flemish provinces, the
       liege vassals of France, and thoroughly French at heart.
       Charles VIII. put himself at the head of his nobles, made a
       triumphal entry into Naples and returned without having gained
       an inch of territory [see ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494, and 1494-1496].
       De Commines judges the whole affair a mystery; it was,
       in fact, one of those dazzling and chivalrous adventures with
       which the French delighted to astonish Europe. Louis XII.,
       like Charles VIII. [whom he succeeded in 1498], proclaimed his
       right to Naples, and also to the Duchy of Milan, inherited
       from his grandmother, Valentine de Visconti. These pretended
       rights were more than doubtful. The Emperor Wenceslas, on
       conferring the duchy on the Viscontis, excluded women from the
       inheritance, and both Louis XI. and Charles VIII. recognised
       the validity of the Salic law in Milan by concluding an
       alliance with the Sforzas. The seventeen years of Louis XII.'s
       reign was absorbed in these Italian wars, in which the French
       invariably began by victory, and as invariably ended in
       defeat. The League of Cambrai, the Battles of Agnadel,
       Ravenna, Novara, the Treaties of Grenada and Blois, are the
       principal episodes of this unlucky campaign."

          C. Coignet,
          Francis the First and His Times,
          chapter 3.

          See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

       "The warriors of France came back from Italy with the wonders
       of the South on their lips and her treasures in their hands.
       They brought with them books and paintings, they brought with
       them armour inlaid with gold and silver, tapestries enriched
       with precious metals, embroidered clothing, and even household
       furniture. Distributed by many hands in many different places,
       each precious thing became a separate centre of initiative
       power. The châteaux of the country nobles boasted the
       treasures which had fallen to the share of their lords at
       Genoa or at Naples; and the great women of the court were
       eager to divide the spoil. The contagion spread rapidly. Even
       in the most fantastic moment of Gothic inspiration, the French
       artist gave evidence that his right hand obeyed a national
       instinct for order, for balance, for completeness, and that
       his eye preferred, in obedience to a national predilection,
       the most refined harmonies of colour. Step by step he had been
       feeling his way; now, the broken link of tradition was again
       made fast; the workmen of Paris and the workmen of Athens
       joined hands, united by the genius of Italy. It must not,
       however, be supposed that no intercourse had previously
       existed between France and Italy. The roads by Narbonne and
       Lyons were worn by many feet. The artists of Tours and
       Poitiers, the artists of Paris and Dijon, were alike familiar
       with the path to Rome. But an intercourse, hitherto
       restricted, was rendered by the wars of Charles VIII. all but
       universal. ... Cruelly as the Italians had suffered at the
       hands of Charles VIII. they still looked to France for help;
       they knew that though they had been injured they had not been
       betrayed. But the weak and generous impulses of Charles VIII.
       found no place in the councils of his successors. ... The doom
       of Italy was pronounced. Substantially the compact was this.
       Aided by Borgia, the French were to destroy the free cities of
       the north, and in return France was to aid Borgia in breaking
       the power of the independent nobles who yet resisted Papal
       aggression in the south. In July 1499 the work began. At first
       the Italians failed to realise what had taken place. When the
       French army entered the Milanese territory the inhabitants
       fraternised with the troops, Milan, Genoa, Pavia opened their
       gates with joy. But in a few months the course of events, in
       the south, aroused a dread anxiety. There, Borgia, under the
       protection of the French king, and with the assistance of the
       French arms, was triumphantly glutting his brutal rage and
       lust, whilst Frenchmen were forced to look on helpless and
       indignant. Milan, justly terrified, made an attempt to throw
       herself on the mercy of her old ruler. To no purpose. Louis
       went back over the Alps, leaving a strong hand and a strong
       garrison in Milan, and dragging with him the unfortunate Louis
       Sforza, a miserable proof of the final destruction of the most
       brilliant court of Upper Italy. ... By the campaign of 1507,
       the work, thus begun, was consummated. The ancient spirit of
       independence still lingered in Genoa, and Venice was not yet
       crushed. There were still fresh laurels to be won. In this
       Holy War the Pope and the Emperor willingly joined forces with
       France. ... The deathblow was first given to Genoa. She was
       forced, Marot tells us, 'la corde au coul, la glaive sous la
       gorge, implorer la clémence de ce prince.' Venice was next
       traitorously surprised and irreparably injured. Having thus
       brilliantly achieved the task of first destroying the lettered
       courts, and next the free cities of Italy, Louis died,
       bequeathing to François I. the shame of fighting out a
       hopeless struggle for supremacy against allies who, no longer
       needing help, had combined to drive the French from the field.
       There was, indeed, one other duty to be performed. The
       shattered remains of Italian civilisation might be collected,
       and Paris might receive the men whom Italy could no longer
       employ. The French returned to France empty of honour, gorged
       with plunder, satiated with rape and rapine, boasting of
       cities sacked, and garrisons put to the sword. They had sucked
       the lifeblood of Italy, but her death brought new life to
       France. The impetus thus acquired by art and letters coincided
       with a change in political and social constitutions. The
       gradual process of centralisation which had begun with Louis
       XI. transformed the life of the whole nation. ... The royal
       court began to take proportions hitherto unknown.
    {1185}
       It gradually became a centre which gathered together the rich,
       the learned, and the skilled. Artists, who had previously been
       limited in training, isolated in life, and narrowed in
       activity by the rigid conservative action of the great guilds
       and corporations, were thus brought into immediate contact
       with the best culture of their day. For the Humanists did not
       form a class apart, and their example incited those with whom
       they lived to effort after attainments as varied as their own,
       whilst the Court made a rallying point for all, which gave a
       sense of countenance and protection even to those who might
       never hope to enter it. ... Emancipation of the individual is
       the watchword of the sixteenth century; to the artist it
       brought relief from the trammels of a caste thraldom, and the
       ceaseless efforts of the Humanists find an answer even in the
       new forms seen slowly breaking through the sheath of Gothic
       art."

          Mrs. Mark Pattison,
          The Renaissance of Art in France,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

    FRANCE: 16th Century.
       Renaissance and Reformation.

       "The first point of difference to be noted between the
       Renaissance in France and the Renaissance in Italy is one of
       time. Roughly speaking it may be said that France was a
       hundred years behind Italy. ... But if the French Renaissance
       was a later and less rapid growth, it was infinitely hardier.
       The Renaissance literature in Italy was succeeded by a long
       period of darkness, which remained unbroken, save by fitful
       gleams of light, till the days of Alfieri. The Renaissance
       literature in France was the prelude to a literature, which,
       for vigour, variety, and average excellence, has in modern
       times rarely, if ever, been surpassed. The reason for this
       superiority on the part of France, for the fact that the
       Renaissance produced there more abiding and more far-reaching
       results, may be ascribed partly to the natural law that
       precocious and rapid growths are always less hardy than later
       and more gradual ones, partly to the character of the French
       nation, to its being at once more intellectual and less
       imaginative than the Italian, and therefore more influenced by
       the spirit of free inquiry than by the worship of beauty;
       partly to the greater unity and vitality of its political
       life, but in a large measure to the fact that in France the
       Renaissance came hand in hand with the Reformation. ... We
       must look upon the Reformation as but a fresh development of
       the Renaissance movement, as the result of the spirit of free
       inquiry carried into theology, as a revolt against the
       authority of the Roman Church. Now the Renaissance in Italy
       preceded the Reformation by more than a century. There is no
       trace in it of any desire to criticise the received theology.
       ... In France on the other hand the new learning and the new
       religion, Greek and heresy, became almost controvertible
       terms. Lefèvre d' Étaples, the doyen of French humanists,
       translated the New Testament into French in 1524: the
       Estiennes, the Hebrew scholar François Vatable, Turnèbe,
       Ramus, the great surgeon Ambroise Paré, the artists Bernard
       Palissy and Jean Goujon were all avowed protestants; while
       Clement Marot, Budé, and above all Rabelais, for a time at
       least, looked on the reformation with more or less favour. In
       fact so long as the movement appeared to them merely as a
       revolt against the narrowness and illiberality of monastic
       theology, as an assertion of the freedom of the human
       intellect, the men of letters and culture with hardly an
       exception joined hands with the reformers. It was only when
       they found that it implied a moral as well as an intellectual
       regeneration, that it began to wear for some of them a less
       congenial aspect. This close connexion between the Reformation
       and the revival of learning was, on the whole, a great gain to
       France. It was not as in Germany, where the stronger growth of
       the Reformation completely choked the other. In France they
       met on almost equal terms, and the result was that the whole
       movement was thereby strengthened and elevated both
       intellectually and morally. ... French humanism can boast of a
       long roll of names honourable not only for their high
       attainments, but also for their integrity and purity of life.
       Robert Estienne, Turnèbe, Ramus, Cujas, the Chancellor de
       l'Hôpital, Estienne Pasquier, Thou, are men whom any country
       would be proud to claim for her sons. And as with the
       humanists, so it was with the Renaissance generally in France.
       On the whole it was a manly and intelligent movement. ... The
       literature of the French Renaissance, though in point of form
       it is far below that of the Italian Renaissance, in manliness
       and vigour and hopefulness is far superior to it. It is in
       short a literature, not of maturity, but of promise. One has
       only to compare its greatest name, Rabelais, with the greatest
       name of the Italian Renaissance, Ariosto, to see the
       difference. How formless! how crude! how gross! how full of
       cumbersome details and wearisome repetitions is Rabelais! How
       limpid! how harmonious is Ariosto! what perfection of style,
       what delicacy of touch! He never wearies us, he never offends
       our taste. And yet one rises from the reading of Rabelais with
       a feeling of buoyant cheerfulness, while Ariosto in spite of
       his wit and gaiety is inexpressibly depressing. The reason is
       that the one bids us hope, the other bids us despair; the one
       believes in truth and goodness and in the future of the human
       race, the other believes in nothing but the pleasures of the
       senses, which come and go like many-coloured bubbles and leave
       behind them a boundless ennui. Rabelais and Ariosto are true
       types of the Renaissance as it appeared in their respective
       countries."

          A. Tilley,
          The Literature of the French Renaissance,
          chapter 2.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1501-1504.
       Treaty of Louis XII. with Ferdinand of Aragon for the
       partition of Naples.
       French and Spanish conquest.
       Quarrel of the confederates, and war.
       The Spaniards in possession of the Neapolitan domain.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1504.
       Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland banks.

          See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1504-1506.
       The treaties of Blois, with Ferdinand and Maximilian, and the
       abrogation of them.
       Relinquishment of claims on Naples.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1507.
       Revolt and subjugation of Genoa.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1500-1507.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1508-1509.
       The League of Cambrai against Venice.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1510-1513.
       The breaking up of the League of Cambrai.
       The Holy League formed by Pope Julius II. against Louis XII.
       The French expelled from Milan and all Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

    {1186}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
       English invasion under Henry VIII.
       The Battle of the Spurs.
       Marriage of Louis XII. with Mary of England.
       The King's death.
       Accession of Francis I.

       "The long preparations of Henry VIII. of England for the
       invasion of France [in pursuance of the 'Holy League' against
       Louis XII., formed by Pope Julius II. and renewed by Leo
       X.,--see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513] being completed, that king,
       in the summer of 1513, landed at Calais, whither a great part
       of his army had already been transported. The offer of 100,000
       golden crowns easily persuaded the Emperor to promise his
       assistance, at the head of a body of Swiss and Germans. But at
       the moment Henry was about to penetrate into France, he
       received the excuses of Maximilian, who, notwithstanding a
       large advance received from England, found himself unable to
       levy the promised succours. Nothing disheartened by this
       breach of faith, the King of England had already advanced into
       Artois; when the Emperor, attended by a few German nobles,
       appeared in the English camp, and was cordially welcomed by
       Henry, who duly appreciated his military skill and local
       knowledge. A valuable accession of strength was also obtained
       by the junction of a large body of Swiss, who, encouraged by
       the victory of Novara, had already crossed the Jura, and now
       marched to the seat of war. The poverty of the Emperor
       degraded him to the rank of a mercenary of England; and Henry
       consented to grant him the daily allowance of 100 crowns for
       his table. But humiliating as this compact was to Maximilian,
       the King of England reaped great benefit from his presence. A
       promiscuous multitude of Germans had flocked to the English
       camp, in hopes of partaking in the spoil; and the arrival of
       their valiant Emperor excited a burst of enthusiasm. The siege
       of Terouenne was formed: but the bravery of the besieged
       baffled the efforts of the allies; and a month elapsed, during
       which the English sustained severe loss from frequent and
       successful sorties. By the advice of the Emperor, Henry
       resolved to risk a battle with the French, and the plain of
       Guinegate was once more the field of conflict [August 18,
       1513]. This spot, where Maximilian had formerly struck terror
       into the legions of Louis XI., now became the scene of a rapid
       and undisputed victory. The French were surprised by the
       allies, and gave way to a sudden panic; and the shameful
       flight of the cavalry abandoned the bravest of their leaders
       to the hands of their enemies. The Duke of Longueville, La
       Palisse, Imbercourt, and the renowned Chevalier Bayard, were
       made prisoners; and the ridicule of the conquerors
       commemorated the inglorious flight by designating the rout as
       the Battle of the Spurs. The capture of Terouenne immediately
       followed; and the fall of Tournay soon afterwards opened a
       splendid prospect to the King of England. Meanwhile the safety
       of France was threatened in another quarter. A large body of
       Swiss, levied in the name of Maximilian but paid with the gold
       of the Pope, burst into Burgundy; and Dijon was with difficulty
       saved from capture. From this danger, however, France was
       extricated by the dexterous negotiation of Trémouille; and the
       Swiss were induced to withdraw. ... Louis now became seriously
       desirous of peace. He made overtures to the Pope, and was
       received into favour upon consenting to renounce the Council
       of Pisa. He conciliated the Kings of Aragon and England by
       proposals of marriage; he offered his second daughter Renée to
       the young Charles of Spain; and his second Queen, Anne of
       Bretainy, being now dead, he proposed to unite himself with
       Mary of England, the favourite sister of Henry. ... But though
       peace was made upon this footing, the former of the projected
       marriages never took place: the latter; however, was
       magnificently solemnized, and proved fatal to Louis. The
       amorous King forgot his advanced age in the arms of his young
       and beautiful bride; his constitution gave way under the
       protracted festivities consequent on his nuptials; and on the
       1st of January, 1515, Louis XII. was snatched from his adoring
       people, in his 53d year. He was succeeded by his kinsman and
       son-in-law, Francis, Count of Angoulême, who stood next in
       hereditary succession, and was reputed one of the most
       accomplished princes that ever mounted the throne of France."

          Sir R. Comyn,
          History of the Western Empire,
          chapter 38 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          J. S. Brewer,
          The Reign of Henry VIII.,
          chapter 1.

          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
          from 1494 to 1514,
          book 2, chapter 4, sections 7-8.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1515.
       Accession of Francis I.
       His invasion of Italy.
       The Battle of Marignano.

       "François I. was in his 21st year when he ascended the throne
       of France. His education in all manly accomplishments was
       perfect, and ... he manifested ... an intelligence which had
       been carefully cultivated. ... Unfortunately his moral
       qualities had been profoundly corrupted by the example of his
       mother, Louise of Savoy, a clever and ambitious woman, but
       selfish, unscrupulous, and above all shamelessly licentious.
       Louise had been an object of jealousy to Anne of Britany, who
       had always kept her in the shade, and she now snatched eagerly
       at the prospect of enjoying power and perhaps of reigning in
       the name of her son, whose love for his mother led him to
       allow her to exercise an influence which was often fatal to
       the interests of his kingdom. ... Charles duke of Bourbon, who
       was notoriously the favoured lover of Louise, was appointed to
       the office of constable, which had remained vacant since 1488;
       and one of her favourite ministers, Antoine Duprat, first
       president of the parliament of Paris, was entrusted with the
       seals. Both were men of great capacity; but the first was
       remarkable for his pride, and the latter for his moral
       depravity. The first cares of the new king of France were to
       prepare for war. ... Unfortunately for his country, François
       I. shared in the infatuation which had dragged his
       predecessors into the wars in Italy; and all these warlike
       preparations were designed for the reconquest of Milan. He had
       already intimated his design by assuming at his coronation the
       titles of king of France and duke of Milan. ... He entered
       into an alliance with Charles of Austria, prince of Castile,
       who had now reached his majority and assumed the government of
       the Netherlands. ... A treaty between these two princes,
       concluded on the 24th of March, 1515, guaranteed to each party
       not only the estates they held or which might subsequently
       descend to them, but even their conquests. ... The republic of
       Venice and the king of England renewed the alliances into
       which they had entered with the late king, but Ferdinand of
       Aragon refused even to prolong the truce unless the whole of
       Italy were included in it, and he entered into a separate
       alliance with the emperor, the duke of Milan, and the Swiss,
       to oppose the designs of the French king.
    {1187}
       The efforts of François I. to gain over the Swiss had been
       defeated by the influence of the cardinal of Sion. Yet the
       pope, Leo X., hesitated, and avoided compromising himself with
       either party. In the course of the month of July [1515], the
       most formidable army which had yet been led from France into
       Italy was assembled in the district between Grenoble and
       Embrun, and the king, after entrusting the regency to his
       mother, Louise, with unlimited powers, proceeded to place
       himself at its head."

          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       "The passes in Italy had already been occupied by the Swiss
       under their captain general Galeazzo Visconti. Galeazzo makes
       their number not more than 6,000. ... They were posted at
       Susa, commanding the two roads from Mont Cenis and Geneva, by
       one of which the French must pass or abandon their artillery.
       In this perplexity it was proposed by Triulcio to force a
       lower passage across the Cottian Alps leading to Saluzzo. The
       attempt was attended with almost insurmountable difficulties.
       ... But the French troops with wonderful spirits and alacrity
       ... were not to be baffled. They dropped their artillery by
       cables from steep to steep; down one range of mountains and up
       another, until five days had been spent in this perilous
       enterprise, and they found themselves safe in the plains of
       Saluzzo. Happily the Swiss, secure in their position at Susa,
       had never dreamed of the possibility of such a passage. ...
       Prosper Colonna, who commanded in Italy for the Pope, was
       sitting down to his comfortable dinner at Villa Franca, when a
       scout covered with dust dashed into his apartment announcing
       that the French had crossed the Alps. The next minute the town
       was filled with the advanced guard, under the Sieur
       d'Ymbercourt and the celebrated Bayard. The Swiss at Susa had
       still the advantage of position, and might have hindered the
       passage of the main body of the French; but they had no horse
       to transport their artillery, were badly led, and evidently
       divided in their councils. They retired upon Novara," and to
       Milan, intending to effect a junction with the viceroy of
       Naples, who advanced to Cremona. On the morning of the 13th of
       September, Cardinal Scheimer harangued the Swiss and urged
       them to attack the French in their camp, which was at
       Marignano, or Melignano, twelve miles away. His fatal advice
       was acted on with excitement and haste. "The day was hot and
       dusty. The advanced guard of the French was under the command
       of the Constable of Bourbon, whose vigilance defeated any
       advantage the Swiss might otherwise have gained by the
       suddenness and rapidity of their movements. At nine o'clock in
       the morning, as Bourbon was sitting down at table, a scout,
       dripping with water, made his appearance. He had left Milan
       only a few hours before, had waded the canals, and came to
       announce the approach of the enemy. ... The Swiss came on
       apace; they had disencumbered themselves of their hats and
       caps, and thrown off their shoes, the better to fight without
       slipping. They made a dash at the French artillery, and were
       foiled after hard fighting. ... It was an autumnal afternoon;
       the sun had gone down; dust and night-fall separated and
       confused the combatants. The French trumpets sounded a
       retreat; both, armies crouched down in the darkness within
       cast of a tennis-ball of each other. ... Where they fought,
       there each man laid down to rest when darkness came on, within
       hand-grip of his foe." The next morning, "the autumnal mist
       crawled slowly away, and once more exposed the combatants to
       each other's view. The advantage of the ground was on the side
       of the French. They were drawn up in a valley protected by a
       ditch full of water. Though the Swiss had taken no refreshment
       that night, they renewed the fight with unimpaired animosity
       and vigour. ... Francis, surrounded by a body of mounted
       gentlemen, performed prodigies of valour. The night had given
       him opportunity for the better arrangement of his troops; and
       as the day wore on, and the sun grew hot, the Swiss, though
       'marvellously deliberate, brave, and obstinate,' began to give
       way. The arrival of the Venetian general, D'Alviano, with
       fresh troops, made the French victory complete. But the Swiss
       retreated inch by inch with the greatest deliberation,
       carrying off their great guns on their shoulders. ... The
       French were too exhausted to follow. And their victory had
       cost them dear; for the Swiss, with peculiar hatred to the
       French gentry and the lance-knights, had shown no mercy. They
       spared none, and made no prisoners. The glory of the battle
       was great. ... The Swiss, the best troops in Europe, and
       hitherto reckoned invincible ... had been the terror and
       scourge of Italy, equally formidable to friend and foe, and
       now their prestige was extinguished. But it was not in these
       merely military aspects that the battle of Marignano was
       important. No one who reads the French chronicles of the
       times, can fail to perceive that it was a battle of opinions
       and of classes even more than of nations; of a fierce and
       rising democratical element, now rolled back for a short
       season, only to display itself in another form against royalty
       and nobility;--of the burgher classes against feudality. ... The
       old romantic element, overlaid for a time by the political
       convulsions of the last century, had once more gained the
       ascendant. It was to blaze forth and revive, before it died
       out entirely, in the Sydneys and Raleighs of Queen Elizabeth's
       reign; it was to lighten up the glorious imagination of
       Spenser before it faded into the dull prose of Puritan
       divinity, and the cold grey dawn of inductive philosophy. But
       its last great battle was the battle of Marignano."

          J. S. Brewer,
          The Reign of Henry VIII.,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          Miss Pardoe,
          Court and Reign of Francis I.,
          volume 1, chapters 6-7.

          L. Larchey,
          History of Bayard,
          book 3, chapters 1-2.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.
       Francis I. in possession of Milan.
       His treaties with the Swiss and the Pope.
       Nullification of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
       The Concordat of Bologna.

       "On the 15th of September, the day after the battle [of
       Marignano], the Swiss took the road back to their mountains.
       Francis I. entered Milan in triumph. Maximilian Sforza took
       refuge in the castle, and twenty days afterwards on the 4th of
       October, surrendered, consenting to retire to France, with a
       pension of 30,000 crowns, and the promise of being recommended
       for a cardinal's hat, and almost consoled for his downfall 'by
       the pleasure of being delivered from the insolence of the
       Swiss, the exactions of the Emperor Maximilian, and the
       rascalities of the Spaniards.' Fifteen years afterwards, in
       June, 1530, he died in oblivion at Paris.
    {1188}
       Francis I. regained possession of all Milaness, adding
       thereto, with the pope's consent, the duchies of Parma and
       Piacenza, which had been detached from it. ... Two treaties,
       one of November 7, 1515, and the other of November 29, 1516,
       re-established not only peace, but perpetual alliance, between
       the King of France and the thirteen Swiss Cantons, with
       stipulated conditions in detail. Whilst these negotiations
       were in progress, Francis I. and Leo X., by a treaty published
       at Viterbo, on the 13th of October, proclaimed their hearty
       reconciliation. The pope guaranteed to Francis I. the duchy of
       Milan, restored to him those of Parma and Piacenza, and
       recalled his troops which were still serving against the
       Venetians." At the same time, arrangements were made for a
       personal meeting of the pope and the French king, which took
       place at Bologna in December, 1515. "Francis did not attempt
       to hide his design of reconquering the kingdom of Naples,
       which Ferdinand the Catholic had wrongfully usurped, and he
       demanded the pope's countenance. The pope did not care to
       refuse, but he pointed out to the king that everything
       foretold the very near death of King Ferdinand; and 'Your
       Majesty,' said he, 'will then have a natural opportunity for
       claiming your rights; and as for me, free, as I shall then be,
       from my engagements with the King of Arragon in respect of the
       crown of Naples, I shall find it easier to respond to your
       majesty's wish.' The pope merely wanted to gain time. Francis,
       putting aside for the moment the kingdom of Naples, spoke of
       Charles VII.'s Pragmatic Sanction [see above: A. D. 1438], and
       the necessity of putting an end to the difficulties which had
       arisen on this subject between the court of Rome and the Kings
       of France, his predecessors. 'As to that,' said the pope, 'I
       could not grant what your predecessors demanded; but be not
       uneasy; I have a compensation to propose to you which will
       prove to you how dear your interests are to me.' The two
       sovereigns had, without doubt, already come to an
       understanding on this point, when, after a three days'
       interview with Leo X., Francis I. returned to Milan, leaving
       at Bologna, for the purpose of treating in detail the affair
       of the Pragmatic Sanction, his chancellor, Duprat, who had
       accompanied him during all this campaign as his adviser and
       negotiator. ... The popes ... had all of them protested since
       the days of Charles VII. against the Pragmatic Sanction as an
       attack upon their rights, and had demanded its abolition. In
       1461, Louis XI. ... had yielded for a moment to the demand of
       Pope Pius II., whose countenance he desired to gain, and had
       abrogated the Pragmatic; but, not having obtained what he
       wanted thereby, and having met with strong opposition in the
       Parliament of Paris to his concession, he had let it drop
       without formally retracting it. ... This important edict,
       then, was still vigorous in 1515, when Francis I., after his
       victory at Melegnano and his reconciliation with the pope,
       left Chancellor Duprat at Bologna to pursue the negotiation
       reopened on that subject. The 'compensation,' of which Leo X.,
       on redemanding the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, had
       given a peep to Francis I., could not fail to have charms for
       a prince so little scrupulous, and for his still less
       scrupulous chancellor. The pope proposed that the Pragmatic,
       once for all abolished, should be replaced by a Concordat
       between the two sovereigns, and that this Concordat, whilst
       putting a stop to the election of the clergy by the faithful,
       should transfer to the king the right of nomination to
       bishoprics and other great ecclesiastical offices and
       benefices, reserving to the pope the right of presentation of
       prelates nominated by the king. This, considering the
       condition of society and government in the 16th century, in
       the absence of political and religious liberty, was to take
       away from the church her own existence, and divide her between
       two masters, without giving her, as regarded either of them,
       any other guarantee of independence than the mere chance of
       their dissensions and quarrels. ... Francis I. and his
       chancellor saw in the proposed Concordat nothing but the great
       increment of influence it secured to them, by making all the
       dignitaries of the church suppliants at first and then clients
       of the kingship. After some difficulties as to points of
       detail, the Concordat was concluded and signed on the 18th of
       August, 1516. Five months afterwards, on the 5th of February,
       1517, the king repaired in person to Parliament, to which he
       had summoned many prelates and doctors of the University. The
       Chancellor explained the points of the Concordat. ... The king
       ordered its registration, 'for the good of his kingdom and for
       quittance of the promise he had given the pope.'" For more
       than a year the Parliament of Paris resisted the royal order,
       and it was not until the 22d of March, 1518, that it yielded
       to the king's threats and proceeded to registration of the
       Concordat, with forms and reservations "which were evidence of
       compulsion. The other Parliaments of France followed with more
       or less zeal ... the example shown by that of Paris. The
       University was heartily disposed to push resistance farther
       than had been done by Parliament."

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 28 (volume 4).

       "The execution of the Concordat was vigorously contested for
       years afterwards. Cathedrals and monastic chapters proceeded
       to elect bishops and abbots under the provisions of the
       Pragmatic Sanction; and every such case became a fresh source
       of exasperation between the contending powers. ... But the
       Parliament, though clamouring loudly for the 'Gallican
       liberties,' and making a gallant stand for national
       independence as against the usurpations of Rome, was unable to
       maintain its ground against the overpowering despotism of the
       Crown. The monarchical authority ultimately achieved a
       complete triumph. In 1527 a peremptory royal ordinance
       prohibited the courts of Parliament from taking further
       cognisance of causes affecting elections to consistorial
       benefices and conventual priories; and all such matters were
       transferred to the sole jurisdiction of the Council of State.
       After this the agitation against the Concordat gradually
       subsided. But although, in virtue of its compulsory
       registration by the Parliament, the Concordat became part of
       the law of the land, it is certain that the Gallican Church
       never accepted this flagrant invasion of its liberties."

          W. H. Jervis,
          History of the Church of France,
          volume 1, pages 109-110.

    {1189}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1547.
       The institution of the Court.
       Its baneful influence.

       "Francis I. instituted the Court, and this had a decisive
       influence upon the manners of the nobility. Those lords, whose
       respect royalty had difficulty in keeping when they were at
       their castles, having come to court, prostrated themselves
       before the throne, and yielded obedience with their whole
       hearts. A few words will describe this Court. The king lodged
       and fed in his own large palace, which was fitted for the
       purpose, the flower of the French nobility. Some of these
       lords were in his service, under the title of officers of his
       household--as chamberlains, purveyors, equerries, &c. Large
       numbers of domestic offices were created solely as an excuse
       for their presence. Others lived there, without duties, simply
       as guests. All these, besides lodging and food, had often a
       pension as well. A third class were given only a lodging, and
       provided their own table; but all were amused and entertained
       with various pleasures, at the expense of the king. Balls,
       carousals, stately ceremonials, grand dinners, theatricals,
       conversations inspired by the presence of fair women, constant
       intercourse of all kinds, where each could choose for himself,
       and where the refined and literary found a place as well as
       the vain and profligate,--such was court life, a truly
       different thing from the monotonous and brutal existence of
       the feudal lord at his castle in the depths of his province.
       So, from all sides, nobles flocked to court, to gratify both
       the most refined tastes and the most degraded passions. Some
       came hoping to make their fortune, a word from the king
       sufficing to enrich a man; others came to gain a rank in the
       army, a lucrative post in the finance department, an abbey, or
       a bishopric. From the time kings held court, it became almost
       a law, that nothing should be granted to a nobleman who lived
       beyond its pale. Those lords who persisted in staying on their
       own estates were supposed to rail against the administration, or,
       as we of the present would express it, to be in opposition.
       'They must indeed be men of gross minds who are not tempted by
       the polish of the court; at all events it is very insolent in
       them to show so little wish to see their sovereign, and enjoy
       the honor of living under his roof.' Such was almost precisely
       the opinion of the king in regard to the provincial nobility.
       ... Ambition drew the nobles to court; ambition, society, and
       dissipation kept them there. To incur the displeasure of their
       master, and be exiled from court was, first, to lose all hope
       of advancement, and then to fall from paradise into purgatory.
       It killed some people. But life was much more expensive at
       court than in the castles. As in all society where each is
       constantly in the presence of his neighbor, there was
       unbounded rivalry as to who should be most brilliant, most
       superb. The old revenues did not suffice, while, at the same
       time, the inevitable result of the absence of the lords was to
       decrease them. Whilst the expenses of the noblemen at Chambord
       or Versailles were steadily on the increase, his intendant,
       alone and unrestrained upon the estate, filled his own
       pockets, and sent less money every quarter, so that, to keep
       up the proper rank, the lord was forced to beg a pension from
       the king. Low indeed was the downfall of the old pride and
       feudal independence! The question was how to obtain these
       pensions, ranks, offices, and favors of all kinds. The virtues
       most prized and rewarded by the kings were not civic
       virtues,--capacity, and services of value for the public
       good; what pleased them was, naturally, devotion to their
       person, blind obedience, flattery, and subservience."

          P. Lacombe,
          A Short History of the French People,
          chapter 23.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.
       Maximilian's attempt against Milan.
       Diplomatic intrigues.
       The Treaty of Noyon.

       After Francis I. had taken possession of Milan, and while Pope
       Leo X. was making professions of friendship to him at Bologna,
       a scheme took shape among the French king's enemies for
       depriving him of his conquest, and the pope was privy to it.
       "Henry VIII. would not openly break the peace between England
       and France, but he offered to supply Maximilian with Swiss
       troops for an attack upon Milan. It was useless to send money
       to Maximilian, who would have spent it on himself"; but troops
       were hired for the emperor by the English agent, Pace, and "at
       the beginning of March [1516] the joint army of Maximilian and
       the Swiss assembled at Trent. On March 24 they were within a
       few miles of Milan, and their success seemed sure, when
       suddenly Maximilian found that his resources were exhausted
       and refused to proceed; next day he withdrew his troops and
       abandoned his allies. ... The expedition was a total failure;
       yet English gold had not been spent in vain, as the Swiss were
       prevented from entirely joining the French, and Francis I. was
       reminded that his position in Italy was by no means secure.
       Leo X., meanwhile, in the words of Pace, 'had played
       marvellously with both hands in this enterprise.' ... England
       was now the chief opponent of the ambitious schemes of France,
       and aimed at bringing about a league with Maximilian, Charles
       [who had just succeeded Ferdinand of Spain, deceased January
       23, 1516], the Pope, and the Swiss. But Charles's ministers,
       chief of whom was Croy, lord of Chievres, had a care above all
       for the interests of Flanders, and so were greatly under the
       influence of France. ... France and England entered into a
       diplomatic warfare over the alliance with Charles. First,
       England on April 19 recognised Charles as King of Spain,
       Navarre, and the Two Sicilies; then Wolsey strove to make
       peace between Venice and Maximilian as a first step towards
       detaching Venice from its French alliance." On the other hand,
       negotiations were secretly carried on and (August 13) "the
       treaty of Noyon was concluded between Francis I. and Charles.
       Charles was to marry Louise, the daughter of Francis I., an
       infant of one year old, and receive as her dower the French
       claims on Naples; Venice was to pay Maximilian 200,000 ducats
       for Brescia and Verona; in case he refused this offer and
       continued the war, Charles was at liberty to help his
       grandfather, and Francis I. to help the Venetians, without any
       breach of the peace now made between them. ... In spite of the
       efforts of England, Francis I. was everywhere successful in
       settling his difficulties. On November 29 a perpetual peace
       was made at Friburg between France and the Swiss Cantons; on
       December 3 the treaty of Noyon was renewed, and Maximilian was
       included in its provisions. Peace was made between him and
       Venice by the provision that Maximilian was to hand over
       Verona to Charles, who in turn should give it up to the King
       of France, who delivered it to the Venetians; Maximilian in
       return received 100,000 ducats from Venice and as much from
       France. The compact was duly carried out: 'On February 8,
       1517,' wrote the Cardinal of Sion, 'Verona belonged to the
       Emperor; on the 9th to the King Catholic; on the 15th to the
       French; on the 17th to the Venetians.' Such was the end of the
       wars that had arisen from the League of Cambrai. After a struggle
       of eight years the powers that had confederated to destroy
       Venice came together to restore her to her former place.
       Venice might well exult in this reward of her long constancy,
       her sacrifices and her disasters."

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy, during the Period
          of the Reformation,
          book 5, chapter 19 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          J. S. Brewer,
          The Reign of Henry VIII.,
          chapters 4-6 (volume 1).

    {1190}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1519.
       Candidacy of Francis I. for Imperial crown.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
       Rivalry of Francis I. and Charles V.
       The Emperor's successes in Italy and Navarre.
       Milan again taken from France.
       The wrongs and the treason of the Constable of Bourbon.

       "With their candidature for the Imperial crown, burst forth
       the inextinguishable rivalry between Francis I. and Charles V.
       The former claimed Naples for himself and Navarre for Henry
       d'Albret: the Emperor demanded the Milanese as a fief of the
       Empire, and the Duchy of Burgundy. Their resources were about
       equal. If the empire of Charles were more extensive the
       kingdom of France was more compact. The Emperor's subjects
       were richer, but his authority more circumscribed. The
       reputation of the French cavalry was not inferior to that of
       the Spanish infantry. Victory would belong to the one who
       should win over the King of England to his side. ... Both gave
       pensions to his Prime Minister, Cardinal Wolsey; they each asked
       the hand of his daughter Mary, one for the dauphin, the other
       for himself. Francis I. obtained from him an interview at
       Calais, and forgetting that he wished to gain his favour,
       eclipsed him by his elegance and magnificence [see FIELD OF
       THE CLOTH OF GOLD]. Charles V., more adroit, had anticipated
       this interview by visiting Henry VIII. in England. He had
       secured Wolsey by giving him hopes of the tiara. ...
       Everything succeeded with the Emperor. He gained Leo X. to his
       side and thus obtained sufficient influence to raise his
       tutor, Adrian of Utrecht, to the papacy [on the death of Leo,
       Dec. 1, 1521]. The French penetrated into Spain, but arrived
       too late to aid the rising there [in Navarre, 1521]. The
       governor of the Milanese, Lautrec, who is said to have exiled
       from Milan nearly half its inhabitants, was driven out of
       Lombardy [and the Pope retook Parma and Placentia]. He met
       with the same fate again in the following year: the Swiss, who
       were ill-paid, asked either for dismissal or battle, and allowed
       themselves to be beaten at La Bicoque [April 29, 1522]. The
       money intended for the troops had been used for other purposes
       by the Queen-mother, who hated Lautrec. At the moment when
       Francis I. was thinking of re-entering Italy, an internal
       enemy threw France into the utmost danger. Francis had given
       mortal offence to the Constable of Bourbon, one of those who
       had most contributed to the victory of Marignan. Charles,
       Count of Montpensier and Dauphin of Auvergne, held by virtue
       of his wife, a granddaughter of Louis XI., the Duchy of
       Bourbon, and the counties of Clermont, La Marche and other
       domains, which made him the first noble in the kingdom. On the
       death of his wife, the Queen-mother, Louise of Savoy, who had
       wanted to marry the Constable and had been refused by him,
       resolved to ruin him. She disputed with him this rich
       inheritance and obtained from her son that the property should
       be provisionally sequestered. Bourbon, exasperated, resolved
       to pass over to the Emperor (1523). Half a century earlier,
       revolt did not mean disloyalty. The most accomplished knights
       in France, Dunois and John of Calabria, had joined the 'League
       for the public weal.' ... But now it was no question of a
       revolt against the king; such a thing was impossible in France
       at this time. It was a conspiracy against the very existence
       of France that Bourbon was plotting with foreigners. He
       promised Charles V. to attack Burgundy as soon as Francis I.
       had crossed the Alps, and to rouse into revolt five provinces
       of which he believed himself master; the kingdom of Provence
       was to be re-established in his favour, and France,
       partitioned between Spain and England, would have ceased to
       exist as a nation. He was soon able to enjoy the reverses of
       his country."

          J. Michelet,
          Summary of Modern History,
          chapter 6.

       "Henry VIII. and Charles V. were both ready to secure the
       services of the ex-Constable. He decided in favour of Charles
       as the more powerful of the two. ... These secret negotiations
       were carried on in the spring of 1523, while Francis I.
       (having sent a sufficient force to protect his northern
       frontier) was preparing to make Italy the seat of war. With
       this object the king ordered a rendezvous of the army at
       Lyons, in the beginning of September, and having arranged to
       pass through Moulins on his way to join the forces, called
       upon the Constable to meet him there and to proceed with him
       to Lyons. Already vague rumours of an understanding between
       the Emperor and Bourbon had reached Francis, who gave no
       credence to them; but on his way M. de Brézé, Seneschal of
       Normandy, attached to the Court of Louise of Savoy, sent such
       precise details of the affair by two Norman gentlemen in the
       Constable's service that doubt was no longer possible."
       Francis accordingly entered Moulins with a considerable force,
       and went straight to Bourbon, who feigned illness. The
       Constable stoutly denied to the king all the charges which the
       latter revealed to him, and Francis, who was strongly urged to
       order his arrest, refused to do so. But a few days later, when
       the king had gone forward to Lyons, Bourbon, pretending to
       follow him, rode away to his strong castle of Chantelles, from
       whence he wrote letters demanding the restitution of his
       estates. As soon as his flight was known, Francis sent forces
       to seize him; but the Constable, taking one companion with
       him, made his way out of the kingdom in disguise. Escaping to
       Italy, he was there placed in command of the imperial army.

          C. Coignet,
          Francis I. and his Times,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          Miss Pardoe,
          The Court and Reign of Francis I.,
          volume 1, chapters 14-19.

          See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519-1555.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1521.
       Invasion of Navarre.

          See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1521-1525.
       Beginning of the Protestant Reform movement.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

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

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

    {1191}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
       The death of Bayard.
       Second invasion of Italy by Francis I.
       His defeat and capture at Pavia.

       "Bonnivet, the personal enemy of Bourbon, was now entrusted
       with the command of the French army. He marched without
       opposition into the Milanese, and might have taken the capital
       had he pushed on to its gates. Having by irresolution lost it,
       he retreated to winter quarters behind the Tesino. The
       operations of the English in Picardy, of the imperialists in
       Champagne, and of the Spaniards near the Pyrenees, were
       equally insignificant. The spring of 1524 brought on an
       action, if the attack of one point can be called such, which
       proved decisive for the time. Bonnivet advanced rashly beyond
       the Tesino. The imperialists, commanded by four able generals,
       Launoi, Pescara, Bourbon, and Sforza, succeeded in almost
       cutting off his retreat. They at the same time refused
       Bonnivet's offer to engage. They hoped to weaken him by
       famine. The Swiss first murmured against the distress
       occasioned by want of precaution. They deserted across the
       river; and Bonnivet, thus abandoned, was obliged to make a
       precipitate and perilous retreat. A bridge was hastily flung
       across the Sessia, near Romagnano; and Bonnivet, with his best
       knights and gensdarmerie, undertook to defend the passage of
       the rest of the army. The imperialists, led on by Bourbon,
       made a furious attack. Bonnivet was wounded, and he gave his
       place to Bayard, who, never entrusted with a high command, was
       always chosen for that of a forlorn hope. The brave Vandenesse
       was soon killed; and Bayard himself received a gun-shot
       through the reins. The gallant chevalier, feeling his wound
       mortal, caused himself to be placed in a sitting posture
       beneath a tree, his face to the enemy, and his sword fixed in
       guise of a cross before him. The constable Bourbon, who led
       the imperialists, soon came up to the dying Bayard, and
       expressed his compassion. 'Weep not for me,' said the
       chevalier, 'but for thyself. I die in performing my duty; thou
       art betraying thine.' Nothing marks more strongly the great
       rise, the sudden sacro-sanctity of the royal authority in
       those days, than the general horror which the treason of
       Bourbon excited. ... The fact is, that this sudden horror of
       treason was owing, in a great measure, to the revived study of
       the classics, in which treason to one's country is universally
       mentioned as an impiety and a crime of the deepest dye.
       Feudality, with all its oaths, had no such horror of treason.
       ... Bonnivet had evacuated Italy after this defeat at
       Romagnano. Bourbon's animosity stimulated him to push his
       advantage. He urged the emperor to invade France, and
       recommended the Bourbonnais and his own patrimonial provinces
       as those most advisable to invade. Bourbon wanted to raise his
       friends in insurrection against Francis; but Charles descried
       selfishness in this scheme of Bourbon, and directed Pescara to
       march with the constable into the south of France and lay
       siege to Marseilles. ... Marseilles made an obstinate
       resistance," and the siege was ineffectual. "Francis, in the
       meantime, alarmed by the invasion, had assembled an army. He
       burned to employ it, and avenge the late affront. The king of
       England, occupied with the Scotch, gave him respite in the
       north; and he resolved to employ this by marching, late as the
       season was, into Italy. His generals, who by this time were
       sick of warring beyond the Alps, opposed the design; but not
       even the death of his queen, Claude, could stop Francis. He
       passed Mount Cenis; marched upon Milan, whose population was
       spiritless and broken by the plague, and took it without
       resistance. It was then mooted whether Lodi or Pavia should be
       besieged. The latter, imprudently, as it is said, was
       preferred. It was at this time that Pope Clement VII., of the
       house of Medici, who had lately succeeded Adrian, made the
       most zealous efforts to restore peace between the monarchies.
       He found Charles and his generals arrogant and unwilling to
       treat. The French, said they, must on no account be allowed a
       footing in Italy. Clement, impelled by pique towards the
       emperor, or generosity to Francis, at once abandoned the
       prudent policy of his predecessors, and formed a league with
       the French king, to whom, after all, he brought no accession
       of force. This step proved afterwards fatal to the city of
       Rome. The siege of Pavia was formed about the middle of
       October [1524]. Antonio de Leyva, an experienced officer,
       supported by veteran troops, commanded in the town. The
       fortifications were strong, and were likely to hold for a
       considerable time. By the month of January the French had made
       no progress; and the impatient Francis despatched a
       considerable portion of his army for the invasion of Naples,
       hearing that the country was drained of troops. This was a
       gross blunder, which Pescara observing, forbore to send any
       force to oppose the expedition. He knew that the fate of Italy
       would be decided before Pavia. Bourbon, in the mean time,
       disgusted with the jealousies and tardiness of the imperial
       generals, employed the winter in raising an army of
       lansquenets on his own account. From the duke of Savoy he
       procured funds; and early in the year 1525 the constable
       joined Pescara at Lodi with a fresh army of 12,000
       mercenaries. They had, besides, some 7,000 foot, and not more
       than 1,500 horse. With these they marched to the relief of
       Pavia. Francis had a force to oppose to them, not only
       inferior in numbers, but so harassed with a winter's siege,
       that all the French generals of experience counselled a
       retreat. Bonnivet and his young troop of courtiers were for
       fighting; and the monarch hearkened to them. Pavia, to the
       north of the river, was covered in great part by the chateau
       and walled park of Mirabel. Adjoining this, and on a rising
       ground, was the French camp, extending to the Tesino. Through
       the camp, or through the park, lay the only ways by which the
       imperialists could reach Pavia. The camp was strongly
       entrenched and defended by artillery, except on the side of
       the park of Mirabel, with which it communicated." On the night
       of February 23, the imperialists made a breach in the park
       wall, through which they pressed next morning, but were driven
       back with heavy loss. "This was victory enough, could the
       French king have been contented with it. But the impatient
       Francis no sooner beheld his enemies in rout, than he was
       eager to chase them in person, and complete the victory with
       his good sword. He rushed forth from his entrenchments at the
       head of his gensdarmerie, flinging himself between the enemy
       and his own artillery, which was thus masked and rendered
       useless. The imperialists rallied as soon as they found
       themselves safe from the fire of the cannon," and the French
       were overwhelmed. "The king ... behind a heap of slain,
       defended himself valiantly; so beaten and shattered, so
       begrimed with blood and dust, as to be scarcely
       distinguishable, notwithstanding his conspicuous armour. He
       had received several wounds, one in the forehead; and his
       horse, struck with a ball in the head, reared, fell back, and
       crushed him with his weight: still Francis rose, and laid
       prostrate several of the enemies that rushed upon him." But
       presently he was recognized and was persuaded to surrender his
       sword to Lannoi, the viceroy of Naples. "Such was the signal
       defeat that put an end to all French conquests and claims in
       Italy."

          E. E. Crowe,
          History of France,
          volume 1, chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Robertson,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          book 4 (volume 2).

          J. S. Brewer,
          Reign of Henry VIII.,
          chapter 21 (volume 2).

          H. G. Smith,
          Romance of History,
          chapter 6.

    {1192}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.
       The captivity of Francis I. and his deliberate perfidy in the
       Treaty of Madrid.

       The captive king of France was lodged in the castle at
       Pizzighitone. "Instead of bearing his captivity with calmness
       and fortitude, he chafed and fretted under the loss of his
       wonted pleasures; at one moment he called for death to end his
       woes, while at another he was ready to sign disastrous terms
       of peace, meaning to break faith so soon as ever he might be
       free again. ... France, at first stupefied by the mishap, soon
       began to recover hope. The Regent, for all her vices and
       faults, was proud and strong; she gathered what force she
       could at Lyons, and looked round for help. ... Not only were
       there anxieties at home, but the frontiers were also
       threatened. On the side of Germany a popular movement ['the
       Peasant War'], closely connected with the religious excitement
       of the time, pushed a fierce and cruel rabble into Lorraine,
       whence they proposed to enter France. But they were met by the
       Duke of Guise and the Count of Vaudemont, his brother, at the
       head of the garrisons of Burgundy and Champagne, and were
       easily dispersed. It was thought that during these troubles
       Lannoy would march his army, flushed with victory, from the Po
       to the Rhone. ... But Lannoy had no money to pay his men, and
       could not undertake so large a venture. Meanwhile negotiations
       began between Charles V. and the King; the Emperor demanding,
       as ransom, that Bourbon should be invested with Provence and
       Dauphiny, joined to his own lands in Auvergne, and should
       receive the title of king; and secondly that the Duchy of
       Burgundy should be given over to the Emperor as the inheritor
       of the lands and rights of Charles the Bold. But the King of
       France would not listen for a moment. And now the King of
       England and most of the Italian states, alarmed at the great
       power of the Emperor, began to change sides. Henry VIII. came
       first. He signed a treaty of neutrality with the Regent, in
       which it was agreed that not even for the sake of the King's
       deliverance should any part of France be torn from her. The
       Italians joined in a league to restore the King to liberty,
       and to secure the independence of Italy: and Turkey was called
       on for help. ... The Emperor now felt that Francis was not in
       secure keeping at Pizzighitone. ... He therefore gave orders
       that Francis should at once be removed to Spain." The captive
       king "was set ashore at Valencia, and received with wonderful
       welcome: dances, festivals, entertainments of every kind,
       served to relieve his captivity; it was like a restoration to
       life! But this did not suit the views of the Emperor, who
       wished to weary the King into giving up all thought of
       resistance: he trusted to his impatient and frivolous
       character; his mistake, as he found to his cost, lay in
       thinking that a man of such character would keep his word. He
       therefore had him removed from Valencia to Madrid, where he
       was kept in close and galling confinement, in a high, dreary
       chamber, where he could not even see out of the windows. This
       had the desired effect. The King talked of abdicating; he fell
       ill of ennui, and was like to die: but at last he could hold
       out no longer, and abandoning all thought of honourable
       action, agreed to shameful terms, consoling himself with a
       private protest against the validity of the deed, as having
       been done under compulsion."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          volume 2, book 2, chapter 5.

       "By the Treaty of Madrid, signed January 14th, 1526, Francis
       'restored' to the Emperor the Duchy of Burgundy, the county of
       Charolais, and some other smaller fiefs, without reservation
       of any feudal suzerainty, which was also abandoned with regard
       to the counties of Flanders and Artois, the Emperor, however,
       resigning the towns on the Somme, which had been held by
       Charles the Bold. The French King also renounced his claims to
       the kingdom of Naples, the Duchy of Milan, the county of Asti,
       and the city of Genoa. He contracted an offensive and
       defensive alliance with Charles, undertaking to attend him
       with an army when he should repair to Rome to receive the
       Imperial crown, and to accompany him in person whenever he
       should march against the Turks or heretics. He withdrew his
       protection from the King of Navarre, the Duke of Gelderland,
       and the La Marcks; took upon himself the Emperor's debt to
       England, and agreed to give his two eldest sons as hostages
       for the execution of the treaty. Instead, however, of the
       independent kingdom which Bourbon had expected, all that was
       stipulated in his favour was a free pardon for him and his
       adherents, and their restoration in their forfeited domains.
       ... The provisions of the above treaty Francis promised to
       execute on the word and honour of a king, and by an oath sworn
       with his hand upon the holy Gospels: yet only a few hours
       before he was to sign this solemn act, he had called his
       plenipotentiaries, together with some French nobles,
       secretaries, and notaries, into his chamber, where, after
       exacting from them an oath of secrecy, he entered into a long
       discourse touching the Emperor's harshness towards him, and
       signed a protest, declaring that, as the treaty he was about
       to enter into had been extorted from him by force, it was null
       and void from the beginning, and that he never intended to
       execute it: thus, as a French writer has observed,
       establishing by an authentic notarial act that he was going to
       commit a perjury." Treaties have often been shamefully
       violated, yet it would perhaps be impossible to parallel this
       gross and deliberate perjury. In March, Francis was conducted
       to the Spanish frontier, where, on a boat in mid-stream of the
       Bidassoa, "he was exchanged for his two sons, Francis and
       Henry, who were to remain in Spain, as hostages for the
       execution of the treaty. The tears started to his eyes as he
       embraced his children, but he consigned them without remorse
       to a long and dreary exile." As speedily as possible after
       regaining his liberty, Francis assembled the states of his
       kingdom and procured from them a decision "that the King could
       not alienate the patrimony of France, and that the oath which he
       had taken in his captivity did not abrogate the still more
       solemn one which had been administered to him at his
       coronation." After which he deemed himself discharged from the
       obligations of his treaty, and had no thought of surrendering
       himself again a prisoner, as he was honourably bound to do.

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          A. B. Cochrane,
          Francis I. in Captivity.

          W. Robertson,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          book 4 (volume 2).

          C. Coignet,
          Francis I. and his Times,
          chapters 5-8.

    {1193}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1526-1527.
       Holy League with Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.
       Bourbon's attack on Rome.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, and 1527.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1527-1529.
       New alliance against Charles V.
       Early successes in Lombardy.
       Disaster at Naples.
       Genoa and all possessions in Italy lost.
       The humiliating Peace of Cambrai.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1529-1535.
       Persecution of the Protestant Reformers and spread of their
       doctrines.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1531.
       Alliance with the Protestant princes of the German League of
       Smalkalde.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1532.
       Final reunion of Brittany with the crown.

          See BRITTANY: A. D. 1532.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
       Treaty with the Pope.
       Marriage of Prince Henry with Catherine de' Medici.
       Renewed war with Charles V.
       Alliance with the Turks.
       Victory at Cerisoles.
       Treaty of Crespy.
       Increased persecution of Protestants.
       Massacre of Waldenses.
       War with England.
       Death of Francis I.

       "The 'ladies' peace' ... lasted up to 1536; incessantly
       troubled, however, by far from pacific symptoms, proceedings
       and preparations. In October, 1532, Francis I. had, at Calais,
       an interview with Henry VIII., at which they contracted a
       private alliance, and undertook 'to raise between them an army
       of 80,000 men to resist the Turk.'" But when, in 1535, Charles
       V. attacked the seat of the Barbary pirates, and took Tunis,
       Francis "entered into negotiations with Soliman II., and
       concluded a friendly treaty with him against what was called
       'the common enemy.' Francis had been for some time preparing
       to resume his projects of conquest in Italy; he had effected
       an interview at Marseilles, in October, 1533, with Pope
       Clement VII., who was almost at the point of death, and it was
       there that the marriage of Prince Henry of France with
       Catherine de' Medici [daughter of Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, and
       granddaughter of Piero de' Medici] was settled. Astonishment was
       expressed that the pope's niece had but a very moderate dowry.
       'You don't see, then,' said Clement VII.'s ambassador, 'that
       she brings France three jewels of great price, Genoa, Milan
       and Naples?' When this language was reported at the court of
       Charles V., it caused great irritation there. In 1536 all
       these combustibles of war exploded; in the month of February,
       a French army entered Piedmont, and occupied Turin; and, in
       the month of July, Charles V. in person entered Provence at
       the head of 50,000 men. Anne de Montmorency, having received
       orders to defend southern France, began by laying it waste in
       order that the enemy might not be able to live in it. ...
       Montmorency made up his mind to defend, on the whole coast of
       Provence, only Marseilles and Aries; he pulled down the
       ramparts of the other towns, which were left exposed to the
       enemy. For two months Charles V. prosecuted this campaign
       without a fight, marching through the whole of Provence an
       army which fatigue, shortness of provisions, sickness, and
       ambuscades were decimating ingloriously. At last he decided
       upon retreating. ... On returning from his sorry expedition,
       Charles V. learned that those of his lieutenants whom he had
       charged with the conduct of a similar invasion in the north of
       France, in Picardy, had met with no greater success than he
       himself in Provence." A truce for three months was soon
       afterwards arranged, and in June, 1538, through the mediation
       of Pope Paul III., a treaty was signed at Nice which extended
       the truce to ten years. Next month the two sovereigns met at
       Aigues-Mortes and exchanged many assurances of friendship."

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 28 (volume 4).

       In August, 1539, a revolt at Ghent "called Charles V. into
       Flanders; he was then in Spain, and his shortest route was
       through France. He requested permission to cross the kingdom,
       and obtained it, after having promised the Constable
       Montmorency that he would give the investiture of Milan to the
       second son of the King. His sojourn in France was a time of
       expensive fêtes, and cost the treasury four millions; yet, in
       the midst of his pleasures, the Emperor was not without
       uneasiness. ... Francis, however, respected the rights of
       hospitality; but Charles did not give to his son the
       investiture of Milan. The King, indignant, exiled the
       constable for having trusted the word of the Emperor without
       exacting his signature, and avenged himself by strengthening
       his alliance with the Turks, the most formidable enemies of
       the empire. ... The hatred of the two monarchs was carried to
       its height by these last events; they mutually outraged each
       other by injurious libels, and submitted their differences to
       the Pope. Paul III. refused to decide between them, and they
       again took up arms [1542]. The King invaded Luxembourg, and
       the Dauphin Rousillon; and while a third army in concert with
       the Mussulmans besieged Nice [1542], the last asylum of the
       dukes of Savoy, by land, the terrible Barbarossa, admiral of
       Soliman, attacked it by sea. The town was taken, the castle
       alone resisted, and the siege of it was raised. Barbarossa
       consoled himself for this check by ravaging the coasts of
       Italy, where he made 10,000 captives. The horror which he
       inspired recoiled on Francis I., his ally, whose name became
       odious in Italy and Germany. He was declared the enemy of the
       empire, and the Diet raised against him an army of 24,000 men,
       at the head of which Charles V. penetrated into Champagne,
       while Henry VIII., coalescing with the Emperor, attacked
       Picardy with 10,000 English. The battle of Cerisoles, a
       complete victory, gained during the same year [April 14,1544],
       in Piedmont, by Francis of Bourbon, Duke d'Enghien, against
       Gast, general of the Imperial troops, did not stop this double
       and formidable invasion. Charles V. advanced almost to
       Château-Thierry. But discord reigned in his army; he ran short
       of provisions, and could easily have been surrounded; he then
       again promised Milan to the Duke of Orleans, the second son of
       the King. This promise irritated the Dauphin Henry, who was
       afraid to see his brother become the head of a house as
       dangerous for France as had been that of Burgundy; he wished
       to reject the offer of the Emperor and to cut off his retreat.
       A rivalry among women, it is said, saved Charles V. ...
    {1194}
       The war was terminated almost immediately afterwards [1544] by
       the treaty of Crespy in Valois. The Emperor promised his
       daughter to the Duke of Orleans, with the Low Countries and
       Franche-Comté, or one of his nieces, with Milan. Francis
       restored to the Duke of Savoy the greater part of the places
       that he held in Piedmont; he renounced all ulterior
       pretensions to the kingdom of Naples, the duchy of Milan, and
       likewise to the sovereignty of Flanders and Artois; Charles,
       on his part, gave up the duchy of Burgundy. This treaty put an
       end to the rivalry of the two sovereigns, which had
       ensanguined Europe for 25 years. The death of the Duke of
       Orleans freed the Emperor from dispossessing himself of Milan
       or the Low Countries; he refused all compensation to the King,
       but the peace was not broken. Francis I. profited by it to
       redouble his severity with regard to the Protestants. A
       population of many thousands of Waldenses, an unfortunate
       remnant from the religious persecutions of the 13th century,
       dwelt upon the confines of Provence, and the County Venaissin,
       and a short time back had entered into communion with the
       Calvinists. The King permitted John Mesnier, Baron d'Oppède,
       first president of the Parliament of Aix, to execute [1546] a
       sentence delivered against them five years previously by the
       Parliament. John d'Oppède himself directed this frightful
       execution. Twenty-two towns or villages were burned and
       sacked; the inhabitants, surprised during the night, were
       pursued among the rocks by the glare of the flames which
       devoured their houses. The men perished by executions, but the
       women were delivered over to terrible violences. At Cabrières,
       the principal town of the canton, 700 men were murdered in
       cold blood, and all the women were burnt; lastly, according to
       the tenor of the sentence, the houses were rased, the woods cut
       down, the trees in the gardens torn up, and in a short time
       this country, so fertile and so thickly peopled, became a
       desert and a waste. This dreadful massacre was one of the
       principal causes of the religious wars which desolated France
       for so long a time. ... The war continued between [Henry
       VIII.] and Francis I. The English had taken Boulogne, and a
       French fleet ravaged the coasts of England, after taking
       possession of the Isle of Wight [1545]. Hostilities were
       terminated by the treaty of Guines [1547], which the two kings
       signed on the edge of their graves, and it was arranged that
       Boulogne should be restored for the sum of 2,000,000 of gold
       crowns. ... Henry VIII. and Francis I. died in the same year
       [1547]."

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France,
          volume 1, pages 363-367.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Robertson,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          book 6-9 (volume 2).

          J. A. Froude,
          History of England,
          chapters 20-23 (volume 4).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1534-1535.
       The voyages of Jacques Cartier and the taking
       possession of Canada.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1534-1560.
       Persecution of the Protestants.
       Their organization.
       Their numbers.

       "Francis I. had long shrunk from persecution, but having once
       begun he showed no further hesitation. During the remainder of
       his reign and the whole of that of his son Henry II.
       (1534-1559) the cruelty of the sufferings inflicted on the
       Reformers increased with the number of the victims. At first
       they were strangled and burnt, then burnt alive, then hung in
       chains to roast over a slow fire. ... The Edict of
       Chateaubriand (1551), taking away all right of appeal from
       those convicted of heresy, was followed by an attempt to
       introduce an Inquisition on the model of that of Spain, and
       when this failed owing to the opposition of the lawyers, the
       Edict of Compiègne (1557) denounced capital punishment against
       all who in public or private professed any heterodox doctrine. It
       is a commonplace that persecution avails nothing against the
       truth--that the true Church springs from the blood of martyrs.
       Yet the same cause which triumphed over persecution in France
       was crushed by it in Spain and in the Walloon Netherlands. Was
       it therefore not the truth? The fact would rather seem to be,
       that there is no creed, no sect which cannot be extirpated by
       force. But that it may prevail, persecution must be without
       respect of persons, universal, continuous, protracted. Not one
       of these conditions was fulfilled in France. The opinions of the
       greater nobles and princes, and of those who were their
       immediate followers, were not too narrowly scanned, nor was
       the persecution equally severe at all times and in all places.
       Some governors and judges and not a few of the higher clergy
       inclined to toleration. ... The cheerful constancy of the
       French martyrs was admirable. Men, women and children walked
       to execution singing the psalms of Marot and the Song of
       Simeon. This boldness confounded their enemies. Hawkers
       distributed in every part of the country the books issued from
       the press of Geneva and which it was a capital offence even to
       possess. Preachers taught openly in the streets and
       market-places. ... The increasing numbers of their converts
       and the high position of some among them gave confidence to
       the Protestants. Delegates from the reformed congregations of
       France were on their way to Paris to take part in the
       deliberations of the first national Synod on the very day
       (April 2, 1559) when the peace of Cateau Cambresis was signed,
       a peace which was to be the prelude to a vigorous and
       concerted effort to root out heresy on the part of the kings
       of France and Spain. The object of the meeting was twofold:
       first to draw up a detailed profession of faith, which was
       submitted to Calvin--there was, he said, little to add, less
       to correct--secondly to determine the 'ecclesiastical
       discipline' of the new Church. The ministers were to be chosen
       by the elders and deacons, but approved by the whole
       congregation. The affairs of each congregation were placed
       under the control of the Consistory, a court composed of the
       pastors, elders and deacons; more important matters were
       reserved for the decision of the provincial 'colloques' or
       synods, which were to meet twice a year, and in which each
       church was represented by its pastor and at least one elder.
       Above all was the national Synod also composed of the clergy
       and of representative laymen. This organisation was thoroughly
       representative and popular, the elected delegates of the
       congregations, the elders and deacons, preponderated in all
       the governing bodies, and all ministers and churches were
       declared equal. The Reformed churches, which, although most
       numerous in the South, spread over almost the whole country,
       are said at this time to have counted some 400,000 members
       (1559). These were of almost all classes, except perhaps the
       lowest, although even among the peasantry there were some
       martyrs for the faith."
    {1195}
       On the accession of Charles IX., in 1560, "a quarter of the
       inhabitants of France were, it was said, included in the 2,500
       reformed congregations. This is certainly an exaggeration, but
       it is probable that the number of the Protestants was never
       greater than during the first years of the reign of Charles
       IX. ... The most probable estimate is that at the beginning of
       the wars of religion the Huguenots with women and children
       amounted to some 1,500,000 souls out of a population of
       between fifteen and twenty millions. But in this minority were
       included about one-fourth of the lesser nobility, the country
       gentlemen, and a smaller proportion of the great nobles, the
       majority of the better sort of townspeople in many of the most
       important towns, such as Caen, Dieppe, Havre, Nantes, La
       Rochelle, Nimes, Montpellier, Montauban, Châlons, Mâcon,
       Lyons, Valence, Limoges and Grenoble, and an important
       minority in other places, such as Rouen, Orleans, Bordeaux and
       Toulouse. The Protestants were most numerous in the
       South-west, in Poitou, in the Marche, Limousin, Angoumois and
       Perigord, because in those districts, which were the seats of
       long-established and flourishing manufactures, the middle
       classes were most prosperous, intelligent and educated. It is
       doubtful whether the Catholics were not in a large majority,
       even where the superior position, intelligence and vigour of
       the Huguenots gave them the upper hand. Only in some parts of
       the South-west and of Dauphiny do the bulk of the population
       appear to have been decidedly hostile to the old religion.
       During the course of the Civil War the Protestants came to be
       more and more concentrated in certain parts of the country, as
       for instance between the Garonne and the Loire."

          P. F. Willert,
          Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots in France,
          chapter 1.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1541-1543.
       Jacques Cartier's last explorations in Canada.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1541-1564.
       The rise and influence of Calvinism.

          See GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1547.
       Accession of King Henry II.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
       The rise of the Guises.
       Alliance with the German Protestants.
       Wars with the emperor, and with Spain and England.
       Acquisition of Les Trois Evêchés, and of Calais.
       Unsuccessful campaign in Italy.
       Battle and siege of St. Quentin.
       Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.

       "The son of Francis I., who in 1547 ascended the throne under
       the title of Henry II., was told by his dying father to beware
       of the Guises. ... The Guises were a branch of the ducal House
       of Lorraine, which, although the dukedom was a fief of the
       German empire, had long stood in intimate relations with the
       court and nobility of France. The founder of the family was
       Claude, a younger son of René II., Duke of Lorraine, who,
       being naturalised in France in 1505, rendered himself
       conspicuous in the wars of Francis I., and was created first
       Duke of Guise. He died in 1550, leaving five daughters and six
       sons. His eldest daughter, Mary, became the wife of James V.
       of Scotland, and mother of Mary Queen of Scots. The sons were
       all men of extraordinary energy and ambition, and their united
       influence was, for a number of years, more than a match for
       that of the crown. Francis, second Duke of Guise, acquired,
       while still a young man, extraordinary renown as a military
       commander, by carrying out certain ambitious designs of France
       on a neighbouring territory. ... As is well known, French
       statesmen have for many centuries cherished the idea that the
       natural boundary of France on the east is the Rhine, from its
       mouth to its source, and thence along the crest of the Alps to
       the Mediterranean. ... To begin the realisation of the idea,
       advantage was taken of the war which broke out between the
       Emperor Charles V. and his Protestant subjects in North
       Germany [see GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552]. Although the
       Protestants of France were persecuted to the death, Henry II.,
       with furtively ambitious designs, offered to defend the
       Protestants of Germany against their own emperor; and entered
       into an alliance in 1551 with Maurice of Saxony and other
       princes, undertaking to send an army to their aid. As bases of
       his operations, it was agreed that he might take temporary
       military possession of Toul, Verdun, and Metz, three
       bishoprics [forming a district called the Trois Évêchés], each
       with a portion of territory lying within the area of the duchy
       of Lorraine, but held as distinct fiefs of the German empire--
       such, in fact, being fragments of Lothair's kingdom, which
       fell to Germany, and had in no shape been incorporated with
       France. It was stipulated that, in occupying these places, the
       French were not to interfere with their old connection with
       the empire. The confidence reposed in the French was
       grievously abused. All the stipulations went for nothing. In
       1552, French troops took possession of Toul and Verdun, also
       of Nancy, the capital of Lorraine, treating the duchy,
       generally, as a conquered country. Seeing this, Metz shut her
       gates and trusted to her fortifications. To procure an
       entrance and secure possession, there was a resort to
       stratagems which afford a startling illustration of the tricks
       that French nobles at that time could be guilty of in order to
       gain their ends. The French commander, the Constable
       Montmorency, begged to be allowed to pass through the town
       with a few attendants, while his army made a wide circuit on
       its route. The too credulous custodiers of the city opened the
       gates, and, to their dismay, the whole French forces rushed
       in, and began to rule in true despotic fashion. ... Thus was
       Metz secured for France in a way which modern Frenchmen, we
       should imagine, can hardly think of without shame. Germany,
       however, did not relinquish this important fortress without a
       struggle. Furious at its loss, the Emperor Charles V.
       proceeded to besiege it with a large army. The defence was
       undertaken by the Duke of Guise, assisted by a body of French
       nobility. After an investment of four months, and a loss of
       30,000 men, Charles was forced to raise the siege, January 1,
       1553, all his attempts at the capture of the place being
       effectually baffled."

          W. Chambers,
          France: its History and Revolutions,
          chapter 6.

    {1196}

       "The war continued during the two following years; but both
       parties were now growing weary of a contest in which neither
       achieved any decisive superiority"; and the emperor, having
       negotiated an armistice, resigned all his crowns to his son,
       Philip II., and his brother Ferdinand (October, 1555).
       "Meantime Pope Paul IV., who detested the Spaniards and longed
       for the complete subversion of their power in the Peninsula,
       entered into a league with the French king against Philip;
       Francis of Guise was encouraged in his favorite project of
       effecting a restoration of the crown of Naples to his own
       family, as the descendants of René of Anjou; and in December,
       1556, an army of 16,000 men, commanded by the Duke of Guise,
       crossed the Alps, and, marching direct to Rome, prepared to
       attack the Spanish viceroy of Naples, the celebrated Duke of
       Alva. In April, 1557, Guise advanced into the Abruzzi, and
       besieged Civitella; but here he encountered a determined
       resistance, and, after sacrificing a great part of his troops,
       found it necessary to abandon the attempt. He retreated toward
       Rome, closely pursued by the Duke of Alva; and the result was
       that the expedition totally failed. Before his army could
       recover from the fatigues and losses of their fruitless
       campaign, the French general was suddenly recalled by a
       dispatch containing tidings of urgent importance from the
       north of France. The Spanish army in the Netherlands,
       commanded by the Duke of Savoy, having been joined by a body
       of English auxiliaries under the Earl of Pembroke, had invaded
       France and laid siege to St. Quentin. This place was badly
       fortified, and defended by a feeble garrison under the Admiral
       de Coligny. Montmorency advanced with the main army to
       re-enforce it, and on the 10th of August rashly attacked the
       Spaniards, who outnumbered his own troops in the proportion of
       more than two to one, and inflicted on him a fatal and
       irretrievable defeat. The loss of the French amounted,
       according to most accounts, to 4,000 slain in the field, while
       at least an equal number remained prisoners, including the
       Constable himself. The road to Paris lay open to the victors.
       ... The Duke of Savoy was eager to advance; but the cautious
       Philip, happily for France, rejected his advice, and ordered
       him to press the siege of St. Quentin. That town made a
       desperate resistance for more than a fortnight longer, and was
       captured by storm on the 27th of August [1557]. ... Philip
       took possession of a few other neighbouring fortresses, but
       attempted no serious movement in prosecution of his victory.
       ... The Duke of Guise arrived from Italy early in October, to
       the great joy of the king and the nation, and was immediately
       created lieutenant-general of the kingdom, with powers of
       almost unlimited extent. Be applied himself, with his utmost
       ability and perseverance, to repair the late disasters; and
       with such success, that in less than two months he was enabled
       to assemble a fresh and well-appointed army at Compiègne.
       Resolving to strike a vigorous blow before the enemy could
       reappear in the field, he detached a division of his army to
       make a feint in the direction of Luxemburg; and, rapidly
       marching westward with the remainder, presented himself on the
       1st of January, 1558, before the walls of Calais. ... The
       French attack was a complete surprise; the two advanced forts
       commanding the approaches to the town were bombarded, and
       surrendered on the 3d of January; three days later the castle
       was carried by assault; and on the 8th, the governor, Lord
       Wentworth, was forced to capitulate. ... Guines, no longer
       tenable after the fall of Calais, shared the same fate on the
       21st of January; and thus, within the short space of three
       weeks, were the last remnants of her ancient dominion on the
       Continent snatched from the grasp of England--possessions
       which she had held for upward of 200 years. ... This
       remarkable exploit, so flattering to the national pride,
       created universal enthusiasm in France, and carried to the
       highest pitch the reputation and popularity of Guise. From
       this moment his influence became paramount; and the marriage
       of the dauphin to the Queen of Scots, which was solemnised on
       the 24th of April, 1558, seemed to exalt the house of Lorraine
       to a still more towering pinnacle of greatness. It was
       stipulated by a secret article of the marriage-contract that
       the sovereignty of Scotland should be transferred to France,
       and that the two crowns should remain united forever, in case
       of the decease of Mary without issue. Toward the end of the
       year negotiations were opened with a view to peace." They were
       interrupted, however, in November, 1558, by the death of Queen
       Mary of England, wife of Philip of Spain. "When the congress
       reassembled at Le Cateau-Cambresis, in February, 1559, the
       Spanish ministers no longer maintained the interests of
       England; and Elizabeth, thus abandoned, agreed to an
       arrangement which virtually ceded Calais to France, though
       with such nominal qualifications as satisfied the
       sensitiveness of the national honour. Calais was to be
       restored to the English at the end of eight years, with a
       penalty, in case of failure, of 500,000 crowns. At the same
       time, if any hostile proceedings should take place on the part
       of England against France within the period specified, the queen
       was to forego all claim to the fulfillment of the article."
       The treaty between France and England was signed April 2,
       1559, and that between France and Spain the following day. By
       the latter, "the two monarchs mutually restored their
       conquests in Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Picardy, and Artois;
       France abandoned Savoy and Piedmont, with the exception of
       Turin and four other fortresses [restoring Philibert Emanuel,
       Duke of Savoy, to his dominions--see SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D.
       1559-1580]; she evacuated Tuscany, Corsica, and Montferrat,
       and yielded up no less than 189 towns or fortresses in various
       parts of Europe. By way of compensation, Henry preserved the
       district of the 'Trois Évêchés'--Toul, Metz, and Verdun--and
       made the all-important acquisition of Calais. This
       pacification was sealed, according to custom, by
       marriages"--Henry's daughter Elizabeth to Philip of Spain, and
       his sister Marguerite to the Duke of Savoy. In a tournament, at
       Paris, which celebrated these marriages, Henry received an
       injury from the lance of Montgomery, captain of his Scottish
       guards, which caused his death eleven days afterwards--July
       10, 1559.

          W. H. Jervis,
          Student's History of France,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 1, chapters 2-3 (volume l).

          Lady Jackson,
          The Court of France in the 16th Century,
          volume 2, chapters 9-20.

          L. von Ranke,
          Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
          16th and 17th Centuries, chapter 6 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1548.
       Marriage of Antoine de Bourbon to Jeanne d'Albret, heiress of
       Navarre.

          See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1552.
       Alliance with the Turks.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1528-1570.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1554-1565.
       Huguenot attempts at colonization in Brazil and in Florida,
       and their fate.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563; 1564-1565;
          1565, and 1567-1568.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1558-1559.
       Aid given to revolt in Corsica.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1559.
       Accession of King Francis. II.

    {1197}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
       Francis II., Charles IX., the Guises and Catharine de' Medici.
       The Conspiracy of Amboise.
       Rapid spread and organization of Protestantism.
       Rise of the Huguenot party.
       Disputed origin of its name.

       Henry II. "had been married from political motives to the
       niece of Clement VII., Catharine de Medici. This ambitious
       woman came to France conscious that the marriage was a
       political one, mentally a stranger to her husband; and such
       she always remained. This placed her from the first in a false
       position. The King was influenced by anyone rather than by his
       wife; and a by no means charming mistress, Diana of Poitiers,
       played her part by the side of and above the Queen. ...
       Immediately after the death of her husband, in 1559, she
       [Catharine] greedily grasped at power. The young King, Francis
       II., was of age when he entered his fourteenth year. There
       could therefore be no legal regency, though there might be an
       actual one, for a weakly monarch of sixteen was still
       incompetent to govern. But she was thwarted in her first grasp
       at power. Under Francis I., a family [the Guises--see above]
       previously unknown in French history had begun to play a
       prominent part. ... The brothers succeeded in bringing about a
       political marriage which promised to throw the King, who was
       mentally a child, entirely into their hands. Their sister Mary
       had been married to James V. of Scotland, whose crown was then
       rather an insignificant one, but was now beginning to gain
       importance. The issue of this marriage was a charming girl,
       who was destined for the King's wife. She was betrothed to him
       without his consent when still a child. The young Queen was
       Mary Stuart. Her misfortunes, her beauty, and her connection
       with European history, have made her a historical personage,
       more conspicuous indeed for what she suffered than for what
       she did; her real importance is not commensurate with the
       position she occupies. This, then, was the position of the
       brothers Guise at court. The King was the husband of their
       niece; both were children in age and mind, and therefore
       doubly required guidance. The brothers, Francis and Charles,
       had the government entirely in their hands; the Duke managed
       the army, the Cardinal the finances and foreign affairs. Two
       such leaders were the mayors of the palace. The whole
       constitution of the court reminds us of the 'rois fainéants'
       and the office of major-domo under the Carlovingians. Thus,
       just when Catharine was about to take advantage of a
       favourable moment, she saw herself once more eclipsed and
       thrust aside, and that by insolent upstarts of whom one thing
       only was certain, that they possessed unusual talents, and
       that their consciences were elastic in the choice of means. It
       was not only from Catharine that the supremacy of the Guises
       met with violent opposition, but also from Protestantism, the
       importance of which was greatly increasing in France. ... In
       the time of Henry II., in spite of all the edicts and
       executions, Protestantism had made great progress. ... In the
       spring of 1559, interdicted Protestantism had secretly
       reviewed its congregations, and at the first national synod
       drawn up a confession of faith and a constitution for the new
       Church. Preachers and elders had appeared from every part of
       France, and their eighty articles of 28th May, 1559, have
       become the code of laws of French Protestantism. The
       Calvinistic principle of the Congregational Church, with
       choice of its own minister, deacons, and elders; a consistory
       which maintained strict discipline in matters of faith and
       morals ... was established upon French soil, and was
       afterwards publicly accepted by the whole party. The more
       adherents this party gained in the upper circles, the bolder
       was its attitude; there was, indeed, no end to the executions,
       or to the edicts against heresy, but a spirit of opposition,
       previously unknown, had gradually gained ground. Prisoners
       were set free, the condemned were rescued from the hands of
       the executioners on the way to the scaffold, and a plan was
       devised among the numerous fugitives in foreign lands for
       producing a turn in the course of events by violent means. La
       Rénaudie, a reformed nobleman from Perigord, who had sworn
       vengeance on the Guises for the execution of his brother, had,
       with a number of other persons of his own way of thinking,
       formed a plan for attacking the Guises, carrying off the King,
       and placing him under the guardianship of the Bourbon agnates.
       ... The project was betrayed; the Guises succeeded in placing
       the King in security in the Castle of Amboise; a number of the
       conspirators were seized, another troop overpowered and
       dispersed on their attack upon the castle, on the 17th of
       March, 1560; some were killed, some taken prisoners and at
       once executed. It was then discovered, or pretended, that the
       youngest of the Bourbon princes [see BOURBON, HOUSE OF], Louis
       of Condé, was implicated in the conspiracy [known as the
       Conspiracy or Tumult of Amboise]. ... The Guises now ventured,
       in contempt of French historical traditions, to imprison this
       prince of the blood, this agnate of the reigning house; to
       summon him before an arbitrary tribunal of partisans, and to
       condemn him to death. ... This affair kept all France in
       suspense. All the nobles, although strongly infected with
       Huguenot ideas, were on Condé's side; even those who condemned
       his religious opinions made his cause their own. They justly
       thought that if he fell none of them would be safe. In the
       midst of this ferment, destiny interposed. On the 5th of
       December, 1560, Francis II. died suddenly, and a complete
       change took place. His death put an end to a net-work of
       intrigues, which aimed at knocking the rebellion, political
       and religious, on the head. ... During this confusion one
       individual had been watching the course of events with the
       eagerness of a beast ready to seize on its prey. Catharine of
       Medici was convinced that the time of her dominion had at
       length arrived. ... Francis II. was scarcely dead when she
       seized upon the person and the power of Charles IX. He was a
       boy of ten years old, not more promising than his eldest
       brother, sickly and weakly like all the sons of Henry II.,
       more attached to his mother than the others, and he had been
       neglected by the Guises. ... One of her first acts was to
       liberate Condé; this was a decided step towards reconciliation
       with the Bourbons and the Protestants. The whole situation was
       all at once changed. The court was ruled by Catharine; her
       feverish thirst for power was satisfied. The Guises and their
       adherents were, indeed, permitted to remain in their offices
       and posts of honour, in order not fatally to offend them; but
       their supremacy was destroyed, and the new power was based
       upon the Queen's understanding with the heads of the Huguenot
       party."

          L. Häusser,
          The Period of the Reformation, 1517 to 1648,
          chapter 25.

    {1198}

       "The recent commotion had disclosed the existence of a body of
       malcontents, in part religious, in part also political,
       scattered over the whole kingdom and of unascertained numbers.
       To its adherents the name of Huguenots was now for the first
       time given. What the origin of this celebrated appellation
       was, it is now perhaps impossible to discover. ... It has been
       traced back to the name of the Eidgenossen or 'confederates,'
       under which the party of freedom figured in Geneva when the
       authority of the bishop and duke was overthrown; or to the
       'Roy Huguet,' or 'Huguon,' a hobgoblin supposed to haunt the
       vicinity of Tours, to whom the superstitious attributed the
       nocturnal assemblies of the Protestants; or to the gate 'du
       roy Huguon' of the same city, near which those gatherings were
       wont to be made. Some of their enemies maintained the former
       existence of a diminutive coin known as a 'huguenot,' and
       asserted that the appellation, as applied to the reformed,
       arose from their 'not being worth a huguenot,' or farthing;
       And some of their friends, with equal confidence and no less
       improbability, declared that it was invented because the
       adherents of the house of Guise secretly put forward claims
       upon the crown of France in behalf of that house as descended
       from Charlemagne, whereas the Protestants loyally upheld the
       rights of the Valois sprung from Hugh Capet. In the diversity
       of contradictory statements, we may perhaps be excused if we
       suspend our judgment. ... Not a week had passed after the
       conspiracy of Amboise before the word was in everybody's
       mouth. Few knew or cared whence it arose. A powerful party,
       whatever name it might bear, had sprung up, as it were, in a
       night. ... No feature of the rise of the Reformation in France
       is more remarkable than the sudden impulse which it received
       during the last year or two of Henry II.'s life, and
       especially within the brief limits of the reign of his eldest
       son. ... There was not a corner of the kingdom where the
       number of incipient Protestant churches was not considerable.
       Provence alone contained 60, whose delegates this year met in
       a synod at the blood-stained village of Mérindol. In large
       tracts of country the Huguenots had become so numerous that
       they were no longer able or disposed to conceal their
       religious sentiments, nor content to celebrate their rites in
       private or nocturnal assemblies. This was particularly the
       case in Normandy, in Languedoc, and on the banks of the
       Rhone."

          H. M. Baird,
          History of the Rise of the Huguenots,
          book 1, chapter 10 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          4th series, chapter 29.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1560.
       Accession of King Charles IX.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
       Changed policy of Catharine de' Medici.
       Delusive favors to the Huguenots.
       The Guises and the Catholics again ascendant.
       The massacre of Vassy.
       Outbreak of civil war.
       Battle of Dreux.
       Assassination of Guise.
       Peace and the Edict of Amboise.

       "Catherine de Medici, now regent, thought it wisest to abandon
       the policy which had till then prevailed under the influence
       of the Guises, and while she confirmed the Lorraine princes in
       the important offices they held, she named, on the other hand,
       Antoine de Bourbon [king of Navarre] lieutenant-general of the
       kingdom, and took Michel de l'Hôpital as her chief adviser.
       ... Chancellor de l'Hôpital, like the Regent, aimed at the
       destruction of the parties which were rending the kingdom
       asunder; but his political programme was that of an honest man
       and a true liberal. A wise system of religious toleration and
       of administrative reform would, he thought, restore peace and
       satisfy all true Frenchmen. 'Let us,' he said, 'do away with
       the diabolical party-names which cause so many
       seditions--Lutherans, Huguenots, and Papists; let us not alter
       the name of Christians.' ... The edicts of Saint Germain and
       of January (1562) were favourable to the Huguenots. Religious
       meetings were allowed in rural districts; all penalties
       previously decreed against Dissenters were suspended on
       condition that the old faith should not be interfered with:
       finally, the Huguenot divines, with Theodore de Bèze at their
       head, were invited to meet the Roman Catholic prelates and
       theologians in a conference (colloque) at Poissy, near Paris.
       Theodore de Bèze, the faithful associate and coadjutor of
       Calvin in the great work of the Reformation, both at Geneva
       and in France, is justly and universally regarded as the
       historian of the early Huguenots. ... The speech he delivered
       at the opening of the colloque is an eloquent plea for liberty
       and mutual forbearance. Unfortunately, the conciliatory
       measures he proposed satisfied no one."

          G. Masson,
          The Huguenots,
          chapter 2.

       "The edict of January ... gave permission to Protestants to
       hold meetings for public worship outside the towns, and placed
       their meetings under the protection of the law. ... The
       Parliament of Paris refused to register the edict until after
       repeated orders from the Queen-mother. The Parliament of Dijon
       refused to register it. ... The Parliament of Aix refused.
       Next, Antoine de Navarre, bribed by a promise of the
       restoration of the Spanish part of his little kingdom,
       announced that the colloquy of Poissy had converted him,
       dismissed Beza and the reformed preachers, sent Jeanne back to
       Beárn, demanded the dismissal of the Chatillons from the
       court, and invited the Duke of Guise and his brother, the
       Cardinal, who were at their château of Joinville, to return to
       Paris. Then occurred--it was only six weeks after the Edict
       of January--the massacre of Vassy. Nine hundred out of
       3,000--the population of that little town--were Protestants.
       Rejoicing in the permission granted them by the new law, they
       were assembled on the Sunday morning, in a barn outside the
       town, for the purpose of public service. The Duke of Guise and
       the Cardinal, with their armed escort of gentlemen and
       soldiers, riding on their way to Paris, heard the bells which
       summoned the people, and asked what they meant. Being told
       that it was a Huguenot 'prêche,' the Duke swore that he would
       Huguenot them to some purpose. He rode straight to the barn
       and entered the place, threatening to murder them all. The
       people relying on the law, barred the doors. Then the massacre
       began. The soldiers burst open the feeble barrier, and began
       to fire among the perfectly unarmed and inoffensive people.
       Sixty-four were killed--men, women, and children; 200 were
       wounded. This was the signal for war. Condé, on the
       intelligence, immediately retired from the court to Meaux,
       whence he issued a proclamation calling on all the Protestants
       of the country to take up arms. Coligny was at Chatillon,
       whither Catharine addressed him letter after letter, urging
       upon him, in ambiguous terms, the defence of the King.
    {1199}
       It seems, though this is obscure, that at one time Condé might
       have seized the royal family and held them. But if he had the
       opportunity, he neglected it, and the chance never came again.
       Henceforward, however, we hear no more talk about Catharine
       becoming a Protestant. That pretence will serve her no more.
       Before the clash of arms, there was silence for a space. Men
       waited till the last man in France who had not spoken should
       declare himself. The Huguenots looked to the Admiral, and not
       to Condé. It was on him that the real responsibility lay of
       declaring civil war. It was a responsibility from which the
       strongest man might shrink. ... The Admiral having once made
       up his mind, hesitated no longer, and, with a heavy heart, set
       off the next day to join Condé. He wrote to Catharine that he
       took up arms, not against the King, but against those who held
       him captive. He wrote also to his old uncle, the Constable
       [Montmorency]. ... The Constable replied. There was no
       bitterness between uncle and nephew. The former was fighting
       to prevent the 'universal ruin' of his country, and for his
       'petits maitres,' the boys, the sons of his old friend, Henry
       II. Montmorency joined the Guises in perfect loyalty, and with
       the firm conviction that it was the right thing for him to do.
       The Chatillon fought in the name of law and justice, and to
       prevent the universal massacre of his people. ... Then the
       first civil war began with a gallant exploit--the taking of
       Orleans [April 1562]. Condé rode into it at the head of 2,000
       cavalry, all shouting like schoolboys, and racing for six
       miles who should get into the city first. They pillaged the
       churches, and turned out the Catholics. 'Those who were that
       day turned outside the city wept catholicly that they were
       dispossessed of the magazines of the finest wines in France.'
       Truly a dire misfortune, for the Catholics to lose all the
       best claret districts! Orleans taken, the Huguenots proceeded
       to issue protestations and manifestoes, in all of which the
       hand of the Admiral is visible. They are not fighting against
       the King, who is a prisoner; the war was begun by the Guises.
       ... They might have added, truly enough, that Condé and the
       Admiral held in their hands letters from Catharine, urging
       them to carry on the contest for the sake of the young King.
       The fall of Orleans was quickly followed by that of Rouen,
       Tours, Blois, Bourges, Vienne, Valence, and Montauban. The
       civil war was fairly begun. The party was now well organized.
       Condé was commander-in-chief by right of his birth; Coligny
       was real leader by right of his reputation and wisdom. It was
       by him that a Solemn League and Covenant was drawn up, to be
       signed by everyone of the Calvinist chiefs. These were,
       besides Condé and the Chatillons, La Rochefoucauld, ...
       Coligny's nephew and Condé's brother-in-law--he was the
       greatest seigneur in Poitou; Rohan, from Dauphine, who was
       Condé's cousin; the Prince of Porcian, who was the husband of
       Condé's niece. Each of these lords came with a following
       worthy of his name. Montgomery, who had slain Henry II.,
       brought his Normans; Genlis, the Picards. ... With Andelot
       came a troop of Bretons; with the Count de Grammont came 6,000
       Gascons. Good news poured in every day. Not only Rouen, but
       Havre, Caen, and Dieppe submitted in the North. Angers and
       Nantes followed. The road was open in the end for bringing
       troops from Germany. The country in the southwest was
       altogether in their hands. Meantime, the enemy were not idle.
       They began with massacres. In Paris they murdered 800
       Huguenots in that first summer of the war. From every side
       fugitives poured into Orleans, which became the city of
       refuge. There were massacres at Amiens, Senlis, Cahors,
       Toulouse, Angoulême--everywhere. Coligny advised a march upon
       Paris, where, he urged, the Guises had but a rabble at their
       command. His counsels when war was once commenced, were always
       for vigorous measures. Condé preferred to wait. Andelot was
       sent to Germany, where he raised 3,000 horse. Calvin
       despatched letters in every direction, urging on the churches
       and the Protestant princes to send help to France. Many of
       Coligny's old soldiers of St. Quentin came to fight under his
       banner. Elizabeth of England offered to send an army if Calais
       were restored; when she saw that no Frenchman would give up
       that place again, she still sent men and money, though with
       grudging spirit. At length both armies took the field. The
       Duke of Guise had under him 8,000 men; Condé 7,000. They
       advanced, and met at the little town of Vassodun, where a
       conference was held between the Queen-mother and Navarre on
       the one hand, and Condé and Coligny on the other. Catharine
       proposed that all the chiefs of both sides--Guise, the
       Cardinal de Lorraine, St. Andre, Montmorency, Navarre, Condé,
       and the Chatillon brothers--should all alike go into voluntary
       exile. Condé was nearly persuaded to accept this absurd
       proposal. Another conference was held at Taley. These
       conferences were only delays. An attempt was made by Catharine
       to entrap Condé, which was defeated by the Admiral's prompt
       rescue. The Parliament of Paris issued a decree commanding all
       Romanists in every parish to rise in arms at the sound of the
       bell and to slay every Huguenot. It was said that 50,000 were
       thus murdered. No doubt the numbers were grossly exaggerated.
       ... These cruelties naturally provoked retaliation. ... An
       English army occupied Havre. English troops set out for Rouen.
       Some few managed to get within the walls. The town was taken
       by the Catholics [October 25, 1562], and, for eight days,
       plundered. Needless to say that Guise hanged every Huguenot he
       could find. Here the King of Navarre was killed. The loss of
       Rouen, together with other disasters, greatly discouraged the
       Huguenots. Their spirits rose, however, when news came that
       Andelot, with 4,000 reiters, was on his way to join them. He
       brought them in safety across France, being himself carried in
       a litter, sick with ague and fever. The Huguenots advanced
       upon Paris, but did not attack the city. At Dreux [December
       19, 1562], they met the army of Guise. Protestant historians
       endeavor to show that the battle was drawn. In fact both sides
       sustained immense losses. St. André was killed, Montmorency
       and Condé were taken prisoners. Yet Coligny had to retire from
       the field--his rival had outgeneralled him. It was
       characteristic of Coligny that he never lost heart. ... With
       his German cavalry, a handful of his own infantry, and a small
       troop of English soldiers, Coligny swept over nearly the whole
       of Normandy. It is true that Guise was not there to oppose
       him. Every thing looked well. He was arranging for a 'splendid
       alliance' with England, when news came which stayed his hand.
    {1200}
       Guise marched southwards to Orleans. ... There was in Orleans
       a young Huguenot soldier named Jean Poltrot de Méré. He was a
       fanatic. ... He waited for an opportunity, worked himself into
       the good graces of the Duke, and then shot him with three
       balls, in the shoulder. Guise died three days later. ... Then
       a peace was signed [and ratified by the Edict of Amboise,
       March 19, 1563]. Condé, won over and seduced by the sirens of
       the Court, signed it. It was a humiliating and disastrous
       peace. Huguenots were to be considered loyal subjects; foreign
       soldiers should be sent out of the country; churches and
       temples should be restored to their original uses; the suburbs
       of one town in every bailiwick, were to be used for Protestant
       worship (this was a great reduction on the Edict of January,
       which allowed the suburbs of every town); and the nobility and
       gentry were to hold worship in their own houses after their
       own opinions. The Admiral was furious at this weakness. 'You
       have ruined,' he said to Condé, 'more churches by one stroke
       of the pen than the enemy could have done in ten years of
       war.'"

          W. Besant,
          Gaspard de Coligny.
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          Duc d' Aumale,
          History of the Princes de Condé,
          book 1, chapter 3 (volume l).

          E. Bersier,
          Earlier Life of Coligny,
          chapter 21-26.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.
       Recovery of Havre from the English.
       The Treaty of Troyes.

       Under the terms on which the Huguenot leaders procured help
       from Elizabeth, the English queen held Havre, and refused to
       restore it until after the restoration of Calais to England,
       and the repayment of a loan of 140,000 crowns. The Huguenots,
       having now made peace with their Catholic fellow countrymen,
       were not prepared to fulfill the English contract, according
       to Elizabeth's claims, but demanded that Havre should be given
       up. The Queen refusing, both the parties, lately in arms
       against each other, joined forces, and laid siege to Havre so
       vigorously that it was surrendered to them on the 28th of
       July, 1563. Peace with England was concluded in the April
       following, by a treaty negotiated at Troyes, and the Queen
       lost all her rights over Calais.

          Duc d'Aumale,
          History of the Princes of Condé,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. A. Froude,
          History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
          chapters 6 and 8 (volume 1-2).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
       The conference at Bayonne.
       Outbreak of the Second Civil War.
       Battle of St. Denis.
       Peace of Longjumeau.
       The Third Civil War.
       Huguenot rally at La Rochelle.
       Appearance of the Queen of Navarre.
       Battle of Jarnac.
       Death of Condé.
       Henry of Navarre chosen to command.
       Battle of Moncontour.
       Peace of St. Germain.

       The religious peace established under the Edict of Amboise
       lasted four years. "Not that the Huguenots enjoyed during
       these years anything like security or repose. The repeated
       abridgment even of those narrow liberties conferred by the
       Edict of Amboise, and the frequent outbreaks of popular hatred
       in which numbers of them perished, kept them in perpetual
       alarm. Still more alarming was the meeting at Bayonne [of
       Catherine de' Medici, the young king, her son, and the Duke of
       Alva, representing Philip II. of Spain] in the summer of 1565.
       ... Amid the Court festivities which took place, it was known
       that there had been many secret meetings between Alva,
       Catherine, and, Charles. The darkest suspicions as to their
       objects and results spread over France. It was generally
       believed--falsely, as from Alva's letters it now appears--that
       a simultaneous extermination of all heretics in the French and
       Spanish dominions had been agreed upon. To anticipate this
       stroke, Coligni proposed that the person of the King should be
       seized upon. The Court, but slenderly guarded, was then at
       Monceaux. The project had almost succeeded. Some time,
       however, was lost. The Court got warning and fled to Meaux.
       Six thousand Swiss arrived, and by a rapid march carried the
       King to Paris. After such a failure, nothing was left to the
       Huguenots but the chances of a second civil war. Condé entered
       boldly on the campaign. Though he had with him but 1,500 horse
       and 1,200 infantry, he marched to Paris, and offered battle to
       the royal troops beneath its walls. The Constable
       [Montmorency], who had 18,000 men at his command, accepted the
       challenge, and on the 10th of November 1567, the battle of St.
       Denis was fought. ... Neither party could well claim the
       victory, as both retired from the field. The royal army had to
       mourn the loss that day of its aged and gallant commander, the
       Constable. Condé renewed next day the challenge, which was not
       accepted. The winter months were spent by the Huguenots in
       effecting a junction with some German auxiliaries, and in the
       spring they appeared in such force upon the field that, on the
       23d March 1568, the Peace of Longjumeau was ratified, which
       re-established, free from all modifications and restrictions,
       the Edict of Amboise. It was evident from the first that this
       treaty was not intended to be kept; that it had been entered
       into by the government solely to gain time, and to scatter the
       ranks of the Huguenots. Coligni sought Condé at his château of
       Noyers in Burgundy. He had scarcely arrived when secret
       intelligence was given them of a plot upon their lives. They
       had barely time to fly, making many a singular escape by the
       way, and reaching Rochelle, which from this time became the
       head-quarters of the Huguenots, on the 15th September 1568.
       During the first two religious wars ... the seat of war was so
       remote from her dominions that the Queen of Navarre [Jeanne
       d'Albret,--see NAVARRE: A.D. 1528-1563] had satisfied herself
       with opening her country as an asylum for those Huguenots
       driven thither out of the southern counties of France. But
       when she heard that Condé and Coligni ... were on their way to
       Rochelle, to raise there once more the Protestant banner,
       convinced that the French Court meditated nothing short of the
       extermination of the Huguenots, she determined openly to cast
       in her lot with her co-religionists, and to give them all the
       help she could. Dexterously deceiving Montluc, who had
       received instructions to watch her movements, and to seize
       upon her person if she showed any intention of leaving her own
       dominions, after a flight as precipitous and almost as
       perilous as that of Condé and Coligni, she reached Rochelle on
       the 29th September, ten days after their arrival. This town,
       for nearly a century the citadel of Protestantism in France,
       having by its own unaided power freed itself from the English
       dominion [in the period between 1368 and 1380] had had
       extraordinary municipal privileges bestowed on it in
       return--among others, that of an entirely independent
       jurisdiction, both civil and military.
    {1201}
       Like so many of the great commercial marts of Europe, in which
       the spirit of freedom was cherished, it had early welcomed the
       teaching of the Reformers, and at the time now before us
       nearly the whole of its inhabitants were Huguenots. ... About
       the very time that the Queen of Navarre entered Rochelle a
       royal edict appeared, prohibiting, under pain of death, the
       exercise of any other than the Roman Catholic religion in
       France, imposing upon all the observance of its rites and
       ceremonies; and banishing from the realm all preachers of the
       doctrine of Calvin, fifteen days only being allowed them to
       quit the kingdom. It was by the sword that this stern edict
       was to be enforced or rescinded. Two powerful armies of nearly
       equal strength mustered speedily. One was nominally under the
       command of the Duke of Anjou, but really led by Tavannes,
       Biron, Brissac, and the young Duke of Guise, the last burning
       to emulate the military glory of his father; the other under
       the command of Condé and Coligni. The two armies were close
       upon one another; their generals desired to bring them into
       action; they were more than once actually in each other's
       presence; but the unprecedented inclemency of the weather
       prevented an engagement, and at last, without coming into
       collision, both had to retire to winter quarters. The delay
       was fatal to the Huguenots." In the following spring (March
       13, 1569), while their forces were still scattered and
       unprepared, they were forced into battle with the
       better-generaled Royalists, at Jarnac, and were grievously
       defeated. Condé, wounded and taken prisoner, was treated at
       first with respect by the officers who received his sword. But
       "Montesquiou, captain of the Swiss Guard of the Duke of Anjou,
       galloped up to the spot, and, hearing who the prisoner was,
       deliberately levelled his pistol at him and shot him through
       the head. The Duke passed no censure on his officer, and
       expressed no regret at his deed. The grossest indignities were
       afterwards, by his orders, heaped upon the dead body of the
       slain. The defeat of Jarnac, and still more the death of
       Condé, threw the Huguenot army into despair. ... The utter
       dissolution of the army seemed at hand. The Admiral sent a
       messenger to the Queen of Navarre at Rochelle, entreating her
       to come to the camp. She was already on her way. On arrival,
       and after a short consultation with the Admiral, the army was
       drawn up to receive her. She rode along the ranks--her son
       Henry on one side, the son of the deceased Condé on the
       other." Then she addressed to the troops an inspiring speech,
       concluding with these heroic words: "Soldiers, I offer you
       everything I have to give,--my dominions, my treasures, my
       life, and, what is dearer to me than all, my children. I make
       here solemn oath before you all--I swear to defend to my last
       sigh the holy cause which now unites us." "The soldiers
       crowded around the Queen, and unanimously, as if by sudden
       impulse, hailed young Henry of Navarre as their future
       general. The Admiral and La Rochefoucauld were the first to
       swear fidelity to the Prince; then came the inferior officers
       and the whole assembled soldiery; and it was thus that, in his
       fifteenth year, the Prince of Béarn was inaugurated as
       general-in-chief of the army of the Huguenots." In June the
       Huguenot army effected a junction at St. Yriex with a division
       of German auxiliaries, led by the Duc de Deux-Ponts, and
       including among its chiefs the Prince of Orange and his
       brother Louis of Nassau. They attacked the Duke of Anjou at La
       Roche-Abeille and gained a slight advantage; but wasted their
       strength during the summer, contrary to the advice of the
       Admiral Coligny, in besieging Poitiers. The Duke of Anjou
       approached with a superior army, and, again in opposition to
       the judgment of Coligny, the Huguenots encountered him at
       Moncontour (October 3, 1569), where they suffered the worst of
       their defeats, leaving 5,000 dead and wounded on the field.
       Meanwhile a French army had entered Navarre, had taken the
       capital and spread destruction everywhere through the small
       kingdom; but the Queen sent Count de Montgomery to rally her
       people, and the invaders were driven out. Coligny and Prince
       Henry wintered their troops in the far south, then moved
       rapidly northwards in the spring, up the valley of the Rhone,
       across the Cevennes, through Burgundy, approaching the Loire,
       and were met by the Marshal de Cosse at Arnay-le-Duc, where
       Henry of Navarre won his first success in arms--Coligny being
       ill. Though it was but a partial victory it brought about a
       breathing time of peace. "This happened in the end of June,
       and on the 8th of August [1570] the Peace of St.
       Germain-en-Laye was signed, and France had two full years of
       quiet."

          W. Hanna,
          The Wars of the Huguenots,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          Duc d'Aumale,
          History of the Princes de Condé,
          book 1, chapter 4-5 (volume 1-2).

          M. W. Freer,
          Life of Jeanne d'Albret,
          chapters 8-10.

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos of English History,
          5th series, chapter 8.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1570-1572.
       Coligny at court and his influence with the King.
       Projected war with Spain.
       The desperate step of Catharine de' Medici, and its
       consequence in the plot of Massacre.

       "After the Peace of 1570, it appeared as if a complete change
       of policy was about to take place. The Queen pretended to be
       friendly with the Protestants; her relations with the
       ambitious Guises were distant and cold, and the project of
       uniting the Houses of Bourbon and Valois by marriage [the
       marriage of Henry of Navarre with the king's sister,
       Marguerite] really looked as if she was in earnest. The most
       distinguished leader of the Huguenot party was the Admiral
       Caspar de Coligny. It is quite refreshing at this doleful
       period to meet with such a character. He was a nobleman of the
       old French school and of the best stamp; lived upon his estates
       with his family, his little court, his retainers and subjects,
       in ancient patriarchal style, and on the best terms, and
       regularly went with them to the Protestant worship and the
       communion; a man of unblemished morality and strict
       Calvinistic views of life. Whatever this man said or did was
       the result of his inmost convictions; his life was the
       impersonation of his views and thoughts. In the late turbulent
       times he had become an important person as leader and
       organizer of the Protestant armies. At his call, thousands of
       noblemen and soldiers took up arms, and they submitted under
       his command to very strict discipline. He could not boast of
       having won many battles, but he was famous for having kept his
       resources together after repeated defeats, and for rising up
       stronger than before after every lost engagement. ... Now that
       peace was made, 'why,' he asked, 'excite further dissensions
       for the benefit of our common enemies? Let us direct our
       undivided forces against the real enemy of France--against
       Spain, who stirs up intrigues in our civil, wars. Let us crush
       this power, which condemns us to ignominious dependence.'
    {1202}
       The war against Spain was Coligny's project. It was the idea
       of a good Huguenot, for it was directed against the most
       blindly fanatical and dangerous foe of the new doctrines; but
       it was also that of a good Frenchman, for a victory over Spain
       would increase the power of France in the direction of
       Burgundy. ... From September, 1571, Coligny was at court. On
       his first arrival he was heartily welcomed by the King,
       embraced by Catharine, and loaded with honours and favours by
       both. I am not of opinion that this was a deeply laid scheme
       to entrap the guileless hero, the more easily to ruin him.
       Catharine's ideas did not extend so far. Still less do I
       believe that the young King was trained to play the part of a
       hypocrite, and regarded Coligny as a victim to be cherished
       until the fête day. I think, rather, that Catharine, in her
       changeableness and hatred of the Guises, was now really
       disposed to make peace with the Protestants, and that the
       young King was for the time impressed by this superior
       personage. No youthful mind is so degraded as to be entirely
       inaccessible to such influence. ... I believe that the first
       and only happy day in the life of this unfortunate monarch was
       when he met Coligny, who raised him above the degradation of
       vulgar life; and I believe further, that this relation was the
       main cause of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. A new influence
       was threatening to surround the King and to take deep root,
       which Catharine, her son Henry of Anjou, and the strict
       Catholic party, must do their utmost to avert; and it was
       quite in accordance with the King's weak character to allow
       the man to be murdered whom he had just called 'Father.' ...
       It appears that about the middle of the year [1572] the matter
       [of war with Spain and help to the revolting Netherlands] was
       as good as decided. The King willingly acceded to Coligny's
       plan ... [and] privately gave considerable sums for the
       support of the Flemish patriots, for the equipment of an army
       of 4,000 men, composed of Catholics and Protestants, who
       marched towards Mons, to succour Louis of Nassau. When in July
       this army was beaten, and the majority of the Huguenots were
       in despair, Coligny succeeded in persuading the King to equip
       a fresh and still larger army; but the opposition then
       bestirred itself. ...The Queen ... had been absent, with her
       married daughter in Lorraine, and on her return she found
       everything changed; the Guises without influence, herself
       thrust on one side. Under the impression of the latest events
       in Flanders, which made it likely that the war with Spain
       would be ruinous, she hastened to the King, told him with
       floods of tears that it would be his ruin; that the Huguenots,
       through Coligny, had stolen the King's confidence,
       unfortunately for himself and the country. She made some
       impression upon him, but it did not last long, and thoughts of
       war gained the upper hand again. The idea now (August, 1572),
       must have been matured in Catharine's mind of venturing on a
       desperate step, in order to save her supremacy and influence.
       ... The idea ripened in her mind of getting rid of Coligny by
       assassination. ... Entirely of one mind with her son Henry,
       she turned to the Guises, with whom she was at enmity when
       they were in power, but friendly when they were of no more
       consequence than herself. They breathed vengeance against the
       Calvinists, and were ready at once to avenge the murder of
       Francis of Guise by a murderous attack upon Coligny. An
       assassin was hired, and established in a house belonging to
       the Guises, near Coligny's dwelling, and as he came out of the
       palace, on the 22nd of August, a shot was fired at him, which
       wounded but did not kill him. Had Coligny died of his wound,
       Catharine would have been content. ... But Coligny did not
       die; the Huguenots defiantly demanded vengeance on the
       well-known instigator of the deed; their threats reached the
       Queen and Prince Henry of Anjou, and the personal fascination
       which Coligny had exercised over King Charles appeared rather
       to increase than to diminish. Thus doubtless arose, during the
       anxious hours after the failure of the assassination, the idea of
       an act of violence on a large scale, which should strike a
       blow at Coligny and his friends before they had time for
       revenge. It certainly had not been in preparation for months,
       not even since the time that Coligny had been at Court; it was
       conceived in the agony of these hours."

          L. Hausser,
          The Period of the Reformation,
          chapter 27.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          part 3, chapters 6-7 (volume 2).

          L. von Ranke,
          Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
          chapter 15.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (August).
       The Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

       "With some proofs, forged or real, in her hand that he was in
       personal danger, the Queen Mother [August 24] presented
       herself to her son. She told him that at the moment she was
       speaking the Huguenots were arming. Sixteen thousand of them
       intended to assemble in the morning, seize the palace, destroy
       herself, the Duke of Anjou, and the Catholic noblemen, and
       carry off Charles. The conspiracy, she said, extended through
       France. The chiefs of the congregations were waiting for a
       signal from Coligny to rise in every province and town. The
       Catholics had discovered the plot, and did not mean to sit
       still to be murdered. If the King refused to act with them,
       they would choose another leader; and whatever happened he
       would be himself destroyed. Unable to say that the story could
       not be true, Charles looked enquiringly at Tavannas and De
       Nevers, and they both confirmed the Queen Mother's words.
       Shaking his incredulity with reminders of Amboise and Meaux,
       Catherine went on to say that one man was the cause of all the
       troubles in the realm. The Admiral aspired to rule all France,
       and she--she admitted, with Anjou and the Guises, had
       conspired to kill him to save the King and the country. She
       dropped all disguise. The King, she said, must now assist them
       or all would be lost. ... Charles was a weak, passionate boy,
       alone in the dark conclave of iniquity. He stormed, raved,
       wept, implored, spoke of his honour, his plighted word; swore
       at one moment that the Admiral should not be touched, then
       prayed them to try other means. But clear, cold and venomous,
       Catherine told him it was too late. If there was a judicial
       enquiry, the Guises would shield themselves by telling all
       that they knew. They would betray her; they would betray his
       brother; and, fairly or unfairly, they would not spare
       himself. ... For an hour and a half the King continued to
       struggle. 'You refuse, then,' Catherine said at last. ... 'Is
       it that you are afraid, Sire?' she hissed in his ear. 'By
       God's death,' he cried, springing to his feet, 'since you will
       kill the Admiral, kill them all.
    {1203}
       Kill all the Huguenots in France, that none may be left to
       reproach me. Mort Dieu! Kill them all.' He dashed out of the
       cabinet. A list of those who were to die was instantly drawn
       up. Navarre and Condé were first included; but Catherine
       prudently reflected that to kill the Bourbons would make the
       Guises too strong. Five or six names were added to the
       Admiral's, and these Catherine afterwards asserted were all
       that it was intended should suffer. ... Night had now fallen.
       Guise and Aumale were still lurking in the city, and came with
       the Duke of Montpensier at Catherine's summons. The persons
       who were to be killed were in different parts of the town.
       Each took charge of a district. Montpensier promised to see to
       the Palace; Guise and his uncle undertook the Admiral; and below
       these, the word went out to the leaders of the already
       organised sections, who had been disappointed once, but whose
       hour was now come. The Catholics were to recognise one another
       in the confusion by a white handkerchief on the left arm and a
       white cross in their caps. The Royal Guard, Catholics to a
       man, were instruments ready made for the work. Guise assembled
       the officers: he told them that the Huguenots were preparing
       to rise, and that the King had ordered their instant
       punishment. The officers asked no questions, and desired no
       better service. The business was to begin at dawn. The signal
       would be the tolling of the great bell at the Palace of
       Justice, and the first death was to be Coligny's. The soldiers
       stole to their posts. Twelve hundred lay along the Seine,
       between the river and the Hotel de Ville; other companies
       watched at the Louvre. As the darkness waned, the Queen Mother
       went down to the gate. The stillness of the dawn was broken by
       an accidental pistol-shot. Her heart sank, and she sent off a
       messenger to tell Guise to pause. But it was too late. A
       minute later the bell boomed out, and the massacre of St.
       Bartholomew had commenced." The assassins broke into the
       Admiral's dwelling and killed him as he lay wounded in bed.
       "The window was open. 'Is it done?' cried Guise from the court
       below, 'is it done? Fling him out that we may see him.' Still
       breathing, the Admiral was hurled upon the pavement. The
       Bastard of Angoulême wiped the blood from his face to be sure
       of his identity, and then, kicking him as he lay, shouted, 'So
       far well. Courage, my brave boys! now for the rest.' One of
       the Duc de Nevers's people hacked off the head. A rope was
       knotted about the ankles, and the corpse
       was dragged out into the street amidst the howling crowd.
       Teligny, ... Rochefoucault, and the rest of the Admiral's
       friends who lodged in the neighbourhood were disposed of in
       the same way, and so complete was the surprise that there was
       not the most faint attempt at resistance. Montpensier had been
       no less successful in the Louvre. The staircases were all
       beset. The retinues of the King of Navarre and the Prince had
       been lodged in the palace at Charles's particular desire.
       Their names were called over, and as they descended unarmed
       into the quadrangle they were hewn in pieces. There, in heaps,
       they fell below the Royal window, under the eyes of the
       miserable King, who was forced forward between his mother and
       his brother that he might be seen as the accomplice of the
       massacre. Most of the victims were killed upon the spot. Some
       fled wounded up the stairs, and were slaughtered in the
       presence of the Princesses. ... By seven o'clock the work
       which Guise and his immediate friends had undertaken was
       finished with but one failure. The Count Montgomery and the
       Vidame of Chartres ... escaped to England. The mob meanwhile
       was in full enjoyment. ... While dukes and lords were killing
       at the Louvre, the bands of the sections imitated them with
       more than success; men, women, and even children, striving
       which should be the first in the pious work of murder. All
       Catholic Paris was at the business, and every Huguenot
       household had neighbours to know and denounce them. Through
       street and lane and quay and causeway, the air rang with yells
       and curses, pistol-shots and crashing windows; the roadways
       were strewed with mangled bodies, the doors were blocked by
       the dead and dying. From garret, closet, roof, or stable,
       crouching creatures were torn shrieking out, and stabbed and
       hacked at; boys practised their hands by strangling babies in
       their cradles, and headless bodies were trailed along the
       trottoirs. ... Towards midday some of the quieter people
       attempted to restore order. A party of the town police made
       their way to the palace. Charles caught eagerly at their
       offers of service, and bade them do their utmost to put the
       people down; but it was all in vain. The soldiers, maddened
       with plunder and blood, could not be brought to assist, and
       without them nothing could be done. All that afternoon and
       night, and the next day and the day after, the horrible scenes
       continued, till the flames burnt down at last for want of
       fuel. The number who perished in Paris was computed variously
       from 2,000 to 10,000. In this, as in all such instances, the
       lowest estimate is probably the nearest to the truth. The
       massacre was completed--completed in Paris--only, as it
       proved, to be continued elsewhere. ... On the 24th, while the
       havoc was at its height, circulars went round to the provinces
       that a quarrel had broken out between the Houses of Guise and
       Coligny; that the Admiral and many more had been unfortunately
       killed, and that the King himself had been in danger through
       his efforts to control the people. The governors of the
       different towns were commanded to repress at once any symptoms
       of disorder which might show themselves, and particularly to
       allow no injury to be done to the Huguenots." But Guise, when
       he learned of these circulars, which threw upon him the odium
       of the massacre, forced the King to recall them. "The story of
       the Huguenot conspiracy was revived. ... The Protestants of
       the provinces, finding themselves denounced from the throne,
       were likely instantly to take arms to defend themselves.
       Couriers were therefore despatched with second orders that
       they should be dealt with as they had been dealt with at
       Paris; and at Lyons, Orleans, Rouen, Bordeaux, Toulon, Meaux,
       in half the towns and villages of France, the bloody drama was
       played once again. The King, thrown out into the hideous
       torrent of blood, became drunk with frenzy, and let slaughter
       have its way, till even Guise himself affected to be shocked,
       and interposed to put an end to it; not, however, till,
       according to the belief of the times, 100,000 men, women and
       children had been miserably murdered. ... The number again may
       be hoped to have been prodigiously exaggerated; with all large
       figures, when unsupported by exact statistics, it is safe to
       divide at least by ten."

          J. A. Froude,
          History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
          chapter 23 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          H. White,
          The Massacre of St. Bartholomew,
          chapters 12-14.

          Duke of Sully,
          Memoirs,
          book 1.

          G. P. Fisher,
          The Massacre of St. Bartholomew
          (New Englander, January, 1880).

    {1204}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (August-October).
       The king's avowal of responsibility for the Massacre, and
       celebration of his "victory."
       Rejoicings at Rome and Madrid.
       General horror of Europe.
       The effects in France.
       Changed character of the Protestant party.

       "On the morning of the 26th of August, Charles IX. went to
       hold a 'bed of justice' in the parliament, carrying with him
       the king of Navarre, and he then openly avowed that the
       massacre had been perpetrated by his orders, made ... excuse
       for it, grounded on a pretended conspiracy of the Huguenots
       against his person, and then directed the parliament to
       commence judicial proceedings against Coligni and his
       accomplices, dead or alive, on the charge of high treason. The
       parliament obeyed, and, after a process of two months, which
       was a mere tissue of falsehoods, they not only found all the
       dead guilty, but they included in the sentence two of the
       principal men who had escaped--the old captain Briquemaut,
       and Arnaud de Cavaignes. ... Both were hanged at the Place de
       Grève, in the presence of the king, who compelled the king of
       Navarre also to be a witness of their execution. Having once
       assumed the responsibility of the massacre of the protestants,
       Charles IX. began to glory in the deed. On the 27th of August,
       he went with the whole court to Montfaucon, to contemplate the
       mutilated remains of the admiral. ... Next day, a grand
       jubilee procession was headed by the king in celebration of
       his so-called victory. ... The 'victory' was also celebrated
       by two medals. ... Nevertheless, the minds of Charles and his
       mother were evidently ill at ease, and their misgivings as to
       the effect which would be produced at foreign courts by the
       news of these proceedings are very evident in the varying and
       often contradictory orders which they dispatched into the
       provinces. ... The news of these terrible events caused an
       extreme agitation in all the courts throughout Christian
       Europe. Philip of Spain, informed of the massacres by a letter
       from the king and the queen-mother, written on the 29th of
       August, replied by warm congratulations and expressions of
       joy. The cardinal of Lorraine, who was ... at Rome, gave a
       reward of 1,000 écus of gold to the courier who brought the
       despatches, and the news was celebrated at Rome by the firing
       of the cannons of the castle of St. Angelo, and by the
       lighting of bon-fires in the streets. The pope (Gregory XIII.)
       and the sacred college went in grand procession to the
       churches to offer their thanks to God. ... Not content with
       these demonstrations, the pope caused a medal to be struck.
       ... Gregory dispatched immediately to the court of France the
       legate Fabio d'Orsini, with a commission to congratulate the
       king and his mother for the vigour they had shown in the
       repression of heresy, to demand the reception in France of the
       council of Trent, and the establishment of the Inquisition.
       ... But the papal legate found the court of France in a
       different temper from that which he anticipated. Catherine,
       alarmed at the effect which these great outrages had produced
       on the protestant sovereigns, found it necessary to give him
       private intimations that the congratulations of the pontiff
       were untimely, and could not be publicly accepted. ... The
       policy of the French court at home was no less distasteful to
       the papal legate than its relations abroad. The old edicts
       against the public exercise of the protestant worship were
       gradually revived, and the Huguenots were deprived of the
       offices which they had obtained during the short period of
       toleration, but strict orders were sent round to forbid any
       further massacres, with threats of punishment against those
       who had already offended. On the 8th of October, the king
       published a declaration, inviting such of the protestants as
       had quitted the kingdom in consequence of the massacres to
       return, and promising them safety; but this was soon followed
       by letters to the governors of the provinces, directing them
       to exhort the Huguenot gentry and others to conform to the
       catholic faith, and declaring that he would tolerate only one
       religion in his kingdom. Many, believing that the protestant
       cause was entirely ruined in France, complied, and this
       defection was encouraged by the example of the two princes of
       Bourbon [Henry, now king of Navarre, his mother, Jeanne
       d'Albret, having died June 9, 1572, and Henry, the young
       prince of Condé], who, after some weeks of violent resistance,
       submitted at the end of September, and, at least in outward
       form, became catholics. It has been remarked that the massacre
       of St. Bartholomew's-day produced an entire change in the
       character of the protestant party in France. The Huguenots had
       hitherto been entirely ruled by their aristocracy, who took
       the lead and direction in every movement; but now the great
       mass of the protestant nobility had perished or deserted the
       cause, and from this moment the latter depended for support
       upon the inhabitants of some of the great towns and upon the
       un-noble class of the people; and with this change it took a
       more popular character, in some cases showing even a tendency
       to republicanism. In the towns where the protestants were
       strong enough to offer serious resistance, such as La
       Rochelle, Nimes, Sancerre, and Montauban, the richer burghers,
       and a part at least of the municipal officers, were in favour
       of submission, and they were restrained only by the resolution
       and devotion of the less wealthy portion of the population."

          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          book 3, chapter 7 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          H. M. Baird,
          History of the Rise of the Huguenots,
          chapter 19 (volume 2).

          A. de Montor,
          Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
          volume 1, pages 810-812.

    {1205}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.
       The Fourth Religious War.
       Siege and successful defence of La Rochelle.
       A favorable peace.

       "The two Reformer-princes, Henry of Navarre and Henry de
       Condé, attended mass on the 29th of September, and, on the 3d
       of October, wrote to the pope, deploring their errors and
       giving hopes of their conversion. Far away from Paris, in the
       mountains of the Pyrenees and of Languedoc, in the towns where
       the Reformers were numerous and confident ... the spirit of
       resistance carried the day. An assembly, meeting at Milhau,
       drew up a provisional ordinance for the government of the
       Reformed church, 'until it please God, who has the hearts of
       kings in His keeping, to change that of King Charles IX. and
       restore the state of France to good order, or to raise up such
       neighboring prince as is manifest marked out, by his virtue
       and by distinguishing signs, for to be the liberator of this
       poor afflicted people.' In November, 1572, the fourth
       religious war broke out. The siege of La Rochelle was its only
       important event. Charles IX. and his councillors exerted
       themselves in vain to avoid it. There was everything to
       disquiet them in this enterprise: so sudden a revival of the
       religious war after the grand blow they had just struck, the
       passionate energy manifested by the Protestants in asylum at
       La Rochelle, and the help they had been led to hope for from
       Queen Elizabeth, whom England would never have forgiven for
       indifference in this cause. ... The king heard that one of the
       bravest Protestant chiefs, La Noue, 'Ironarm,' had retired to
       Mons with Prince Louis of Nassau. The Duke of Longueville ...
       induced him to go to Paris. The king received him with great
       favor ... and pressed him to go to La Rochelle and prevail
       upon the inhabitants to keep the peace. ... La Noue at last
       consented, and repaired, about the end of November, 1572, to a
       village close by La Rochelle, whither it was arranged that
       deputies from the town would come and confer with him. ...
       After hearing him, the senate rejected the pacific overtures
       made to them by La Noue. 'We have no mind [they said] to treat
       specially and for ourselves alone; our cause is that of God
       and of all the churches of France; we will accept nothing but
       what shall seem proper to all our brethren.'" They then
       offered to trust themselves under La Noue's command,
       notwithstanding the commission by which he was acting for the
       king. "La Noue did not hesitate; he became, under the
       authority of the mayor, Jacques Henri, the military head of La
       Rochelle, whither Charles IX. had sent him to make peace. The
       king authorized him to accept this singular position. La Noue
       conducted himself so honorably in it, and everybody was so
       convinced of his good faith as well as bravery, that for three
       months he commanded inside La Rochelle, and superintended the
       preparations for defence, all the while trying to make the
       chances of peace prevail. At the end of February, 1573, he
       recognized the impossibility of his double commission, and he
       went away from La Rochelle, leaving the place in better
       condition than that in which he had found it, without either
       king or Rochellese considering that they had any right to
       complain of him. Biron first and then the Duke of Anjou in
       person took the command of the siege. They brought up, it is
       said, 40,000 men and 60 pieces of artillery. The Rochellese,
       for defensive strength, had but 22 companies of refugees or
       inhabitants, making in all 3,100 men. The siege lasted from
       the 26th of February to the 13th of June, 1573; six assaults
       were made on the place. ... La Rochelle was saved. Charles IX.
       was more and more desirous of peace; his brother, the Duke of
       Anjou, had just been elected King of Poland; Charles IX. was
       anxious for him to leave France and go to take possession of
       his new kingdom. Thanks to these complications, the peace of
       La Rochelle was signed on the 6th of July, 1573. Liberty of
       creed and worship was recognized in the three towns of La
       Rochelle, Montauban, and Nimes. They were not obliged to
       receive any royal garrison, on condition of giving hostages to
       be kept by the king for two years. Liberty of worship throughout
       the extent of their jurisdiction continued to be recognized in
       the case of lords high-justiciary. Everywhere else the
       Reformers had promises of not being persecuted for their
       creed, under the obligation of never holding an assembly of
       more than ten persons at a time. These were the most favorable
       conditions they had yet obtained. Certainly this was not what
       Charles IX, had calculated upon when he consented to the
       massacre of the Protestants."

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 33.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.
       Escape of Condé and Navarre.
       Death of Charles IX.
       Accession of Henry III.
       The Fifth Civil War.
       Navarre's repudiation of Catholicism.
       The Peace of Monseur.
       The King's mignons and the nation's disgust.

       "Catherine ... had the address to procure the crown of Poland
       for the son of her predilection, Henry duke of Anjou. She had
       lavished her wealth upon the electors for this purpose. No
       sooner was the point gained than she regretted it. The health
       of Charles was now manifestly on the decline, and Catherine
       would fain have retained Henry; but the jealousy of the king
       forbade. After conducting the duke on his way to Poland the
       court returned to St. Germain, and Charles sunk, without hope
       or consolation, on his couch of sickness. Even here he was not
       allowed to repose. The young king of Navarre formed a project
       of escape with the prince of Condé. The duc d' Alençon,
       youngest brother of the king, joined in it. ... The vigilance
       of the queen-mother discovered the enterprise, which, for her
       own purposes, she magnified into a serious plot. Charles was
       informed that a huguenot army was coming to surprise him, and
       he was obliged to be removed into a litter, in order to
       escape. ... Condé was the only prince that succeeded in making
       his escape. The king of Navarre and the duc d' Alençon were
       imprisoned." The young king of Navarre "had already succeeded
       by his address, his frankness, and high character, in rallying
       to his interests the most honourable of the noblesse, who
       dreaded at once the perfidious Catherine and her children; who
       had renounced their good opinion of young Guise after the day
       of St. Bartholomew; and who, at the same time professing
       Catholicism, were averse to huguenot principles and zeal. This
       party, called the Politiques, professed to follow the middle
       or neutral course, which at one time had been that of
       Catherine of Medicis; but she had long since deserted it, and
       had joined in all the sanguinary and extreme measures of her
       son and of the Guises. Hence she was especially odious to the
       new and moderate party of the Politiques, among whom the
       family of Montmorency held the lead. Catherine feared their
       interference at the moment of the king's death, whilst his
       successor was absent in a remote kingdom; and she swelled the
       project of the princes' escape into a serious conspiracy, in
       order to be mistress of those whom she feared. ... In this
       state of the court Charles IX. expired on the 30th of May,
       1574, after having nominated the queen-mother to be regent
       during his successor's absence. ... The career of the new king
       [Henry III.], while duke of Anjou, had been glorious. Raised
       to the command of armies at the age of 15, he displayed
       extreme courage as well as generalship.
    {1206}
       He had defeated the veteran leader of the protestants at
       Jarnac and at Moncontour; and the fame of his exploits had
       contributed to place him on the elective throne of Poland,
       which he now occupied. Auguring from his past life, a
       brilliant epoch might be anticipated; and yet we enter upon
       the most contemptible reign, perhaps, in the annals of France.
       ... Henry was obliged to run away by stealth from his Polish
       subjects [see POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590]. When overtaken by one
       of the nobles of that kingdom, the monarch, instead of
       pleading his natural anxiety to visit France and secure his
       inheritance, excused himself by drawing forth the portrait of
       his mistress, ... and declared that it was love which hastened
       his return. At Vienna, however, Henry forgot both crown and
       mistress amidst the feasts that were given him; and he turned
       aside to Venice, to enjoy a similar reception from that rich
       republic. ... The hostile parties were in the meantime arming.
       The Politiques, or neutral catholics, for the first time
       showed themselves in the field. They demanded the freedom of
       Cossé and of Montmorency, and at length formed a treaty of
       alliance with the Huguenots. Henry, after indulging in the
       ceremony of being crowned, was obliged to lead an army into
       the field. Sieges were undertaken on both sides, and what is
       called the fifth civil war raged openly. It became more
       serious when the king's brother joined it. This was the duke
       of Alençon, a vain and fickle personage, of whom it pleased
       the king to become jealous. Alençon fled and joined the
       malcontents. The reformers, however, waited but languidly.
       Both parties were without active and zealous leaders; and the
       only notable event of this war was a skirmish in Champagne
       [the battle of Dormans, in which both sides lost heavily],
       where the duke of Guise received a slight wound in the cheek.
       From hence came his surname of 'Le Balafré.'" In February,
       1576, the king of Navarre made his escape from court. "He bent
       his course towards Guienne, and at Niort publicly avowed his
       adherence to the reformed religion, declaring that force alone
       had made him conform to the mass. It was about this time that
       the king, in lieu of leading an army against the malcontents,
       despatched the queen-mother, with her gay and licentious
       court, to win back his brother. She succeeded, though not
       without making large concessions [in a treaty called the
       'Peace of Monsieur']. The duke of Alençon obtained Anjou, and
       other provinces in appanage, and henceforth was styled duke of
       Anjou. More favourable terms were granted to the Huguenots:
       they were allowed ten towns of surety in lieu of six, and the
       appointment of a certain number of judges in the parliament.
       Such weakness in Henry disgusted the body of the catholics;
       and the private habits of his life contributed still more, if
       possible, than his public measures, to render him
       contemptible. He was continually surrounded by a set of young
       and idle favourites, whose affectation it was to unite
       ferocity with frivolity. The king showed them such tender
       affection as he might evince towards woman; they even had the
       unblushing impudence to adopt feminine habits of dress; and
       the monarch passed his time in adorning them and himself with
       robes and ear-rings. ... The indescribable tastes and
       amusements of Henry and his mignons, as his favourites were
       called, ... raised up throughout the nation one universal cry
       of abhorrence and contempt."

          E. E. Crowe,
          History of France,
          chapters 8-9 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          Lady Jackson,
          The Last of the Valois,
          volume 2, chapters 2-6.

          S. Menzies,
          Royal Favourites,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585.
       The rise of the League.
       Its secret objects and aims.
       Its alliance with Philip II. of Spain.
       The Pope's Bull against Navarre and Condé.

       "The famous association known as the 'Catholic League' or
       'Holy Union,' took its rise from the strangely indulgent terms
       granted to the Huguenots by the 'Peace of Monsieur,' in April,
       1576. Four years had scarcely elapsed since the bloodstained
       Eve of St. Bartholomew. It had been hoped that by means of
       that execrable crime the Reformation would have been finally
       crushed and extinguished in France; but instead of this, a
       treaty was concluded with the heretics, which placed them in a
       more favourable situation than they had ever occupied before.
       ... It was regarded by the majority of Catholics as a wicked
       and cowardly betrayal of their most sacred interests. They
       ascribed it to its true source, namely, the hopeless
       incapacity of the reigning monarch, Henry III.; a prince whose
       monstrous vices and gross misgovernment were destined to
       reduce France to a state of disorganization bordering on
       national ruin. The idea of a general confederation of
       Catholics for the defence of the Faith against the inroads of
       heresy had been suggested by the Cardinal of Lorraine during
       the Council of Trent, and had been favourably entertained at
       the Court of Rome. The Duke of Guise was to have been placed
       at the head of this alliance; but his sudden death changed the
       face of affairs, and the project fell into abeyance. The
       Cardinal of Lorraine was now no more; he died at Avignon, at
       the age of 50, in December, 1574. ... Henry, the third Duke of
       Guise, inherited in their fullest extent the ambition, the
       religious ardour, the lofty political aspirations, the
       enterprising spirit, the personal popularity, of his
       predecessors. The League of 1576 was conceived entirely in his
       interest. He was the leader naturally pointed out for such a
       movement;--a movement which, although its ulterior objects
       were at first studiously concealed, aimed in reality at
       substituting the family of Lorraine for that of Valois on the
       throne of France. The designs of the confederates, as set
       forth in the original manifesto which was circulated for
       signature, seemed at first sight highly commendable, both with
       regard to religion and politics. According to this document, the
       Union was formed for three great purposes: to uphold the
       Catholic Church; to suppress heresy; and to maintain the
       honour, the authority and prerogatives of the Most Christian
       king and his successors. On closer examination, however,
       expressions were detected which hinted at less constitutional
       projects. ... Their secret aims became incontestably manifest
       soon afterwards, when one of their confidential agents, an
       advocate named David, happened to die suddenly on his return
       from Rome, and his papers fell into the hands of the
       Huguenots, who immediately made them public. ... A change of
       dynasty in France was the avowed object of the scheme thus
       disclosed. It set forth, in substance, that the Capetian
       monarchs were usurpers,--the throne belonging rightfully to
       the house of Lorraine as the lineal descendants of
       Charlemagne. ...
    {1207}
       The Duke of Guise, with the advice and permission of the Pope,
       was to imprison Henry for the rest of his days in a monastery,
       after the example of his ancestor Pepin when he dethroned the
       Merovingian Childeric. Lastly, the heir of the Carlovingians
       was to be proclaimed King of France; and, on assuming the
       crown, was to make such arrangements with his Holiness as
       would secure the complete recognition of the sovereignty of
       the Vicar of Christ, by abrogating for ever the so-called
       'liberties of the Gallican Church.' ... This revolutionary
       plot ... unhappily, was viewed with cordial sympathy, and
       supported with enthusiastic zeal, by many of the prelates, and
       a large majority of the parochial clergy, of France. ... The
       death of the Duke of Anjou, presumptive heir to the throne, in
       1584, determined the League to immediate action. In the event
       of the king's dying without issue, which was most
       probable,--the crown would now devolve upon Henry of Bourbon
       [the King of Navarre], the acknowledged leader of the
       Huguenots. ... In January, 1585, the chiefs of the League
       signed a secret treaty at Joinville with the King of Spain, by
       which the contracting parties made common cause for the
       extirpation of all sects and heresies in France and the
       Netherlands, and for excluding from the French throne princes
       who were heretics, or who 'treated heretics with public
       impunity.' ... Liberal supplies of men and money were to be
       furnished to the insurgents by Philip from the moment that war
       should break out. ... The Leaguers lost no time in seeking for
       their enterprise the all-important sanction of the Holy See.
       For this purpose they despatched as their envoy to Rome a
       Jesuit named Claude Matthieu. ... The Jesuit fraternity in
       France had embraced with passionate ardour the anti-royalist
       cause. ... His Holiness [Gregory XIII.], however, was cautious
       and reserved. He expressed in general terms his consent to the
       project of taking up arms against the heretics, and granted a
       plenary indulgence to those who should aid in the holy work.
       But he declined to countenance the deposition of the king by
       violence. ... At length, however [September 9, 1585], Sixtus
       was persuaded to fulminate a bull against the King of Navarre
       and the Prince of Condé, in which ... both culprits, together
       with their heirs and posterity were pronounced for ever
       incapable of succeeding to the throne of France or any other
       dignity; their subjects and vassals were released from their
       oath of homage, and forbidden to obey them."

          W. H. Jervis,
          History of the Church of France,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
          chapter 21.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.
       Rapid spread of the League.
       The Sixth Civil War and the Peace of Bergerac.
       Anjou in the Netherlands.

       The League "spread like lightning over the whole face of
       France; Condé could find no footing in Picardy or even in
       Poitou; Henry of Navarre was refused entrance into Bordeaux
       itself; the heads of the League, the family-party of the Dukes
       of Guise, Mayenne and Nemours, seemed to carry all before
       them; the weak King leant towards them; the Queen Mother,
       intriguing ever, succeeded in separating Anjou from the
       Politiques, and began to seduce Damville. She hoped once more
       to isolate the Huguenots and to use the League to weaken and
       depress them. ... The Court and the League seemed to be in
       perfect harmony, the King ... in a way, subscribed to the
       League, though the twelve articles were considerably modified
       before they were shown to him. ... The Leaguers had succeeded
       in making war [called the Sixth Civil War--1577], and winning
       some successes: but on their heels came the Court with fresh
       negotiations for peace. The heart's desire of the King was to
       crush the stubborn Huguenots and to destroy the moderates, but
       he was afraid to act; and so it came about that, though Anjou
       was won away from them, and compromised on the other side, and
       though Damville also deserted them, and though the whole party
       was in the utmost disorder and seemed likely to disperse,
       still the Court offered them such terms that in the end they
       seemed to have even recovered ground. Under the walls of
       Montpellier, Damville, the King's general, and Chatillon, the
       Admiral's son, at the head of the Huguenots, were actually
       manœuvring to begin a battle, when La Noue came up bearing
       tidings of peace, and at the imminent risk of being shot
       placed himself between the two armies, and stayed their
       uplifted hands. It was the Peace of Bergerac [confirmed by the
       Edict of Poitiers--Sept. 17, 1577], another ineffectual truce,
       which once more granted in the main what that of Chastenoy [or
       the 'Peace of Monseur'] had already promised: it is needless
       to say that the League would have none of it; and
       partisan-warfare, almost objectless, however oppressive to the
       country, went on without a break: the land was overrun by
       adventurers and bandits, sure sign of political death. Nothing
       could be more brutalising or more brutal: but the savage
       traits of civil war are less revolting than the ghastly
       revelries of the Court. All the chiefs were alike--neither the
       King, nor Henry of Navarre, nor Anjou, nor even the strict
       Catholic Guise, disdained to wallow in debauch." Having
       quarreled with his brother, the King, "Anjou fled, in the
       beginning of 1578, to Angers, where, finding that there was a
       prospect of amusement in the Netherlands, he turned his back
       on the high Catholics, and renewed friendship with the
       Huguenot chiefs. He was invited to come to the rescue of the
       distressed Calvinists in their struggle against Philip, and
       appeared in the Netherlands in July 1578."

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, and 1581-1584.

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          volume 2, pages 370-373.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
       Treaty of Nérac.
       The Seventh Civil War, known as the War of the Lovers.
       The Peace of Fleix.

       "The King, instead of availing himself of this interval of
       repose [after the Peace of Bergerac] to fortify himself
       against his enemies, only sank deeper and deeper into vice and
       infamy. ... The court resembled at once a slaughter-house and
       a brothel, although, amid all this corruption, the King was
       the slave of monks and Jesuits whom he implicitly obeyed. It
       was about this time (December 1578) that he instituted the
       military order of the Holy Ghost, that of St. Michael having
       fallen into contempt through being prostituted to unworthy
       objects. Meanwhile the Guises were using every effort to
       rekindle the war, which Catherine, on the other hand, was
       endeavouring to prevent. With this view she travelled, in
       August, into the southern provinces, and had an interview with
       Henry of Navarre at Nérac, bringing with her Henry's wife, her
       daughter Margaret; a circumstance, however, which did not add
       to the pleasure of their meeting.
    {1208}
       Henry received the ladies coldly, and they retired into
       Languedoc, where they passed the remainder of the year.
       Nevertheless the negotiations were sedulously pursued; for a
       peace with the Hugonots was, at this time, indispensable to
       the Court. ... In February 1579, a secret treaty was signed at
       Nérac, by which the concessions granted to the Protestants by
       the peace of Bergerac were much extended. ... Catherine spent
       nearly the whole of the year 1579 in the south, endeavouring
       to avert a renewal of the war by her intrigues, rather than by
       a faithful observance of the peace. But the King of Navarre
       saw through her Italian artifices, and was prepared to summon
       his friends and captains at the shortest notice. The
       hostilities which he foresaw were not long in breaking out,
       and in a way that would seem impossible in any other country
       than France. When the King of Navarre fled from Court in 1576,
       he expressed his indifference for two things he had left
       behind, the mass and his wife; Margaret, the heroine of a
       thousand amours, was equally indifferent, and though they now
       contrived to cohabit together, it was because each connived at
       the infidelities of the other. Henry was in love with
       Mademoiselle Fosseuse, a girl of fourteen, while Margaret had
       taken for her gallant the young Viscount of Turenne, who had
       lately turned Hugonot. ... The Duke of Anjou being at this
       time disposed to renew his connection with the Hugonots,
       Margaret served as the medium of communication between her
       brother and her husband; while Henry III., with a view to
       interrupt this good understanding, wrote to the king of
       Navarre to acquaint him of the intrigues of his wife with
       Turenne. Henry was neither surprised nor afflicted at this
       intelligence; but he laid the letter before the guilty
       parties, who both denied the charge, and Henry affected to
       believe their protestations. The ladies of the Court of Nérac
       were indignant at this act of Henry III., 'the enemy of
       women'; they pressed their lovers to renew hostilities against
       that discourteous monarch; Anjou added his instances to those
       of the ladies; and in 1580 ensued the war called from its
       origin 'la guerre des amoureux,' or war of the lovers: the
       seventh of what are sometimes styled the wars of 'religion'!
       The Prince of Condé, who lived on bad terms with his cousin,
       had already taken the field on his own account, and in
       November 1579 had seized on the little town of La Fère in
       Picardy. In the spring of 1580 the Protestant chiefs in the
       south unfurled their banners. The King of Navarre laid the
       foundation of his military fame by the bravery he displayed at
       the capture of Cahors; but on the whole the movement proved a
       failure. Henry III. had no fewer than three armies in the
       field, which were generally victorious, and the King of
       Navarre found himself menaced in his capital of Nérac by
       Marshal Biron. But Henry III., for fear of the Guises, did not
       wish to press the Hugonots too hard, and at length accepted
       the proffered mediation of the Duke of Anjou, who was at this
       time anxious to enter on the protectorate offered to him by
       the Flemings. Anjou set off for the south, accompanied by his
       mother and her 'flying squadron' [of seductive nymphs];
       conferences were opened at the castle of Fleix in Périgord,
       and on November 26th 1580 a treaty was concluded which was
       almost a literal renewal of that of Bergerac. Thus an
       equivocal peace, or rather truce, was re-established, which
       proved of some duration."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Duc d'Aumale,
          History of the Princes de Condé,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
       Henry of Navarre heir apparent to the throne.
       Fresh hostility of the League.
       The Edict of Nemours.
       The Pope's Brutum Fulmen.
       War of the Three Henrys.
       Battle of Coutras.
       The Day of Barricades at Paris.
       Assassination of Guise.
       Assassination of Henry III.

       "The Duc d'Anjou ... died in 1584; Henri III. was a worn-out
       and feeble invalid; the reports of the doctors and the known
       virtue of the Queen forbad the hope of direct heirs. The King
       of Navarre was the eldest of the legitimate male descendants
       of Hugues Capet and of Saint-Louis [see BOURBON, HOUSE OF].
       But on the one hand he was a relapsed heretic; on the other,
       his relationship to the King was so distant that he could
       never have been served heir to him in any civil suit. This
       last objection was of small account; the stringent rules which
       govern decisions in private affairs cannot be made applicable
       to matters affecting the tranquillity and well-being of
       nations. ... His religion was the only pretext on which
       Navarre could be excluded. France was, and wished to remain,
       Catholic; she could not submit to a Protestant King. The
       managers of the League understood that this very wide-spread
       and even strongly cherished feeling might some day become a
       powerful lever, but that, in order to use it, it was very
       needful for them to avoid offending the national amour-propre;
       and they thought that they had succeeded in finding the means
       of effecting their object. Next to Navarre, the eldest of the
       Royal House was his uncle the Cardinal de Bourbon; the Guises
       acknowledged him as heir to the throne and first Prince of the
       Blood, under the protection of the Pope and of the King of
       Spain. ... The feeble-minded old man, whom no one respected,
       was a mere phantom, and could offer no serious resistance,
       when it should be convenient to set him aside. ... In every
       class throughout the nation the majority were anxious to
       maintain at once French unity and Catholic unity, disliking
       the Reformation, but equally opposed to ultramontane
       pretensions and to Spanish ambition. ... But ... this great
       party, already named the 'parti politique,' hung loosely
       together without a leader, and without a policy. For the
       present it was paralyzed by the contempt in which the King was
       held; while the dislike which was entertained for the
       religious opinions of the rightful heir to the throne seemed
       to deprive it of all hope for the future. Henry III. stood in
       need of the assistance of the King of Navarre; he would
       willingly have cleared away the obstacle which kept them
       apart, and he made an overture with a view to bring back that
       Prince to the Catholic religion. But these efforts could not
       be successful. The change of creed on the part of the Béarnais
       was to be a satisfaction offered to France, the pledge of a
       fresh agreement between the nation and his race, and not a
       concession to the threats of enemies. He was not an
       unbeliever; still less was he a hypocrite; but he was placed
       between two fanatical parties, and repelled by the excesses of
       both; so he doubted, honestly doubted, and as his religious
       indecision was no secret, his conversion at the time of which
       we are now speaking would have been ascribed to the worst
       motives."
    {1209}
       As it was, he found it necessary to quiet disturbing rumors
       with regard to the proposals of the King by permitting a plain
       account of what had occurred to be made public. "Henry III.,
       having no other answer to make to this publication, which
       justified all the complaints of the Catholics, replied to it
       by the treaty of Nemours and by the edict of July [1585].
       These two acts annulled all the edicts in favour of
       toleration; and placed at the disposal of the League all the
       resources and all the forces of the monarchy." Soon afterwards
       the Pope issued against Navarre and Condé his bull of
       excommunication. By this "the Pontiff did not deprive the
       Bourbons of a single friend, and did not give the slightest
       fresh ardour to their opponents; but he produced a powerful
       reaction among a portion of the clergy, among the magistracy,
       among all the Royalists; wounded the national sensibility,
       consolidated that union between the two Princes which he
       wished to break off, and rallied the whole of the Reformed
       party round their leaders. The Protestant pamphleteers replied
       with no less vehemence, and gave to the Pontiff's bull that
       name of 'Brutum fulmen' by which it is still known. ... Still
       the sentence launched from the Vatican had had one very
       decided result--it had fired the train of powder; war broke
       out at once."

          Duc d'Aumale,
          History of the Princes of Condé,
          book 2, chapter 1.

       "The war, called from the three leading actors in it [Henry of
       Valois, Henry of Navarre, and Henry of Guise] the War of the
       Three Henrys, now opened in earnest. Seven powerful armies
       were marshalled on the part of the King of France and the
       League. The Huguenots were weak in numbers, but strong in the
       quality of their troops. An immense body of German 'Reiter'
       had been enrolled to act as an auxiliary force, and for some
       time had been hovering on the frontiers. Hearing that at last
       they had entered France, Henry of Navarre set out from
       Rochelle to effect a junction with them. The Duke of Joyeuse,
       one of the French King's chief favourites, who had the charge
       of the army that occupied the midland counties, resolved to
       prevent their junction. By a rapid movement he succeeded in
       crossing the line of Henry's march and forcing him into
       action. The two armies came in front of each other on a plain
       near the village of Coutras, on the 19th of October, 1587. The
       Royalist army numbered from 10,000 to 12,000, the Huguenot
       from 6,000 to 7,000--the usual disparity in numbers; but
       Henry's skilful disposition did more than compensate for his
       numerical inferiority. ... The struggle lasted but an hour,
       yet within that hour the Catholic army lost 3,000 men, more
       than 400 of whom were members of the first families in the
       kingdom; 3,000 men were made prisoners. Not more than a third
       part of their entire army escaped. The Huguenots lost only
       about 200 men. ... Before night fell he [Navarre] wrote a few
       lines to the French King, which run thus: 'Sire, my Lord and
       Brother,--Thank God, I have beaten your enemies and your
       army.' It was but too true that the poor King's worst enemies
       were to be found in the very armies that were marshalled in
       his name."

          W. Hanna,
          The Wars of the Huguenots,
          chapter 6.

       "The victory [at Coutras] had only a moral effect. Henry lost
       time by going to lay at the feet of the Countess of Grammont
       the flags taken from the enemy. Meantime the Duke of Guise,
       north of the Loire, triumphed over the Germans under the Baron
       of Dohna at Vimory, near Montargis, and again near Auneau
       (1587). Henry III. was unskilful enough to leave to his rival
       the glory of driving them out of the country. Henry III.
       re-entered Paris. As he passed along, the populace cried out,
       'Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands';
       and a few days after, the Sorbonne decided that 'the
       government could be taken out of the hands of princes who were
       found incapable.' Henry III., alarmed, forbade the Duke of
       Guise to come to Paris, and quartered in the faubourgs 4,000
       Swiss and several companies of the guards. The Sixteen [chiefs
       of sixteen sections of Paris, who controlled the League in
       that city] feared that all was over; they summoned the
       'Balafré' and he came [May 9, 1588]. Cries of 'Hosannah to the
       Son of David!' resounded throughout Paris, and followed him to
       the Louvre. ... The king and the chief of the League fortified
       themselves, one in the Louvre, the other in the Hotel Guise.
       Negotiations were carried on for two days. On the morning of
       the 11th the duke, well attended, returned to the Louvre, and
       in loud tones demanded of the king that he should send away
       his counsellors, establish the Inquisition, and push to the
       utmost the war against the heretics. That evening the king
       ordered the companies of the city guards to hold several
       positions, and the next morning he introduced into the city
       the Swiss and 2,000 men of the French guards. But the city
       guards failed him. In two hours all Paris was under arms, all
       the streets were rendered impassable, and the advancing
       barricades soon reached the positions occupied by the troops
       [whence the insurrection became known as 'the Day of
       Barricades']. At this juncture Guise came out of his hôtel,
       dressed in a white doublet, with a small cane in his hand;
       saved the Swiss, who were on the point of being massacred,
       sent them back to the king with insulting scorn, and quieted
       everything as if by magic. He demanded the office of
       lieutenant-general of the kingdom for himself, the convocation
       of the States at Paris, the forfeiture of the Bourbons, and,
       for his friends, provincial governments and all the other
       offices. The queen-mother debated these conditions for three
       hours. During this time the attack was suspended, and Henry
       III. was thus enabled to leave the Louvre and make his escape.
       The Duke of Guise had made a mistake; but if he did not have
       the king, he had Paris. There was now a king of Paris and a
       king of France; negotiations were carried on, and to the
       astonishment of all, Henry III. at length granted what two
       months before he had refused in front of the barricades. He
       swore that he would not lay down his arms until the heretics
       were entirely exterminated; declared that any non-Catholic
       prince forfeited his rights to the throne, appointed the Duke
       of Guise lieutenant-general, and convoked the States at Blois
       [October, 1588]. The States of Blois were composed entirely of
       Leaguers," and were wholly controlled by the Duke of Guise.
       The latter despised the king too much to give heed to repeated
       warnings which he received of a plot against his life.
    {1210}
       Summoned to a private interview in the royal cabinet, at an
       early hour on the morning of the 23d of December, he did not
       hesitate to present himself, boldly, alone, and was murdered
       as he entered, by eight of the king's body-guard, whom Henry
       III. had personally ordered to commit the crime. "Killing the
       Duke of Guise was not killing the League. At the news of his
       death Paris was stunned for a moment; then its fury broke
       forth. ... The Sorbonne decreed 'that the French people were
       set free from the oath of allegiance taken to Henry III.' ...
       Henry III. had gained nothing by the murder; ... but he had
       helped the fortunes of the king of Navarre, into whose arms he
       was forced to cast himself. ... The junction of the Protestant
       and the royal armies under the same standard completely
       changed the nature of the war. It was no longer feudal
       Protestantism, but the democratic League, which threatened
       royalty; monarchy entered into a struggle with the Catholic
       masses in revolt against it. Henry III. called together, at
       Tours, his useless Parliament, and issued a manifesto against
       Mayenne and the chiefs of the League. Henry of Navarre carried
       on the war energetically. In two months he was master of the
       territory between the Loire and the Seine, and 15,000 Swiss
       and lanzknechts joined him. On the evening of July 30th, 1589,
       the two kings, with 40,000 men, appeared before Paris. The
       Parisians could see the long line of the enemies' fires
       gleaming in a vast semi-circle on the left bank of the Seine.
       The king of Navarre established his headquarters at Meudon;
       Henry III. at Saint-Cloud. The great city was astounded; the
       people had lost energy; but the fury was concentrated in the
       hearts of the chiefs and in the depths of the cloisters. ...
       The arm of a fanatic became the instrument of the general
       fury, and put into practice the doctrine of tyrannicide more
       than once asserted in the schools and the pulpit. The assault
       was to be made on August 2d. On the morning of the previous
       day a young friar from the convent of the Dominicans, Jacques
       Clément, came out from Paris," obtained access to the king by
       means of a forged letter, and stabbed him in the abdomen,
       being, himself, slain on the spot by the royal guards. Henry
       III. "died the same night, and with him the race of Valois
       became extinct. The aged Catherine de' Medici had died six
       months before."

          V. Duruy,
          History of France (abridged),
          chapter 45.

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
          16th and 17th Centuries, chapters 22-25.

          W. S. Browning,
          History of the Huguenots,
          chapters 35-42.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1585.
       Proffered sovereignty of the United Netherlands declined by
       Henry III.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.
       Henry of Navarre as Henry IV. of France.
       His retreat to Normandy.
       The battles at Arques.
       Battle of Ivry.

       "On being made aware that all hope was over, this King [Henry
       III.], whose life had been passed in folly, vanity and
       sensuality ... prepared for death like a patriot king and a
       martyr. He summoned his nobles to his bedside, and told them
       that his only regret in dying was that he left the kingdom in
       disorder, and as the best mode of remedying the evil he
       recommended them to recognize the King of Navarre, to whom the
       kingdom belonged of right; making no account of the religious
       difference, because that king, with his sincere and earnest
       nature, must finally return to the bosom of the Church. Then
       turning to Henry, he solemnly warned him: 'Cousin,' he said,
       'I assure you that you will never be King of France if you do
       not become Catholic, and if you do not make your peace with
       the Church.' Directly afterwards he breathed his last,
       reciting the 'Miserere.' This account is substantially
       confirmed by Perefixe. According to Sully, Henry, hearing that
       the King had been stabbed, started for St. Cloud, attended by
       Sully, but did not arrive till he was dead; and D'Aubigny
       says: 'When the King of Navarre entered the chamber where the
       body was lying, he saw amidst the howlings some pulling their
       hats down upon their brows, or throwing them on the ground,
       clenching their fists, plotting, clasping each other's hands,
       making vows and promises.' ... Henry's situation was
       embarrassing in the extreme, for only a small number of the
       Catholic nobles gave in an unqualified adhesion: a powerful
       body met and dictated the conditions upon which alone they
       would consent to his being proclaimed King of France: the two
       first being that within six months he would cause himself to
       be instructed in the Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith; and that
       during this interval he would nominate no Huguenot to offices
       of State. He replied that he was no bigot, and would readily
       seek instruction in the tenets of the Romish faith, but
       declined pledging himself to any description of exclusion or
       intolerance. M. Guadet computes that nine-tenths of his French
       subjects were Catholic, and the temper of the majority may be
       inferred from what was taking place in Paris, where the news
       of the late King's death was the signal for the most unseemly
       rejoicing. ... Far from being in a condition to reduce the
       refractory Parisians, Henry was obliged to abandon the siege,
       and retire towards Normandy, where the expected succours from
       England might most easily reach him. Sully says that this
       retreat was equally necessary for the safety of his person and
       the success of his affairs. He was temporarily abandoned by
       several of the Huguenot leaders, who, serving at their own
       expense, were obliged from time to time to go home to recruit
       their finances and their followers. Others were made lukewarm
       by the prospect of his becoming Catholic; so that he was no
       longer served with enthusiasm by either party; and when, after
       making the best arrangements in his power, he entered
       Normandy, he had with him only 3,000 French foot, two
       regiments of Swiss and 1,200 horse; with which, after being
       joined by the Due de Montpensier with 200 gentlemen and 1,500
       foot, he drew near to Rouen, relying on a secret understanding
       within the walls which might give him possession of the place.
       Whilst preparations were making for the siege, sure
       intelligence was brought that the Duc de Mayenne was seeking
       him with an army exceeding 30,000; but, resolved to make head
       against them till the last extremity, Henry entrenched himself
       before Arques, which was only accessible by a causeway." A series
       of engagements ensued, beginning September 15, 1589; but
       finding that he could not dislodge his antagonist, Mayenne
       withdrew after some ten days of fighting, moving his army
       towards Picardy and leaving the road to Paris open. "Being too
       weak to recommence the siege or to occupy the city if taken by
       assault, Henry resolved to give the Parisians a sample of what
       they might expect if they persevered in their contumacy, and
       gave orders for attacking all the suburbs at once.
    {1211}
       They were taken and sacked. Davila states that the plunder was
       so abundant that the whole camp was wonderfully relieved and
       sustained." From this attack on the Parisian suburbs, Henry
       proceeded to Tours, where he held his court for a time. Early
       in March, 1590, he laid siege to Dreux. "The Duc de Mayenne,
       reinforced by Spanish troops from the Low Countries under
       Count Egmont, left Paris to effect a diversion, and somewhat
       unexpectedly found himself compelled to accept the battle
       which was eagerly pressed upon him. This was the renowned
       battle of Ivry. The armies presented much the same contrast as
       at Coutras. The numerical superiority on one side, the
       Catholic, was more than compensated by the quality of the
       troops on the other. Henry's soldiers, as described by De
       Thou, were armed to the teeth. 'They displayed neither scarf
       nor decoration, but their accoutrements inspired grim terror.
       The army of the Duc, on the contrary, was magnificent in
       equipment. The officers wore bright-coloured scarves, while
       gold glittered upon their helmets and lances.' The two armies
       were confronted on the 13th of March, 1590, but it was getting
       dark before the dispositions were completed, and the battle
       was deferred till the following morning. The King passed the
       night like Henry V. at Agincourt, and took only a short rest
       in the open air on the field. ... At daybreak he mounted his
       horse, and rode from rank to rank, pausing from time to time
       to utter a brief exhortation or encouragement. Prayers were
       offered up by the Huguenot ministers at the head of each
       division, and the bishop [Perefixe] gives the concluding words
       of that in which Divine aid was invoked by the King: 'But,
       Lord, if it has pleased Thee to dispose otherwise, or Thou
       seest that I ought to be one of those kings whom Thou
       punishest in Thy wrath, grant that I may be this day the
       victim of Thy Holy will: so order it that my death may deliver
       France from the calamities of war, and that my blood be the
       last shed in this quarrel.' Then, putting on his helmet with
       the white plume, before closing the vizor, he addressed the
       collected leaders:--'My friends, if you share my fortune this
       day, I also share yours. I am resolved to conquer or to die
       with you. Keep your ranks firmly, I beg; if the heat of the
       combat compels you to quit them, think always of the rally; it
       is the gaining of the battle. You will make it between the
       three trees which you see there [pointing to three pear-trees
       on an eminence], and if you lose your ensigns, pennons and
       banners, do not lose sight of my white plume: you will find it
       always on the road of honour and victory.' It so chanced that his
       white plume was the actual rallying-point at the most critical
       moment. ... His standard-bearer fell: a page bearing a white
       pennon was struck down at his side; and the rumour was
       beginning to spread that he himself was killed, when the sight
       of his bay horse and white plume, with the animating sound of
       his voice, gave fresh courage to all around and brought the
       bravest of his followers to the front. The result is told in
       one of his own missives. After stating that the battle began
       between 11 and 12, he continues: 'In less than an hour, after
       having discharged all their anger in two or three charges
       which they made and sustained, all their cavalry began to
       shift for themselves, abandoning their infantry, which was
       very numerous. Seeing which, their Swiss appealed to my pity
       and surrendered--colonels, captains, soldiers, and colours.
       The lansquenets and French had no time to form this
       resolution, for more than 1,200 were cut to pieces, and the
       rest dispersed into the woods at the mercy of the peasants.'
       He urged on the pursuers, crying 'Spare the French, and down
       with the foreigners.' ... Instead of pushing on towards Paris,
       which it was thought would have opened its gates to a
       conqueror in the flush of victory, Henry lingered at Mantes,
       where he improvised a Court, which his female favourites were
       summoned to attend."

          Henry IV. of France
          (Quarterly Review, October, 1879).

          ALSO IN:
          H. M. Baird,
          The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
          chapter 11 (volume 2).

          Duke of Sully,
          Memoirs,
          book 3 (volume l).

          G. P. R. James,
          Life of Henry IV.,
          books 11-12 (volume 2).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1590.
       The siege of Paris and its horrors.
       Relief at the hands of the Spaniards under Parma.
       Readiness of the League to give the crown to Philip II.

       "The king, yielding to the councils of Biron and other
       catholics, declined attacking the capital, and preferred
       waiting the slow, and in his circumstances eminently
       hazardous, operations of a regular siege. ... Whatever may
       have been the cause of the delay, it is certain that the
       golden fruit of victory was not plucked, and that although the
       confederate army had rapidly dissolved, in consequence of
       their defeat, the king's own forces manifested as little
       cohesion. And now began that slow and painful siege, the
       details of which are as terrible, but as universally known, as
       those of any chapters in the blood-stained history of the
       century. Henry seized upon the towns guarding the rivers Seine
       and Marne, twin nurses of Paris. By controlling the course of
       those streams as well as that of the Yonne and Oise--
       especially by taking firm possession of Lagny on the Marne,
       whence a bridge led from the Isle of France to the Brie
       country--great thoroughfare of wine and corn--and of Corbeil
       at the junction of the little river Essonne with the Seine--it
       was easy in that age to stop the vital circulation of the
       imperial city. By midsummer, Paris, unquestionably the first
       city of Europe at that day, was in extremities. ... Rarely
       have men at any epoch defended their fatherland against
       foreign oppression with more heroism than that which was
       manifested by the Parisians of 1590 in resisting religious
       toleration, and in obeying a foreign and priestly despotism.
       Men, women, and children cheerfully laid down their lives by
       thousands in order that the papal legate and the king of Spain
       might trample upon that legitimate sovereign of France who was
       one day to become the idol of Paris and of the whole kingdom.
       A census taken at the beginning of the siege had showed a
       population of 200,000 souls, with a sufficiency of provisions,
       it was thought, to last one month. But before the terrible
       summer was over--so completely had the city been invested--the
       bushel of wheat was worth 360 crowns. ... The flesh of horses,
       asses, dogs, cats, rats, had become rare luxuries. There was
       nothing cheap, said a citizen bitterly, but sermons. And the
       priests and monks of every order went daily about the streets,
       preaching fortitude in that great resistance to heresy. ...
       Trustworthy eye-witnesses of those dreadful days have placed
       the number of the dead during the summer at 30,000. ...
    {1212}
       The hideous details of the most dreadful sieges recorded in
       ancient or modern times were now reproduced in Paris. ... The
       priests ... persuaded the populace that it was far more
       righteous to kill their own children, if they had no food to
       give them, than to obtain food by recognizing a heretic king.
       It was related, too, and believed, that in some instances
       mothers had salted the bodies of their dead children and fed
       upon them, day by day, until the hideous repast would no
       longer support their own life. ... The bones of the dead were
       taken in considerable quantities from the cemeteries, ground
       into flour, baked into bread, and consumed. It was called
       Madame Montpensier's cake, because the duchess earnestly
       proclaimed its merits to the poor Parisians. 'She was never
       known to taste it herself, however,' bitterly observed one who
       lived in Paris through that horrible summer. She was right to
       abstain, for all who ate of it died. ... Lansquenets and other
       soldiers, mad with hunger and rage, when they could no longer
       find dogs to feed on, chased children through the streets, and
       were known in several instances to kill and devour them on the
       spot. ... Such then was the condition of Paris during that
       memorable summer of tortures. What now were its hopes of
       deliverance out of this Gehenna? The trust of Frenchmen was in
       Philip of Spain, whose legions, under command of the great
       Italian chieftain [Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma, commander
       of the Spanish forces in the Netherlands], were daily longed
       for to save them from rendering obedience to their lawful
       prince. For even the king of straw--the imprisoned cardinal
       [Cardinal de Bourbon, whom the League had proclaimed king,
       under the title of Charles X., on the death of Henry
       III.]--was now dead, and there was not even the effigy of any
       other sovereign than Henry of Bourbon to claim authority in
       France. Mayenne, in the course of long interviews with the
       Duke of Parma at Condé and Brussels, had expressed his desire
       to see Philip king of France, and had promised his best
       efforts to bring about such a result." Parma, who was
       struggling hard with the obstinate revolt in the Netherlands,
       having few troops and little money to pay them with, received
       orders from his Spanish master to relieve Paris and conquer
       France. He obeyed the command to the best of his abilities. He
       left the Netherlands at the beginning of August, with 12,000
       foot and 3,000 horse; effected a junction with Mayenne at
       Meaux, ten leagues from Paris, on the 22d, and the united
       armies--5,000 cavalry and 18,000 foot--arrived at Chelles on
       the last day of summer. "The two great captains of the age had
       at last met face to face. ... The scientific duel which was
       now to take place was likely to task the genius and to bring
       into full display the peculiar powers and defects of the two."
       The winner in the duel was the Duke of Parma, who foiled
       Henry's attempts to bring him to battle, while he captured
       Lagny under the king's eyes. "The bridges of Charenton and St.
       Maur now fell into Farnese's hands without a contest. In an
       incredibly short space of time provisions and munitions were
       poured into the starving city, 2,000 boat-loads arriving in a
       single day. Paris was relieved. Alexander had made his
       demonstration and solved the problem. ... The king was now in
       worse plight than ever. His army fliers, cheated of their
       battle, and having neither food nor forage, rode off by
       hundreds every day." He made one last attempt, by a midnight
       assault on the city, but it failed. Then he followed the
       Spaniards--whom Parma led back to the Netherlands early in
       November--but could not bring about a battle or gain any
       important advantage. But Paris, without the genius of
       Alexander Farnese in its defence, was soon reduced to as
       complete a blockade as before. Lagny was recovered by the
       besieging royalists, the Seine and the Marne were again
       fast-locked, and the rebellious capital deprived of supplies.

          J. L. Motley,
          History of the United Netherlands,
          chapter 23 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          M. W. Freer,
          History of the Reign of Henry IV.,
          book 1.

          C. D. Yonge,
          History of France under the Bourbons,
          chapter 2.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
       The siege of Rouen and Parma's second interference.
       General advancement of Henry's cause.
       Restiveness of the Catholics.
       The King's abjuration of Protestantism.

       "It seemed as if Henri IV. had undertaken the work of
       Penelope. After each success, fresh difficulties arose to
       render it fruitless. ... Now it was the Swiss who refused to
       go on without their pay; or Elizabeth who exacted seaports in
       return for fresh supplies; or the Catholics who demanded the
       conversion of the King; or the Protestants who complained of
       not being protected. Depressed spirits had to be cheered, some
       to be satisfied, others to be reassured or restrained, allies
       to be managed, and all to be done with very little money and
       without any sacrifice of the national interests. Henri was
       equal to all, both to war and to diplomacy, to great concerns
       and to small. ... His pen was as active as his sword. The
       collection of his letters is full of the most charming notes.
       ... Public opinion, which was already influential and
       thirsting for news, was not neglected. Every two or three
       months a little publication entitled 'A Discourse,' or 'An
       Authentic Narrative,' or 'Account of all that has occurred in
       the King's Army,' was circulated widely. ... Thus it was that
       by means of activity, patience, and tact, Henri V. was enabled
       to retrieve his fortunes and to rally his party; so that by
       the end of the year 1591, he found himself in a position to
       undertake an important operation. ... The King laid siege to
       Rouen in December, 1591. He was at the head of the most
       splendid army he had ever commanded; it numbered upwards of
       25,000 men. This was not too great a number; for the
       fortifications were strong, the garrison numerous, well
       commanded by Villars, and warmly supported by the townspeople.
       The siege had lasted for some months when the King learned
       that Mayenne had at last made the Duke of Parma to understand
       the necessity of saving Rouen at all hazards. Thirty thousand
       Spanish and French Leaguers had just arrived on the Somme.
       Rouen, however, was at the last gasp; Henri could not make up
       his mind to throw away the fruits of so much toil and trouble;
       he left all his infantry under the walls, under the command of
       Biron, and marched off with his splendid cavalry." He attacked
       the enemy imprudently, near Aumale, February 5, met with a
       repulse, was wounded and just missed being taken prisoner in a
       precipitate retreat. But both armies were half paralyzed at this
       time by dissensions among their chiefs.
    {1213}
       That of the Leaguers fell back to the Somme; but in April it
       approached Rouen again, and Parma was able, despite all
       Henri's efforts, to enter the town. This last check to the
       King "was the signal for a general desertion. Henri, left with
       only a small corps of regular troops and a few gentlemen, was
       obliged to retire rapidly upon Pont de l'Arche. The Duke of
       Parma did not follow him. Always vigilant, he wished before
       everything to establish himself on the Lower Seine, and laid
       siege to Caudebec, which was not likely to detain him long.
       But he received during that operation a severe wound, which
       compelled him to hand over the command to Mayenne." The
       incompetence of the latter soon lost all the advantages which
       Parma had gained. Henri's supporters rallied around him again
       almost as quickly as they had dispersed. "The Leaguers were
       pushed back upon the Seine and confined in the heart of the
       Pays de Caux. They were without provisions; Mayenne was at his
       wits' end; he had to resort for suggestions and for orders to
       the bed of suffering on which the Duke of Parma was held down
       by his wound." The great Italian soldier, dying though he was,
       as the event soon proved, directed operations which baffled
       the keen watchfulness and penetration of his antagonist, and
       extricated his army without giving to Henri the chance for
       battle which he sought. The Spanish army retired to Flemish
       territory. In the meantime, Henri's cause was being advanced
       in the northeast of his kingdom by the skill and valor of
       Turenne, then beginning his great career, and experiencing
       vicissitudes in the southeast, where Lesdiguières was
       contending with the mercenaries of the Pope and the Duke of
       Savoy, as well as with his countrymen of the League. He had
       defeated them with awful slaughter at Pontcharra, September
       19, 1591, and he carried the war next year into the
       territories of the Duke of Savoy, seeking help from the
       Italian Waldenses which he does not seem to have obtained.
       "Nevertheless the king had still some formidable obstacles to
       overcome. Three years had run their course since he had
       promised to become instructed in the Catholic religion, and
       there were no signs as yet that he was preparing to fulfil
       this undertaking. The position in which he found himself, and
       the importance and activity of his military operations, had
       hitherto been a sufficient explanation of his delay. But the
       war had now changed its character. The King had gained
       brilliant successes. There was no longer any large army in the
       field against him. Nothing seemed to be now in the way to
       hinder him from fulfilling his promise. And yet he always
       evaded it. He had to keep on good terms with Elizabeth and the
       Protestants; he wished to make his abjuration the occasion for
       an agreement with the Court of Rome, which took no steps to
       smooth over his difficulties; and lastly, he shrank from
       taking a step which is always painful when it is not the fruit
       of honest conviction. This indecision doubled the ardour of
       his enemies, prevented fresh adhesions, discouraged and
       divided his old followers. ... A third party, composed of
       bishops and Royalist noblemen, drew around the cousins of
       Henri IV., the Cardinal de Vendôme and the Comte de Soissons.
       ... The avowed object of this third party was to raise one of
       these two Princes to the throne, if the Head of their House
       did not forthwith enter the bosom of the Catholic Church. And
       finally, the deputies of the cities and provinces who had been
       called to Paris by Mayenne were assembling there for the
       election of a king. 'The Satire of Ménippée' has handed down
       the States of the League to immortal ridicule; but however
       decried that assembly has been, and deserved to be, 'it
       decided the conversion of Henri IV.: he does not attempt in
       his despatches to deny this. ... In order to take away every
       excuse for such an election, he entered at once into
       conference with the Catholic theologians. After some very
       serious discussion, much deeper than a certain saying which
       has become a proverb [that 'Paris is certainly worth a Mass']
       would seem to imply, he abjured the Protestant religion on the
       25th of July, 1593, before the Archbishop of Bourges. The
       League had received its death-blow."

          Duc d'Aumale,
          History of the Princes de Condé,
          book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

       "The news of the abjuration produced in the minds of honest
       men, far and near, the most painful impression. Politicians
       might applaud an act intended to conciliate the favor of the
       great majority of the nation, and extol the astuteness of the
       king in choosing the most opportune moment for his change of
       religion--the moment when he would secure the support of the
       Roman Catholics, fatigued by the length of the war and too
       eager for peace to question very closely the sincerity of the
       king's motives, without forfeiting the support of the
       Huguenots. But men of conscience, judging Henry's conduct by a
       standard of morality immutable and eternal, passed a severe
       sentence of condemnation upon the most flagrant instance of a
       betrayal of moral convictions which the age had known."

          H. M. Baird,
          The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
          chapter 13 (volume 2).

       "What the future history of France would have been if Henry
       had clung to his integrity, is known only to the Omniscient;
       but, with the annals of France in our hands, we have no
       difficulty in perceiving that the day of his impious, because
       pretended conversion, was among the 'dies nefasti' of his
       country. It restored peace indeed to that bleeding land, and
       it gave to himself an undisputed reign of seventeen years; but
       he found them years replete with cares and terrors, and
       disgraced by many shameful vices, and at last abruptly
       terminated by the dagger of an assassin. It rescued France,
       indeed, from the evils of a disputed succession, but it
       consigned her to two centuries of despotism and misgovernment.
       It transmitted the crown, indeed, to seven in succession of
       the posterity of Henry; but of them one died on the scaffold,
       three were deposed by insurrections of their subjects, one has
       left a name pursued by unmitigated and undying infamy, and
       another lived and died in a monastic melancholy, the feeble
       slave of his own minister."

          Sir J. Stephen,
          Lectures on the History of France,
          lecture 16.

          ALSO IN:
          P. F. Willert,
          Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots of France,
          chapters 5-6.

    {1214}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
       Henry's winning of Paris.
       The first attempt upon his life.
       Expulsion of Jesuits from Paris.
       War with Spain.
       The Peace of Vervins.

       "A truce of three months had been agreed upon [August 1,
       1593], during which many nobles and several important towns
       made their submissions to the King. Many, however, still held
       out for the League, and among them Paris, as well as Rheims,
       by ancient usage the city appropriated to the coronation of
       the kings of France. Henry IV. deemed that ceremony
       indispensable to sanctify his cause in the eyes of the people,
       and he therefore caused it to be performed at Chartres by the
       bishop of that place, February 27th 1594. But he could hardly
       look upon himself as King of France so long as Paris remained
       in the hands of a faction which disputed his right, and he
       therefore strained every nerve to get possession of that
       capital. ... As he wished to get possession of the city
       without bloodshed, he determined to attempt it by corrupting
       the commandant. This was Charles de Cossé, Count of Brissac.
       ... Henry promised Brissac, as the price of his admission into
       Paris, the sum of 200,000 crowns and an annual pension of
       20,000, together with the governments of Corbeil and Mantes,
       and the continuance to him of his marshal's bâton. To the
       Parisians was offered an amnesty from which only criminals
       were to be excepted; the confirmation of all their privileges;
       and the prohibition of the Protestant worship within a radius
       of ten leagues. ... Before daybreak on the morning of the 22nd
       March 1594 Brissac opened the gates of Paris to Henry's
       troops, who took possession of the city without resistance,
       except at one of the Spanish guard-houses, where a few
       soldiers were killed. When all appeared quiet, Henry himself
       entered, and was astonished at being greeted with joyous
       cheers. ... He gave manifold proofs of forbearance and good
       temper, fulfilled all the conditions of his agreement, and
       allowed the Spaniards [4,000] to withdraw unmolested." In May,
       1594, Henry laid siege to Laon, which surrendered in August.
       "Its' example was soon followed by Chateau Thierry, Amiens,
       Cambrai and Noyon. The success of the King induced the Duke of
       Lorraine and the Duke of Guise to make their peace with him." In
       November, an attempt to kill the King was made by a young man
       named Jean Chatel, who confessed that he attended the schools
       of the Jesuits. "All the members of that order were arrested,
       and their papers examined. One of them, named Jean Guignard,
       on whom was found a treatise approving the murder of Henry
       III., and maintaining that his successor deserved a like fate,
       was condemned to the gallows: and the remainder of the order
       were banished from Paris, January 8th 1595, as corrupters of
       youth and enemies of the state. This example, however, was
       followed only by a few of the provincial cities. The
       irritation caused by this event seems to have precipitated
       Henry IV. into a step which he had been some time meditating:
       a declaration of war against his ancient and most bitter enemy
       Philip II. (January 17th 1595). The King of Spain, whom the
       want of money had prevented from giving the League much
       assistance during the two preceding years, was stung into fury
       by this challenge; and he immediately ordered Don Fernando de
       Velasco, constable of Castile, to join Mayenne in Franche
       Comté with 10,000 men. Velasco, however, was no great captain,
       and little of importance was done. The only action worth
       mentioning is an affair of cavalry at Fontaine Française (June
       6th 1595), in which Henry displayed his usual bravery, or
       rather rashness, but came off victorious. He then overran
       nearly all Franche Comté without meeting with any impediment
       from Velasco, but retired at the instance of the Swiss, who
       entreated him to respect the neutrality of that province.
       Meanwhile Henry had made advances to Mayenne, who was
       disgusted with Velasco and the Spaniards, and on the 25th
       September Mayenne, in the name of the League, signed with the
       King a truce of three months, with a view to regulate the
       conditions of future submission. An event had already occurred
       which placed Henry in a much more favourable position with his
       Roman Catholic subjects; he had succeeded [September, 1595] in
       effecting his reconciliation with the Pope. ... The war on the
       northern frontiers had not been going on so favourably for the
       King." In January, 1595, "Philip II. ordered the Spaniard
       Fuentés, who, till the arrival of Albert [the Archduke],
       conducted the government of the Netherlands, to invade the
       north of France; and Fuentés ... having left Mondragone with
       sufficient forces to keep Prince Maurice in check, set off
       with 15,000 men, with the design of recovering Cambrai.
       Catelet and Doullens yielded to his arms; Ham was betrayed to
       him by the treachery of the governor, and in August Fuentés
       sat down before Cambrai. ... The Duke of Anjou had made over
       that place to his mother, Catherine de'Medici, who had
       appointed Balagni to be governor of it. During the civil wars
       of France, Balagni had established himself there as a little
       independent sovereign, and called himself Prince of Cambrai;
       but after the discomfiture of the League he had been compelled
       to declare himself, and had acknowledged his allegiance to the
       King of France. His extortion and tyranny having rendered him
       detested by the inhabitants, they ... delivered Cambrai to the
       Spaniards, October 2nd. Fuentés then returned into the
       Netherlands. ... The Cardinal Archduke Albert arrived at
       Brussels in February 1596, when Fuentés resigned his command.
       ... Henry IV. had been engaged since the winter in the siege
       of La Fère, a little town in a strong situation at the
       junction of the Serre and Oise. He had received reinforcements
       from England as well as from Germany and Holland. ... Albert
       marched to Valenciennes with about 20,000 men, with the avowed
       intention of relieving La Fère; but instead of attempting that
       enterprise, he despatched De Rosne, a French renegade ... with
       the greater part of the forces, to surprise Calais; and that
       important place was taken by assault, April 17th, before Henry
       could arrive for its defence. La Fère surrendered May 22nd;
       and Henry then marched with his army towards the coast of
       Picardy, where he endeavoured, but in vain, to provoke the
       Spaniards to give him battle. After fortifying Calais and
       Ardres, Albert withdrew again into the Netherlands. ...
       Elizabeth, alarmed at the occupation by the Spaniards of a
       port which afforded such facilities for the invasion of
       England, soon afterwards concluded another offensive and
       defensive alliance with Henry IV. (May 24th), in which the
       contracting parties pledged themselves to make no separate
       peace or truce with Philip II." The Dutch joined in this
       treaty; but the Protestant princes of Germany refused to
       become parties to it. "The treaty, however, had little
       effect." Early in 1597, the Spaniards dealt Henry an alarming
       blow, by surprising and capturing the city of Amiens, gaining
       access to it by an ingenious stratagem. But Henry recovered
       the place in September, after a vigorous siege. He also put
       down a rising, under the Duke de Mercœur, in Brittany,
       defeating the rebels at Dinan, while his lieutenant,
       Lesdiguières, in the southeast, invaded Savoy once more,
       taking Maurienne, and paralyzing the hostile designs of its
       Duke.
    {1215}
       The malignant Spanish king, suffering and near his end,
       discouraged and tired of the war, now sought to make peace.
       Both the Dutch and the English refused to treat with him; but
       Henry IV., notwithstanding the pledges given in 1596 to his
       allies, entered into negotiations which resulted in the Treaty
       of Vervins, signed May 2, 1598. "By the Peace of Vervins the
       Spaniards restored to France Calais, Ardres, Doullens, La
       Capelle, and Le Câtelet in Picardy, and Blavet (port Louis) in
       Brittany, of all their conquests retaining only the citadel of
       Cambrai. The rest of the conditions were referred to the
       treaty of Câteau-Cambresis, which Henry had stipulated should
       form the basis of the negotiations. The Duke of Savoy was
       included in the peace." While this important treaty was
       pending, in April, 1598, Henry quieted the anxieties of his
       Huguenot subjects by the famous Edict of Nantes.

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 3, chapters 10-11 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Lady Jackson,
          The First of the Bourbons,
          volume 1, chapters 14-18,
          and volume 2, chapters 1-7.

          J. L. Motley,
          History of the United Netherlands,
          chapters 29-35 (volume 3).

          R. Watson,
          History of the Reign of Philip II.,
          books 23-24.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.
       The Edict of Nantes.

       For the purpose of receiving the submission of the Duke of
       Mercœur and the Breton insurgents, the king proceeded down the
       Loire, and "reached the capital of Brittany, the commercial
       city of Nantes, on the 11th of April, 1598. Two days later he
       signed the edict which has come to be known as the Edict of
       Nantes [and which had been under discussion for some months
       with representatives of a Protestant assembly in session at
       Châtellerault]. ... The Edict of Nantes is a long and somewhat
       complicated document. Besides the edict proper, contained in
       95 public articles, there is a further series of 56 'secret'
       articles, and a 'brevet' or patent of the king, all of which
       were signed on the 13th of April; and these documents are
       supplemented by a second set of 23 'secret' articles, dated on
       the last day of the same month. The first of these four papers
       is expressly declared to be a 'perpetual and irrevocable
       edict.' ... Our chief concern being with the fortunes of the
       Huguenots, the provisions for the re-establishment of the
       Roman Catholic worship, wherever in the course of the events
       of the last 30 years that worship had been interfered with or
       banished, need not claim our attention. For the benefit of the
       Protestants the cardinal concession was liberty to dwell
       anywhere in the royal dominions, without being subjected to
       inquiry, vexed, molested, or constrained to do anything
       contrary to their conscience. As respects public worship,
       while perfect equality was not established, the dispositions
       were such as to bring it within the power of a Protestant in
       any part of the kingdom to meet his fellow-believers for the
       holiest of acts, at least from time to time. To every
       Protestant nobleman enjoying that extensive authority known as
       'haute justice,' and to noblemen in Normandy distinguished as
       possessors of 'fiefs de haubert,' the permission was granted
       to have religious services on all occasions and for all comers
       at their principal residence, as well as on other lands
       whenever they themselves were present. Noblemen of inferior
       jurisdiction were allowed to have worship on their estates,
       but only for themselves and their families. In addition to
       these seigniorial rights, the Protestant 'people' received
       considerable accessions to the cities where they might meet
       for public religious purposes. The exercise of their worship
       was authorized in all cities and places where such worship had
       been held on several occasions in the years 1596 and 1597, up
       to the month of August; and in all places in which worship had
       been, or ought to have been, established in accordance with
       the Edict of 1577 [the edict of Poitiers--see above: A. D.
       1577-1578], as interpreted by the Conference of Nérac and the
       Peace of Fleix [see above: A. D. 1578-1580]. But in addition
       to these, a fresh gift of a second city in every bailiwick and
       sénéchaussée of the kingdom greatly increased the facilities
       enjoyed by the scattered Huguenots for reaching the assemblies
       of their fellow-believers. ... Scholars of both religions were
       to be admitted without distinction of religion to all
       universities, colleges, and schools throughout France. The
       same impartiality was to extend to the reception of the sick
       in the hospitals, and to the poor in the provision made for
       their relief. More than this, the Protestants were permitted
       to establish schools of their own in all places where their
       worship was authorized. ... The scandal and inhumanity
       exhibited in the refusal of burial to the Protestant dead, as
       well in the disinterment of such bodies as had been placed in
       consecrated ground, was henceforth precluded by the assignment
       of portions of the public cemeteries or of new cemeteries of
       their own to the Protestants. The civil equality of the
       Protestants was assured by an article which declared them to
       be admissible to all public positions, dignities, offices, and
       charges, and forbade any other examination into their
       qualifications, conduct, and morals than those to which their
       Roman Catholic brethren were subjected. ... Provision was made
       for the establishment of a 'chamber of the edict,' as it was
       styled, in the Parliament of Paris, with six Protestants among
       its sixteen counsellors, to take cognizance of cases in which
       Protestants were concerned. A similar chamber was promised in
       each of the parliaments of Rouen and Rennes. In Southern
       France three 'chambres mi-parties' were either continued or
       created, with an equal number of Roman Catholic and Protestant
       judges." In the "brevet" or patent which accompanied the
       edict, the king made a secret provision of 45,000 crowns
       annually from the royal treasury, which was understood to be
       for the support of Protestant ministers, although that purpose
       was concealed. In the second series of secret articles, the
       Protestants were authorized to retain possession for eight
       years of the "cautionary cities" which they held under former
       treaties, and provision was made for paying the garrisons.
       "Such are the main features of a law whose enactment marks an
       important epoch in the history of jurisprudence. ... The Edict
       of Nantes was not at once presented to the parliaments; nor
       was it, indeed, until early in the following year that the
       Parliament of Paris formally entered the document upon its
       registers. ... There were obstacles from many different
       quarters to be overcome. The clergy, the parliaments, the
       university, raised up difficulty after difficulty." But the
       masterful will of the king bore down all opposition, and the
       Edict was finally accepted as the law of the land. "On the
       17th of March [1599] Henry took steps for its complete
       execution throughout France, by the appointment of
       commissioners--a nobleman and a magistrate from each province
       --to attend to the work."

          H. M. Baird,
          The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
          chapter 14 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          5th series, chapter 36.

    {1216}

       The full text of the Edict of Nantes will be found in the
       following named works:

          C. Weiss,
          History of French Protestant Refugees,
          volume 2, appendix.

          A. Maury,
          Memoirs of a Huguenot Family
          (J. Fontaine), appendix.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.
       Invasion of Savoy.
       Acquisition of the Department of Aisne.
       Ten years of peace and prosperity.
       The great works of Henry IV.
       His foreign policy.
       His assassination.

       "One thing only the peace of Vervins left unsettled. In the
       preceding troubles a small Italian appanage, the Marquisate of
       Saluces, had been seized by Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy,
       and remained still in his possession. The right of France to
       it was not disputed, did not admit indeed of dispute; but the
       Duke was unwilling to part with what constituted one of the
       keys of Italy. He came to Paris in December 1599 to negotiate
       the affair in person," but employed his opportunity to
       intrigue with certain disaffected nobles, including the Duke
       of Biron, marshal of France and governor of Burgundy. "Wearied
       with delays, whose object was transparent, Henry at last had
       recourse to arms. Savoy was speedily overrun with French
       troops, and its chief strongholds taken. Spain was not
       prepared to back her ally, and the affair terminated by
       Henry's accepting in lieu of the Marquisate that part of Savoy
       which now constitutes the Department of Aisne in France."
       Biron, whom the King tried hard to save by repeated warnings
       which were not heeded, paid the penalty of his treasonable
       schemes at last by losing his head. "The ten years from 1600
       to 1610 were years of tranquillity, and gave to Henry the
       opportunity he had so ardently longed for of restoring and
       regenerating France." He applied his energies and his active
       mind to the reorganization of the disordered finances of the
       kingdom, to the improvement of agriculture, to the
       multiplication of industries, to the extending of commerce. He
       gave the first impulse to silk culture and silk manufacture in
       France; he founded the great Gobelin manufactory of tapestry
       at Paris; he built roads and bridges, and encouraged canal
       projects; he began the creation of a navy; he promoted the
       colonization of Canada. "It was, however, in the domain of
       foreign politics that Henry exhibited the acuteness and
       comprehensiveness of his genius, and his marvellous powers of
       contrivance, combination, execution. ... The great political
       project, to the maturing of which Henry IV. devoted his
       untiring energies for the last years of his life, was the
       bringing of the ... half of Europe into close political
       alliance, and arming it against the house of Austria, and
       striking when the fit time came, such a blow at the ambition
       and intolerance of that house that it might never be able to
       recover. After innumerable negotiations ... he had succeeded
       in forming a coalition of twenty separate States, embracing
       England, the United Provinces, Denmark, Sweden, Northern
       Germany, Switzerland. At last the time for action came. The
       Duke of Cleves died, 25th March 1609. The succession was
       disputed. One of the claimants of the Dukedom was supported by
       the Emperor, another by the Protestant Princes of Germany [see
       GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618]. The contest about a small German
       Duchy presented the opportunity for bringing into action that
       alliance which Henry had planned and perfected. In the great
       military movements that were projected he was himself to take
       the lead. Four French armies, numbering 100,000, were to be
       launched against the great enemy of European liberty. One of
       these Henry was to command; even our young Prince of Wales was
       to bring 6,000 English with him, and make his first essay in arms
       under the French King. By the end of April, 1610, 35,000 men
       and 50 pieces of cannon had assembled at Chalons. The 20th May
       was fixed as the day on which Henry was to place himself at
       its head." But on the 16th of May (1610) he was struck down by
       the hand of an assassin (François Ravaillac), and the whole
       combination fell to pieces.

          W. Hanna,
          The Wars of the Huguenots,
          chapter 8.

       "The Emperor, the King of Spain, the Queen of France, the Duke
       d'Epernon, the Jesuits, were all in turn suspected of having
       instigated the crime, because they all profited by it; but the
       assassin declared that he had no accomplices. ... He believed
       that the King was at heart a Huguenot, and thought that in
       ridding France of this monarch he was rendering a great
       service to his country."

          A. de Bonnechose,
          History of France,
          volume 1, page 450.

          ALSO IN:
          M. W. Freer,
          The Last Decade of a Glorious Reign.

          Duke of Sully,
          Memoirs,
          volumes 2-5.

          Sir N. W. Wraxall,
          History of France, 1574-1610,
          volume 5, chapter 7-8, and volume 6.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1603-1605.
       First settlements in Acadia.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605;
          and 1606-1608.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1605-1616.
       Champlain's explorations and settlements in the Valley of the
       St. Lawrence.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616; 1616-1628.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1610.
       Accession of King Louis XIII.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.
       The regency of Marie de Medicis.
       The reign of favorites and the riot of factions.
       Distractions of the kingdom.
       The rise of Richelieu.

       "After the death of Henry IV. it was seen how much the power,
       credit, manners, and spirit of a nation frequently depend upon
       a single man. This prince had by a vigorous, yet gentle
       administration, kept all orders of the state in union, lulled
       all factions to sleep, maintained peace between the two
       religions, and kept his people in plenty. He held the balance
       of Europe in his hands by his alliance, his riches, and his
       arms. All these advantages were lost in the very first year of
       the regency of his widow, Mary of Medicis [whom Henry had
       married in 1600, the pope granting a divorce from his first
       wife, Margaret of Valois]. ... Mary of Medicis ... appointed
       regent [during the minority of her son, Louis XIII.], though
       not mistress of the kingdom, lavished in making of creatures
       all that Henry the Great had amassed to render his nation
       powerful. The army he had raised to carry the war into Germany
       was disbanded, the princes he had taken under his protection
       were abandoned. Charles Emanuel, duke of Savoy, the new ally
       of Henry IV., was obliged to ask pardon of Philip III. of
       Spain for having entered into a treaty with the French king,
       and sent his son to Madrid to implore the mercy of the Spanish
       court, and to humble himself as a subject in his father's name.
    {1217}
       The princes of Germany, whom Henry had protected with an army
       of 40,000 men, now found themselves almost without assistance.
       The state lost all its credit abroad, and was distracted at
       home. The princes of the blood and the great nobles filled
       France with factions, as in the times of Francis II., Charles
       IX. and Henry III., and as afterwards, during the minority of
       Lewis XIV. At length [1614] an assembly of the general estates
       was called at Paris, the last that was held in France [prior
       to the States General which assembled on the eve of the
       Revolution of 1789]. ... The result of this assembly was the
       laying open all the grievances of the kingdom, without being
       able to redress one. France remained in confusion, and
       governed by one Concini, a Florentine, who rose to be marechal
       of France without ever having drawn a sword, and prime
       minister without knowing anything of the laws. It was
       sufficient that he was a foreigner for the princes to be
       displeased with him. Mary of Medicis was in a very unhappy
       situation, for she could not share her authority with the
       prince of Condé, chief of the malcontents, without being
       deprived of it altogether; nor trust it in the hands of
       Concini, without displeasing the whole kingdom. Henry prince
       of Condé, father of the great Condé, and son to him who had
       gained the battle of Coutras in conjunction with Henry IV.,
       put himself at the head of a party, and took up arms. The
       court made a dissembled peace with him; and afterwards clapt
       him up in the Bastile. This had been the fate of his father
       and grandfather, and was afterwards that of his son. His
       confinement encreased the number of the male contents. The
       Guises, who had formerly been implacable enemies to the Condé
       family, now joined with them. The duke of Vendome, son to
       Henry IV., the duke of Nevers, of the house of Gonzaga, the
       marechal de Bouillon, and all the rest of the male contents,
       fortified themselves in the provinces, protesting that they
       continued true to their king, and made war only against the
       prime minister. Concini, marechal d'Anere, secure of the queen
       regent's protection, braved them all. He raised 7,000 men at
       his own expense, to support the royal authority. ... A young
       man of whom he had not the least apprehension, and who was a
       stranger like himself, caused his ruin, and all the
       misfortunes of Mary of Medicis. Charles Albert of Luines, born
       in the county of Avignon, had, with his two brothers, been
       taken into the number of gentlemen in ordinary to the king,
       and the companions of his education. He had insinuated himself
       into the good graces and confidence of the young monarch, by his
       dexterity in bird-catching. It was never supposed that these
       childish amusements would end in a bloody revolution. The
       marechal d'Ancre had given him the government of Amboise,
       thinking by that to make him his creature; but this young man
       conceived the design of murdering his benefactor, banishing
       the queen, and governing himself; all which he accomplished
       without meeting with any obstacle. He soon found means of
       persuading the king that he was capable of reigning alone,
       though he was not then quite 17 years old, and told him that
       the queen-mother and Concini kept him in confinement. The
       young king, to whom in his childhood they had given the name
       of Just, consented to the murder of his prime minister; the
       marquis of Vitri, captain of the king's guards, du Hallier his
       brother, Persan, and others, were sent to dispatch him, who,
       finding him in the court of the Louvre, shot him dead with
       their pistols [April 24, 1617]: upon this they cried out,
       'Vive le roi', as if they had gained a battle, and Lewis
       XIII., appearing at a window, cried out, 'Now I am king.' The
       queen-mother had her guards taken from her, and was confined
       to her own apartment, and afterwards banished to Blois. The
       place of marechal of France, held by Concini, was given to the
       marquis of Vitri, his murderer." Concini's wife, Eleanor
       Galigai, was tried on a charge of sorcery and burned, "and the
       king's favourite, Luines, had the confiscated estates. This
       unfortunate Galigai was the first promoter of cardinal
       Richelieu's fortune; while he was yet very young, and called
       the abbot of Chillon, she procured him the bishopric of Luçon,
       and at length got him made secretary of state in 1616. He was
       involved in the disgrace of his protectors, and ... was now
       banished ... to a little priory at the farther end of Anjou.
       ... The duke of Epernon, who had caused the queen to be
       declared regent, went to the castle of Blois [February 22,
       1619], whither she had been banished, and carried her to his
       estate in Angoulême, like a sovereign who rescues his ally.
       This was manifestly an act of high treason; but a crime that
       was approved by the whole kingdom." The king presently "sought
       an opportunity of reconciliation with his mother, and entered
       into a treaty with the duke of Epernon, as between prince and
       prince. ... But the treaty of reconciliation was hardly signed
       when it was broken again; this was the true spirit of the
       times. New parties took up arms in favour of the queen, and
       always to oppose the duke of Luines, as before it had been to
       oppose the marechal d'Ancre, but never against the king. Every
       favourite at that time drew after him a civil war. Lewis and
       his mother in fact made war upon each other. Mary was in Anjou
       at the head of a small army against her son; they engaged each
       other on the bridge of Cé, and the kingdom was on the point of
       ruin. This confusion made the fortune of the famous Richelieu.
       He was comptroller of the queen-mother's household, and had
       supplanted all that princess's confidants, as he afterwards
       did all the king's ministers. His pliable temper and bold
       disposition must necessarily have acquired for him the first
       rank everywhere, or have proved his ruin. He brought about the
       accommodation between the mother and son; and a nomination to
       the purple, which the queen asked of the king for him, was the
       reward of his services. The duke of Epernon was the first to
       lay down arms without making any demands, whilst the rest made
       the king pay them for having taken up arms against him. The
       queen-mother and the king her son had an interview at Brisac,
       where they embraced with a flood of tears, only to quarrel
       again more violently than ever. The weakness, intrigues, and
       divisions of the court spread anarchy through the kingdom. All
       the internal defects with which the state had for a long time
       been attacked were now encreased, and those which Henry IV.
       had removed were revived anew."

          Voltaire, Ancient and Modern History,
          chapter 145
          (works translated by Smollett, volume 5).

          ALSO IN:
          C. D. Yonge,
          History of France under the Bourbons,
          volume 1, chapters 5-6.

          A. Thierry,
          Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

          S. Menzies,
          Royal Favourites,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

    {1218}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
       Renewed jealousy of the Huguenots.
       Their formidable organization and its political pretensions.
       Restoration of Catholicism in Navarre and Béarn.
       Their incorporation with France.
       The Huguenot revolt.
       Treaty of Montpelier.

       "The Huguenot question had become a very serious one, and the
       bigotry of some of the Catholics found its opportunity in the
       insubordination of many of the Protestants. The Huguenots had
       undoubtedly many minor causes for discontent. ... But on the
       whole the government and the majority of the people were
       willing to carry out in good faith the provisions of the edict
       of Nantes. The Protestants, within the limits there laid down,
       could have worshipped after their own conscience, free from
       persecution and subject to little molestation. It was,
       perhaps, all that could be expected in a country where the
       mass of the population were Catholic, and where religious
       fanaticism had recently supported the League and fostered the
       wars of religion. But the Protestant party seem to have
       desired a separate political power, which almost justifies the
       charge made against them, that they sought to establish a
       state within a state, or even to form a separate republic.
       Their territorial position afforded a certain facility for
       such endeavors. In the northern provinces their numbers were
       insignificant. They were found chiefly in the southwestern
       provinces--Poitou, Saintonge, Guienne, Provence, and
       Languedoc,--while in Béarn and Navarre they constituted the
       great majority of the population, and they held for their
       protection a large number of strongly fortified cities. ...
       Though there is nothing to show that a plan for a separate
       republic was seriously considered, the Huguenots had adopted
       an organization which naturally excited the jealousy and
       ill-will of the general government. They had long maintained a
       system of provincial and general synods for the regulation of
       their faith and discipline. ... The assembly which met at
       Saumur immediately after Henry's death, had carried still
       further the organization of the members of their faith. From
       consistories composed of the pastors and certain of the laity,
       delegates were chosen who formed local consistories. These
       again chose delegates who met in provincial synods, and from
       them delegates were sent to the national synod, or general
       assembly of the church. Here not only matters of faith, but of
       state, were regulated, and the general assembly finally
       assumed to declare war, levy taxes, choose generals, and act
       both as a convocation and a parliament. The assembly of Saumur
       added a system of division into eight great circles, covering
       the territory where the Protestants were sufficiently numerous
       to be important. All but two of these were south of the Loire.
       They were subsequently organized as military departments, each
       under the command of some great nobleman. ... The Huguenots
       had also shown a willingness to assist those who were in arms
       against the state, had joined Condé, and contemplated a union
       with Mary de Medici in the brief insurrection of 1620. A
       question had now arisen which was regarded by the majority of
       the party as one of vital importance. The edict of Nantes,
       which granted privileges to the Huguenots, had granted also to
       the Catholics the right to the public profession of their
       religion in all parts of France. This had formerly been
       prohibited in Navarre and Béarn, and the population of those
       provinces had become very largely Protestant. The Catholic
       clergy had long petitioned the king to enforce the rights
       which they claimed the edict gave them in Béarn, and to compel
       also a restitution of some portion of the property, formerly
       held by their church, which had been taken by Jeanne d'Albret,
       and the revenues of which the Huguenot clergy still assumed to
       appropriate entirely to themselves. On July 25, 1617, Louis
       finally issued an edict directing the free exercise of the
       Catholic worship in Béarn and the restitution to the clergy of
       the property that had been taken from them. The edict met with
       bitter opposition in Béarn and from all the Huguenot party.
       The Protestants were as unwilling to allow the rites of the
       Catholic Church in a province which they controlled, as the
       Catholics to suffer a Huguenot conventicle within the walls of
       Paris. The persecutions which the Huguenots suffered
       distressed them less than the toleration which they were
       obliged to grant. ... In the wars of religion the Huguenots
       had been controlled, not always wisely or unselfishly, by the
       nobles who had espoused their faith, but these were slowly
       drifting back to Catholicism. ... The Condés were already
       Catholics. Lesdiguières was only waiting till the bribe for
       his conversion should be sufficiently glittering. [He was
       received into the Church and was made Constable of France in
       July, 1622.] Bouillon's religion was but a catch-weight in his
       political intrigues. The grandson of Coligni was soon to
       receive a marshal's baton for consenting to a peace which was
       disastrous to his party. Sully, Rohan, Soubise, and La Force
       still remained; but La Force's zeal moderated when he also was
       made a marshal, and one hundred years later Rohans and the
       descendants of Sully wore cardinal's hats. The party, slowly
       deserted by the great nobles, came more under the leadership
       of the clergy ... and under their guidance the party now
       assumed a political activity which brought on the siege of La
       Rochelle and which made possible the revocation of the edict
       of Nantes. Béarn was not only strongly Protestant, but it
       claimed, with Navarre, to form no part of France, and to be
       governed only by its own laws. Its States met and declared
       their local rights were violated by the king's edict; the
       Parliament of Pau refused to register it, and it was not
       enforced in the province. ... The disturbances caused by Mary
       de Medici had delayed any steps for the enforcement of the
       edict, but these troubles were ended by the peace of
       Ponts-de-Cé in 1620. ... In October, 1620, Louis led his army
       in Béarn, removed various Huguenot officials, and
       reëstablished the Catholic clergy. ... On October 20th, an
       edict was issued by which Navarre and Béarn were declared to
       be united to France, and a parliament was established for the
       two provinces on the same model as the other parliaments of
       the kingdom. ... A general assembly of Protestants,
       sympathizing with their brethren of these provinces, was
       called for November 26, 1620, at La Rochelle. The king
       declared those guilty of high treason who should join in that
       meeting. ... The meeting was held in defiance of the
       prohibition, and it was there resolved to take up arms. ...
       The assembly proceeded in all respects like the legislative
       body of a separate state.
    {1219}
       The king prepared for the war with vigor. ... He now led his
       forces into southern France, and after some minor engagements
       he laid siege to Montauban. A three months' siege resulted
       disastrously; the campaign closed, and the king returned to
       Paris. The encouragement that the Huguenots drew from this
       success proved very brief. The king's armies proceeded again
       into the south of France in 1622, and met only an irregular
       and inefficient opposition. ... Chatillon and La Force each
       made a separate peace, and each was rewarded by the baton of
       marshal from the king and by charges of treachery from his
       associates. ... The siege of Montpelier led to the peace
       called by that name, but on terms that were unfavorable to the
       Huguenots. They abandoned all the fortified cities which they
       had held for their security except La Rochelle and Montauban;
       no assemblies could meet without permission of the king,
       except the local synods for ecclesiastical matters alone, and
       the interests of Béarn and Navarre were abandoned. In return
       the edict of Nantes was again confirmed, and their religious
       privileges left undisturbed. Rohan accepted 800,000 livres for
       his expenses and governments, and the king agreed that the
       Fort of St. Louis, which had been built to overawe the
       turbulence of La Rochelle, should be dismantled. La Rochelle,
       the great Huguenot stronghold, continued hostilities for some
       time longer, but at last it made terms. The party was fast
       losing its power and its overthrow could be easily foretold.
       La Rochelle was now the only place capable of making a
       formidable resistance. ... In the meantime the career of
       Luines reached its end." He had taken the great office of
       Constable to himself, incurring much ridicule thereby. "The
       exposures of the campaign and its disasters had worn upon him;
       a fever attacked him at the little town of Monheur, and on
       December 14, 1621, he died."

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under Mazarin, with a Review of the
          Administration of Richelieu,
          chapter 3 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          W. S. Browning,
          History of the Huguenots,
          chapters 54-56.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1621.
       Claims in North America conflicting with England.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
       Richelieu in power.
       His combinations against the Austro-Spanish ascendancy.
       The Valtelline War.
       Huguenots again in revolt.
       The second Treaty of Montpelier.
       Treaty of Monzon with Spain.

       "The King was once more without a guide, without a favourite,
       but his fate was upon him. A few months more of uncertain
       drifting and he will fall into the hands of the greatest
       politician France has ever seen, Cardinal Richelieu; under his
       hand the King will be effaced, his cold disposition and narrow
       intelligence will accept and be convinced by the grandeur of
       his master's views; convinced, he will obey, and we shall
       enter on the period in which the disruptive forces in France
       will be coerced, and the elements of freedom and
       constitutional life stamped down; while patriotism, and a firm
       belief in the destinies of the nation will be fostered and
       grow strong; France will assert her high place in Europe.
       Richelieu, who had already in 1622 received the Cardinal's
       hat, entered the King's Council on the
       29th of April, 1624. ...

          [Transcriber's note: The date printed is "19/29th of
          April". Wikipedia gives the date as "appointed to the royal
          council of ministers on 29 April 1624, (Lodge & Ketcham,
          1903, p. 85.)".]

       La Vieuville, under whose patronage he had been brought
       forward, welcomed him into the Cabinet. ... But La Vieuville
       was not fitted by nature for the chief place; he was rash,
       violent, unpopular and corrupt. He soon had to give place to
       Richelieu, henceforth the virtual head of the Council. La
       Vieuville, thus supplanted, had been the first to reverse the
       ruinous Spanish policy of the Court; ... he had promised help
       to the Dutch, to Mansfield, to the Elector Frederick; in a
       word, his policy had been the forecast of that of the
       Cardinal, who owed his rise to him, and now stepped nimbly
       over his head into his place. England had declared war on
       Spain: France joined England in renewing the old offensive and
       defensive alliance with the Dutch, England promising men and
       France money. ... The Austro-Spanish power had greatly
       increased during these years: its successes had enabled it to
       knit together all the provinces which owed it allegiance. The
       Palatinate and the Lower Rhine secured their connexion with
       the Spanish Netherlands, as we may now begin to call them, and
       threatened the very existence of the Dutch: the Valtelline
       forts [commanding the valley east of Lake Como, from which one
       pass communicates with the Engadine and the Grisons, and
       another with the Tyrol] ... were the roadway between the
       Spanish power at Milan and the Austrians on the Danube and in
       the Tyrol. Richelieu now resolved to attack this threatening
       combination at both critical points. In the North he did not
       propose to interfere in arms: there others should fight, and
       France support them with quiet subsidies and good will. He
       pressed matters on with the English, the Dutch, the North
       German Princes; he negotiated with Maximilian of Bavaria and
       the League, hoping to keep the South German Princes clear of
       the Imperial policy. ... The French ambassador at Copenhagen,
       well supported by the English envoy, Sir Robert Anstruther, at
       this time organised a Northern League, headed by Christian IV.
       of Denmark [see GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626]. ... The Lutheran
       Princes, alarmed at the threatening aspect of affairs, were
       beginning to think that they had made a mistake in leaving the
       Palatinate to be conquered; and turned a more willing ear to
       the French and English proposals for this Northern League. ...
       By 1625 the Cardinal's plans in the North seemed to be going
       well: the North-Saxon Princes, though with little heart and
       much difference of opinion, specially in the cities, had
       accepted Christian IV. as their leader; and the progress of
       the Spaniards in the United Provinces was checked. In the
       other point to which Richelieu's attention was directed,
       matters had gone still better. [The inhabitants of the
       Valtelline were mostly Catholics and Italians. They had long
       been subject to the Protestant Grisons or Graubunden. In 1620
       they had risen in revolt, massacred the Protestants of the
       valley, and formed an independent republic, supported by the
       Spaniards and Austrians. Spanish and German troops occupied
       the four strong Valtelline forts, and controlled the important
       passes above referred to. The Grisons resisted and secured the
       support of Savoy, Venice and finally France. In 1623 an
       agreement had been reached, to hand over the Valtelline forts
       to the pope, in deposit, until some terms could be settled.
       But in 1625 this agreement had not been carried out, and
       Richelieu took the affair in hand.] ...
    {1220}
       Richelieu, never attacking in full face if he could carry his
       point by a side-attack, allied himself with Charles Emmanuel,
       Duke of Savoy, and with Venice; he easily persuaded the
       Savoyard to threaten Genoa, the port by which Spain could
       penetrate into Italy, and her financial mainstay. Meanwhile,
       the Marquis of Cœuvres had been sent to Switzerland, and, late
       in 1624, had persuaded the Cantons to arm for the recovery of
       the Valtelline; then, heading a small army of Swiss and
       French, he had marched into the Grisons. The upper districts
       held by the Austrians revolted: the three Leagues declared
       their freedom, the Austrian troops hastily withdrew. Cœuvres
       at once secured the Tyrolese passes, and descending from the
       Engadine by Poschiavo, entered the Valtelline: in a few weeks
       the Papal and Spanish troops were swept out of the whole
       valley, abandoning all their forts, though the French general
       had no siege-artillery with which to reduce them. ... Early in
       1625, the Valtelline being secured to the Grisons and French,
       the aged Lesdiguières was sent forward to undertake the rest
       of the plan, the reduction of Genoa. But just as things were
       going well for the party in Europe opposed to Spain and
       Austria, an unlucky outburst of Huguenot dissatisfaction
       marred all: Soubise in the heart of winter had seized the Isle
       of Ré, and had captured in Blavet harbour on the Breton coast
       six royal ships; he failed however to take the castle which
       commanded the place, and was himself blockaded, escaping only
       with heavy loss. Thence he seized the Isle of Oléron: in May
       the Huguenots were in revolt in Upper Languedoc, Querci, and
       the Cevennes, led by Rohan on land, and Soubise by sea. Their
       rash outbreak [provoked by alleged breaches of the treaty of
       Montpelier, especially in the failure of the king to demolish
       Fort Louis at La Rochelle] came opportunely to the aid of the
       distressed Austrian power, their true enemy. Although very
       many of the Huguenots stood aloof and refused to embarrass the
       government, still enough revolted to cause great uneasiness.
       The war in the Ligurian mountains was not pushed on with
       vigour; for Richelieu could not now think of carrying out the
       large plans which, by his own account, he had already formed,
       for the erection of an independent Italy. ... He was for the
       present content to menace Genoa, without a serious siege. At
       this time James I. of England died, and the marriage of the
       young king [Charles I.] with Henriette Marie was pushed on. In
       May Buckingham went to Paris to carry her over to England; he
       tried in vain to persuade Richelieu to couple the Palatinate
       with the Valtelline question. ... After this the tide of
       affairs turned sharply against the Cardinal; while Tilly with
       the troops of the Catholic League, and Wallenstein, the new
       general of the Emperor, who begins at this moment his brief
       and marvellous career, easily kept in check the Danes and
       their halfhearted German allies, Lesdiguières and the Duke of
       Savoy were forced by the Austrians and Spaniards to give up
       all thoughts of success in the Genoese country, and the French
       were even threatened in Piedmont and the Valtelline. But the old
       Constable of France was worthy of his ancient fame; he drove
       the Duke of Feria out of Piedmont, and in the Valtelline the
       Spaniards only succeeded in securing the fortress of Riva.
       Richelieu felt that the war was more than France could bear,
       harassed as she was within and without. ... He was determined
       to free his hands in Italy, to leave the war to work itself
       out in Germany, and to bring the Huguenots to reason. ... The
       joint fleets of, Soubise and of La Rochelle had driven back
       the king's ships, and had taken Ré and Oléron; but in their
       attempt to force an entrance into the harbour of La Rochelle
       they were defeated by Montmorency, who now commanded the royal
       fleet: the islands were retaken, and the Huguenots sued for
       peace. It must be remembered that the bulk of them did not
       agree with the Rochellois, and were quiet through this time.
       Early in 1626 the treaty of Montpellier granted a hollow peace
       on tolerable terms to the reformed churches; and soon after ...
       peace was signed with Spain at Monzon in May, 1626. All was
       done so silently that the interested parties, Savoy, the
       Venetians, the Grisons, knew nothing of it till all was
       settled: on Buckingham ... the news fell like a thunderclap.
       ... The Valtelline remained under the Grisons, with guarantees
       for Catholic worship; France and Spain would jointly see that
       the inhabitants of the valleys were fairly treated: the Pope
       was entrusted with the duty of razing the fortresses: Genoa
       and Savoy were ordered to make peace. It was a treacherous
       affair; and Richelieu comes out of it but ill. We are bound,
       however, to remember ... the desperate straits into which the
       Cardinal had come. ... He did but fall back in order to make
       that wonderful leap forward which changed the whole face of
       European politics."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          book 4, chapters 3 and 4 (volumes 2-3).

          ALSO IN:
          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapters 40-41.

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under Mazarin [and Richelieu],
          volume 1, chapters 4-5.

          G. Masson,
          Richelieu,
          chapter 5.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628:
       War with England, and Huguenot revolt.
       Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
       His great example of magnanimity and toleration.
       The end of political Huguenotism.

       "Richelieu now found himself dragged into a war against his
       will, and that with the very power with which, for the
       furtherance of his other designs, he most desired to continue
       at peace. James I. of England had been as unable to live
       except under the dominion of a favourite as Louis. Charles ...
       had the same unfortunate weakness; and the Duke of Buckingham,
       who had long been paramount at the court of the father,
       retained the same mischievous influence at that of the son.
       ... In passing through France in 1623 he [Buckingham] had been
       presented to the queen [Anne of Austria], and had presumed to
       address her in the language of love. When sent to Paris to
       conduct the young Princess Henrietta Maria to England, he had
       repeated this conduct. ... There had been some little
       unpleasantness between the two Courts shortly after the
       marriage ... owing to the imprudence of Henrietta," who
       paraded her Popery too much in the eyes of Protestant England;
       and there was talk of a renewed treaty, which Buckingham
       sought to make the pretext for another visit to Paris. But his
       motives were understood; Louis "refused to receive him as an
       ambassador, and Buckingham, full of disappointed rage,
       instigated the Duke de Soubise, who was still in London, to
       rouse the Huguenots to a fresh outbreak, promising to send an
       English fleet to Rochelle to assist them. Rochelle was at this
       time the general head-quarters not only of the Huguenots, but
       of all those who, on any account, were discontented with the
       Government. ...
    {1221}
       Soubise ... embraced the duke's offer with eagerness; and in
       July, 1627, without any previous declaration of war, an
       English fleet, with 16,000 men on board, suddenly appeared off
       Rochelle, and prepared to attack the Isle of Rhé. The
       Rochellois were very unwilling to co-operate with it"; but
       they were persuaded, "against their judgment, to connect
       themselves with what each, individually, felt to be a
       desperate enterprise; and Richelieu, to whom the prospect thus
       afforded him of having a fair pretence for crushing the
       Huguenot party made amends for the disappointment of being
       wantonly dragged into a war with England, gladly received the
       intelligence that Rochelle was in rebellion. At first the Duke
       d'Anjou was sent down to command the army, Louis being
       detained in Paris by illness; but by October he had recovered,
       his fondness for military operations revived, and he hastened
       to the scene of action, accompanied by Richelieu, whose early
       education had been of a military kind. ... He at once threw
       across reinforcements into the Isle of Rhé, where M. Thoiras
       was holding out a fort known as St. Martin with great
       resolution, though it was unfinished and incompletely armed.
       In the beginning of November, Buckingham raised the siege, and
       returned home, leaving guns, standards and prisoners behind
       him; and Richelieu, anticipating a renewal of the attack the
       next year ... undertook a work designed at once to baffle
       foreign enemies and to place the city at his mercy. Along the
       whole front of the port he began to construct a vast wall ...
       having only one small opening in the centre which was
       commanded by small batteries. The work was commenced in
       November, 1627; and, in spite of a rather severe winter, was
       carried on with such ceaseless diligence, under the
       superintending eye of the cardinal himself, that before the
       return of spring a great portion of it was completed. ...
       When, in May, 1628, the British fleet, under Lord Denbigh, the
       brother-in-law of Buckingham, returned to the attack, they
       found it unassailable, and returned without striking a blow."

          C. D. Yonge,
          History of France under the Bourbons,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

       "Richelieu ... was his own engineer, general, admiral,
       prime-minister. While he urged on the army to work upon the
       dike, he organized a French navy, and in due time brought it
       around to that coast and anchored it so as to guard the dike
       and be guarded by it. Yet, daring as all this work was, it was
       but the smallest part of his work. Richelieu found that his
       officers were cheating his soldiers in their pay and
       disheartening them; in face of the enemy he had to reorganize
       the army and to create a new military system. ... He found,
       also, as he afterward said, that he had to conquer not only
       the Kings of England and Spain, but also the King of France.
       At the most critical moment of the siege Louis deserted
       him,--went back to Paris,--allowed courtiers to fill him with
       suspicions. Not only Richelieu's place, but his life, was in
       danger, and he well knew it; yet he never left his dike and
       siege-works, but wrought on steadily until they were done; and
       then the King, of his own will, in very shame, broke away from
       his courtiers, and went back to his master. And now a Royal
       Herald summoned the people of La Rochelle to surrender. But
       they were not yet half conquered. Even when they had seen two
       English fleets, sent to aid them, driven back from Richelieu's
       dike, they still held out manfully. ... They were reduced to
       feed on their horses,--then on bits of filthy
       shell-fish,--then on stewed leather. They died in multitudes.
       Guiton, the Mayor, kept a dagger on the city council-table to
       stab any man who should speak of surrender. ... But at last
       even Guiton had to yield. After the siege had lasted more than
       a year, after 5,000 were found remaining out of 15,000, after
       a mother had been seen to feed her child with her own blood,
       the Cardinal's policy became too strong for him. The people
       yielded [October 27, 1628], and Richelieu entered the city as
       master. And now the victorious statesman showed a greatness of
       soul to which all the rest of his life was as nothing. ... All
       Europe ... looked for a retribution more terrible than any in
       history. Richelieu allowed nothing of the sort. He destroyed
       the old franchises of the city, for they were incompatible
       with that royal authority which he so earnestly strove to
       build. But this was all. He took no vengeance,--he allowed the
       Protestants to worship as before,--he took many of them into
       the public service,--and to Guiton he showed marks of
       respect. He stretched forth that strong arm of his over the
       city, and warded off all harm. ... For his leniency Richelieu
       received the titles of Pope of the Protestants and Patriarch
       of the Atheists. But he had gained the first great object of
       his policy, and he would not abuse it: he had crushed the
       political power of the Huguenots forever."

          A. D. White,
          The Statesmanship of Richelieu
          (Atlantic Monthly, May, 1862).

       "Whatever the benefit to France of this great feat, the
       locality was permanently ruined. Two hundred and fifty years
       after the event the Poitevin peasant is fanatic and
       superstitious as the Bretons themselves. Catholic Rochelle is
       still to be seen, with almost one-third less inhabitants
       to-day than it had in 1627. The cardinal's dyke is still
       there, but the insects have seized on the city. A plague of
       white ants, imported from India, have fastened on its
       timbers."

          R. Heath,
          The Reformation in France,
          volume 1, book 2, chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England, 1603 to 1642,
          chapters 56, 59-60, and 65.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1631.
       War with Spain, Savoy and the Empire over the succession to
       the duchy of Mantua.
       Successes of Richelieu.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1628.
       New France placed under the Company of the Hundred Associates.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1628-1632.
       Loss and recovery of New France.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.
       The Day of Dupes, and after.

       On the return of Richelieu and the king from their Italian
       expedition, in the beginning of August, 1630, "both the
       monarch and his minister had passed in safety through a whole
       tract infected with the plague; but, shortly after their
       arrival at Lyons, Louis XIII. fell ill, and in a few days his
       physicians pronounced his case hopeless. It was now that all
       the hatred which his power had caused to hide its head, rose
       up openly against Richelieu; and the two queens [Marie de
       Medicis, the queen-mother, and Anne of Austria, the king's
       wife], united only in their enmity towards the minister, never
       quitted the bedside of the king but to form and cement the
       party which was intended to work the cardinal's
       destruction as soon as the monarch should be no more. ...
    {1222}
       The bold and the rash joined the faction of the queens; and
       the prudent waited with wise doubt till they saw the result
       they hoped for. Happy was it for those who did conceal their
       feelings; for suddenly the internal abscess, which had nearly
       reduced the king to the tomb, broke, passed away, and in a
       very few days he appeared perfectly convalescent. Richelieu
       might now have triumphed securely; ... but he acted more
       prudently. He remembered that the queen-mother, the great
       mover of the cabal against him, had formerly been his
       benefactress; and though probably his gratitude was of no very
       sensitive nature, yet he was wise enough to affect a virtue
       that he did not possess, and to suffer the offence to be given
       by her. ... At Paris [after the return of the court] ... the
       queen-mother herself, unable to restrain any longer the
       violent passions that struggled in her bosom, seemed resolved
       to keep no terms with the cardinal." At an interview with him,
       in the king's presence, "the queen forgot the dignity of her
       station and the softness of her sex, and, in language more fit
       for the markets than the court, called him rogue, and traitor,
       and perturber of the public peace; and, turning to the king,
       she endeavoured to persuade him that Richelieu wished to take
       the crown from his head, in order to place it on that of the
       count de Soissons. Had Richelieu been as sure of the king's
       firmness as he was of his regard, this would have been exactly
       the conduct which he could have desired the queen to hold; but
       he knew Louis to be weak and timid, and easily ruled by those
       who took a tone of authority towards him; and when at length
       he retired at the command of the monarch ... he seems to have
       been so uncertain how the whole would end, that he ordered his
       papers and most valuable effects to be secured, and
       preparations to be made for immediate departure. All these
       proceedings had been watched by the courtiers: Richelieu had
       been seen to quit the queen's cabinet troubled and gloomy, his
       niece in tears; and, some time after, the king himself
       followed in a state of excessive agitation, and ... left Paris
       for Versailles without seeing his minister. The whole court
       thought the rule of Richelieu at an end, and the saloons of
       the Luxembourg were crowded with eager nobles ready to worship
       the rising authority of the queen-mother." But the king, when he
       reached Versailles, sent this message to his minister: "'Tell
       the cardinal de Richelieu that he has a good master, and bid
       him come hither to me without delay.' Richelieu felt that the
       real power of France was still in his hands; and setting off
       for Versailles, he found Louis full of expressions of regard
       and confidence. Rumours every moment reached Versailles of the
       immense concourse that was flocking to pay court to the
       queen-mother: the king found himself nearly deserted, and all
       that Richelieu had said of her ambition was confirmed in the
       monarch's mind; while his natural good sense told him that a
       minister who depended solely upon him, and who under him
       exercised the greatest power in the realm, was not likely to
       wish his fall. ... In the mean time, the news of these ...
       events spread to Paris: the halls of the Luxembourg, which the
       day before had been crowded to suffocation, were instantly
       deserted; and the queen-mother found herself abandoned by all
       those fawning sycophants whose confidence and disappointment
       procured for the day of St. Martin, 1630, the title in French
       history of The Day of Dupes."

          G. P. R. James,
          Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
          volume 2, pages 88-92.

       The ultimate outcome of The Day of Dupes was the flight of
       Marie de Medicis, who spent the remainder of her life in the
       Netherlands and in England; the trial and execution of Marshal
       de Marillac; the imprisonment or exile and disgrace of
       Bassompierre and other nobles; a senseless revolt, headed by
       Gaston, Duke of Orleans, the king's brother, which was crushed
       in one battle at Castlenaudari, September 1, 1632, and which
       brought the Duke de Montmorency to the block.

          C. D. Yonge,
          History of France under the Bourbons,
          volume 1, chapters 7-8.

          ALSO IN:
          M. W. Freer,
          Married Life of Anne of Austria,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos of English History, 6th series,
          chapter 20.

          Miss Pardoe,
          Life of Marie de Medicis,
          book 3, chapters 7-13 (volume 3).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1631.
       Treaty and negotiations with Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
       Promotion of the Protestant Union.

          See GERMANY: A.D. 1631 (JANUARY);
          1631-1632; and 1632-1634.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1632-1641.
       War in Lorraine.
       Occupation and possession of the duchy.

          See LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1638.
       Campaigns on the Flemish frontier.
       Invasion by the Spaniards.
       Paris in Peril.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1639.
       Active participation in the Thirty Years War.
       Treaties with the Germans, Swedes, and Dutch.
       Campaigns of Duke Bernhard in Lorraine, Alsace and
       Franche-Comté.
       The fruit gathered by Richelieu.
       Alsace secured.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1642.
       The war in northern Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1637-1642.
       The war in Spain.
       Revolt of Catalonia.
       Siege and capture of Perpignan.
       Conquest of Roussillon.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640, and 1640-1642.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1640-1645.
       Campaigns in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645, and 1643-1644.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
       The conspiracies of Count de Soissons and Cinq Mars.
       Extinction of the Principality of Sedan.

       "There were revolts in various quarters to resist [the yoke of
       Richelieu], but they were quelled with uniform success. Once,
       and once only, the fate of the Cardinal seemed finally sealed.
       The Count de Soissons, a prince of the blood, headed the
       discontented gentry in open war in 1641, and established the
       headquarters of revolt in the town of Sedan. The Empire and
       Spain came to his support with promises and money. Twelve
       thousand men were under his orders, all influenced with rage
       against Richelieu, and determined to deliver the king from his
       degrading tutelage. Richelieu was taken unprepared; but delay
       would have been ruin. He sent the Marshal Chatillon to the
       borders of Sedan, to watch the proceedings of the
       confederates, and requested the king to summon fresh troops
       and go down to the scene of war. While his obedient Majesty
       was busied in the commission, Chatillon advanced too far.
       Soissons assaulted him near the banks of the Meuse, at a place
       called Marfée, and gave him a total and irremediable
       overthrow. The cavalry on the royalist side retreated at an
       early part of the fight, and forced their way through the
       infantry, not without strong suspicions of collusion with
       their opponents."
    {1223}
       Paris itself was in dismay. The King and Cardinal expected to
       hear every hour of the advance of the rebels; but no step was
       taken. It was found, when the hurry of battle was over, that
       Soissons was among the slain. The force of the expedition was
       in that one man; and the defeat was as useful to the Cardinal
       as a victory would have been. The malcontents had no leaders
       of sufficient rank and authority to keep the inferiors in
       check; for the scaffold had thinned the ranks of the great
       hereditary chiefs, and no man could take his first open move
       against the Court without imminent risk to his head. Great
       men, indeed, were rising into fame, but of a totally different
       character from their predecessors. Their minds were cast in a
       monarchical mould from their earliest years. ... From this
       time subserviency to the king became a sign of noble birth.
       ... Richelieu has the boast, if boast it can be called, of
       having crushed out the last spark of popular independence and
       patrician pride. ... One more effort was made [1642] to shake
       off the trammels of the hated Cardinal. A conspiracy was
       entered into to deliver the land by the old Roman method of
       putting the tyrant to death; and the curious part of the
       design is, that it was formed almost in presence of the king.
       His favourite friend, young Cinq Mars, son of the Marshal
       d'Effiat, his brother Gaston of Orleans, and his kinsman the
       Duke de Bouillon, who were round his person at all hours of
       the day, were the chief agents of the perilous undertaking.
       Others, and with them de Thou, the son of the great French
       historian, entered into the plan, but wished the assassination
       to be left out. They would arrest and imprison him; but this
       was evidently not enough. While Richelieu lived, no man could
       be safe, though the Cardinal were in the deepest dungeon of
       the Bastile. Death, however, was busy with their victim,
       without their aid. He was sinking under some deep but
       partially-concealed illness when the threads of the plot came
       into his skilful hands. He made the last use of his strength
       and intelligence in unravelling [it] and punishing the rebels,
       as he called them, against the king's authority. The paltry
       and perfidious Gaston was as usual penitent and pardoned, but
       on Cinq Mars and de Thou the vengeance of the law and the
       Cardinal had its full force. The triumphant but failing
       minister reclined in a state barge upon the Rhone, towing his
       prisoners behind him to certain death. On their arrival at
       Lyons the process was short and fatal. The young men were
       executed together, and the account of their behaviour at the
       block is one of the most affecting narratives in the annals of
       France."

          J. White,
          History of France,
          chapter 12.

       The Duke de Bouillon, implicated in both these
       conspiracies--that of the Count de Soissons and that of Cinq
       Mars--saved his life on the latter occasion by surrendering to
       the crown the sovereignty of Sedan, which belonged to him, and
       which had been the headquarters of the Soissons revolt. This
       small independent principality--the town and a little
       territory around it--had formerly been in the possession of
       the powerful and troublesome family of La Marck, the last
       heiress of whom brought it, together with the Duchy of
       Bouillon, into the family of La Tour d'Auvergne. The Prince
       and Duke who lost it was the second of that family who bore
       the titles. He was the elder brother of the great soldier,
       Turenne. The Principality of Sedan was extinguished from that
       time.

          T. O. Cockayne,
          Life of Turenne.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Robson,
          Life of Richelieu,
          chapters 11-12.

          M. W. Freer,
          Married Life of Anne of Austria,
          volume 2, chapter 3.

          Miss Pardoe,
          Life of Marie de Medicis,
          book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.
       The death of Richelieu and of Louis XIII.
       Regency of Anne of Austria.
       Cardinal Mazarin and the party of the Importants.
       The victory at Rocroi.

       Cardinal Richelieu died on the 4th of December, 1642. "He was
       dead, but his work survived him. On the very evening of the 3d
       of December, Louis XIII. called to his council Cardinal
       Mazarin [whom Richelieu had commended to him]. ... Scarcely
       had the most powerful kings yielded up their last breath when
       their wishes had been at once forgotten: Cardinal Richelieu
       still governed in his grave." But now, after two and a half
       centuries, "the castle of Richelieu is well-nigh destroyed;
       his family, after falling into poverty, is extinct; the
       Palais-Cardinal [his splendid residence, which he built, and
       which he gave to the crown] has assumed the name of the
       Palais-Royal; and pure monarchy, the aim of all his efforts
       and the work of his whole life, has been swept away by the
       blast of revolution. Of the cardinal there remains nothing but
       the great memory of his power and of the services he rendered his
       country. ... Richelieu had no conception of that noblest
       ambition on which a human soul can feed, that of governing a
       free country, but he was one of the greatest, the most
       effective, and the boldest, as well as the most prudent
       servants that France ever had." Louis XIII. survived his great
       minister less than half a year, dying May 14, 1643. He had
       never had confidence in Anne of Austria, his wife, and had
       provided, by a declaration which she had signed and sworn to,
       for a council (which included Mazarin) to control the queen's
       regency during the minority of their son, Louis XIV. But the
       queen contrived very soon to break from this obligation, and
       she made Cardinal Mazarin her one counsellor and supreme
       minister. "Continuing to humor all parties, and displaying
       foresight and prudence, the new minister was even now master.
       Louis XIII., without any personal liking, had been faithful to
       Richelieu to the death. With different feelings, Anne of Austria
       was to testify the same constancy towards Mazarin. A stroke of
       fortune came at the very first to strengthen the regent's
       position. Since the death of Cardinal Richelieu, the
       Spaniards, but recently overwhelmed at the close of 1642, had
       recovered courage and boldness; new counsels prevailed at the
       court of Philip IV., who had dismissed Olivarez; the House of
       Austria vigorously resumed the offensive; at the moment of
       Louis XIII.'s death, Don Francisco de Mello, governor of the
       Low Countries, had just invaded French territory by way of the
       Ardennes, and laid siege to Rocroi, on the 12th of May [1643].
       The French army was commanded by the young Duke of Enghien
       [afterwards known as the Great Condé], the prince of Condé's
       son, scarcely 22 years old; Louis XIII. had given him as his
       lieutenant and director the veteran Marshal de l'Hôpital; and
       the latter feared to give battle.
    {1224}
       The Duke of Enghien, who 'was dying with impatience to enter
       the enemy's country, resolved to accomplish by address what he
       could not carry by authority. He opened his heart to Gassion
       alone. As he [Gassion, one of the boldest of Condé's officers]
       was a man who saw nothing but what was easy even in the most
       dangerous deeds, he had very soon brought matters to the point
       that the prince desired. Marshal de l'Hôpital found himself
       imperceptibly so near the Spaniards that it was impossible for
       him any longer to hinder an engagement.' ... The army was in
       front of Rocroi, and out of the dangerous defile which led to
       the place, without any idea on the part of the marshal and the
       army that Louis XIII. was dead. The Duke of Enghien, who had
       received the news, had kept it secret. He had merely said in
       the tone of a master 'that he meant to fight, and would answer
       for the issue.'" The battle, which was fought May 19, 1643,
       resulted in the destruction, almost total, of the Spanish
       army. Of 18,000 men who formed its infantry, nearly 9,000 were
       killed and 7,000 were made prisoners. The whole of the Spanish
       artillery and 300 of their standards fell into the hands of
       the victors, who lost, according to their own reports, only
       2,000 men, killed and wounded. "'The prince was a born
       captain,' said Cardinal de Retz. And all France said so with
       him on hearing of the victory of Rocroi. The delight was all
       the keener in the queen's circle, because the house of Condé
       openly supported Cardinal Mazarin, bitterly attacked as he was
       by the Importants [a court faction or party so called, which
       was made up of 'those meddlers of the court at whose head
       marched the Duke of Beaufort, all puffed up with the
       confidence lately shown to him by her Majesty,' and all
       expecting to count importantly among the queen's favorites],
       who accused him of reviving the tyranny of Richelieu. ... And,
       indeed, on pretext offered by a feminine quarrel [August,
       1643] between the young Duchess of Longueville, daughter of
       the prince of Condé, and the Duchess of Montbazon, the Duke of
       Beaufort and some of his friends resolved to assassinate the
       cardinal. The attempt was a failure, but the Duke of Beaufort,
       who was arrested on the 2d of September, was taken to the
       castle of Vincennes. Madame de Chevreuse, recently returned
       [after being exiled by Richelieu] to court, where she would
       fain have exacted from the queen the reward for her services
       and her past sufferings, was sent into exile, as well as the
       Duke of Vendôme. Madame d'Hautefort, but lately summoned by
       Anne of Austria to be near her, was soon involved in the same
       disgrace. ... The party of the Importants was dead, and the
       power of Cardinal Mazarin seemed to be firmly established. 'It
       was not the thing just then for any decent man to be on bad
       terms with the court,' says Cardinal de Retz."

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapters 41-43.

       "Cardinal Richelieu was not so much a minister, in the precise
       sense of the word, as a person invested with the whole power
       of the crown. His preponderating influence in the council
       suspended the exercise of the hereditary power, without which
       the monarchy must cease to exist; and it seems as if that may
       have taken place in order that the social progress, violently
       arrested since the last reign, might resume its course at the
       instigation of a kind of dictator, whose spirit was free from
       the influences which the interest of family and dynasty
       exercises over the characters of kings. By a strange
       concurrence of circumstances, it happened that the weak
       prince, whose destiny it was to lend his name to the reign of
       the great minister, had in his character, his instincts, his
       good or bad qualities, all that could supply the requirements
       of such a post. Louis XIII., who had a mind without energy but
       not without intelligence, could not live without a master; after
       having possessed and lost many, he took and kept the one, who
       he found was capable of conducting France to the point, which
       he himself had a faint glimpse of, and to which he vaguely
       aspired in his melancholy reveries. ... In his attempts at
       innovation, Richelieu, as simple minister, much surpassed the
       great king who had preceded him, in boldness. He undertook to
       accelerate the movement towards civil unity and equality so
       much, and to carry it so far, that hereafter it should be
       impossible to recede. ... The work of Louis XI. had been
       nearly lost in the depth of the troubles of the sixteenth
       century; and that of Henry IV. was compromised by fifteen
       years of disorder and weakness. To save it from perishing,
       three things were necessary: that the high nobility should be
       constrained to obedience to the king and to the law; that
       Protestantism should cease to be an armed party in the State;
       that France should be able to choose her allies freely in
       behalf of her own interest and in that of European
       independence. On this triple object the king-minister employed
       his powerful intellect, his indefatigable activity, ardent
       passions, and an heroic strength of mind. His daily life was a
       desperate struggle against the nobles, the royal family, the
       supreme courts, against all that existed of high institutions,
       and corporations established in the country. For the purpose
       of reducing all to the same level of submission and order, he
       raised the royal power above the ties of family and the tie of
       precedent; he isolated it in its sphere as a pure idea, the
       living idea of the public safety and the national interest.
       ... He was as destitute of mercy as he was of fear, and
       trampled under foot the respect due to judicial forms and
       usages. He had sentences of death pronounced by commissioners
       of his own selection: at the very foot of the throne he struck
       the enemies of the public interest, and at the same time of
       his own fortune, and confounded his personal hatreds with the
       vengeance of the State. No one can say whether or not there
       was deceit in that assurance of conscience which he manifested
       in his last moments: God alone could look into the depth of
       his mind. We who have gathered the fruit of his labours and of
       his patriotic devotion at a distance of time--we can only bow,
       before that man of revolution, by whom the ways which led to
       our present state of society were prepared. But something sad
       is still attached to his glory: he sacrificed everything to
       the success of his undertaking; he stifled within himself and
       crushed down in some noble spirits the eternal principles of
       morality and humanity. When we look at the great things which
       he achieved, we admire him with gratitude; we would, but we
       cannot, love his character."

          A. Thierry,
          Formation and Progress of the Tiers État
          or Third Estate in France, chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          V. Cousin,
          Secret History of the French Court under
          Richelieu and Mazarin,
          chapters 3-4.

          V. Cousin,
          The Youth of Madame de Longueville.

          Lord Mahon,
          Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
          chapter 1.

          Cardinal de Retz,
          Memoirs,
          books 1-2.

          M'lle de Montpensier,
          Memoirs,
          chapter 2-3.

    {1225}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1643.
       Accession of Louis XIV.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1643.
       Enghien's (Condé's) campaign on the Moselle.
       Siege and capture of Thionville.

       "On the 20th of May ... Enghien made his triumphal entry into
       Rocroy. He allowed his troops to repose for two days, and then
       it was towards Guise that he directed his steps. He soon heard
       that Don Francisco de Melo had taken shelter at Phillipeville,
       that he was trying to rally his cavalry, but that of all his
       infantry not above 2,000 men remained to him, and they
       disarmed and nearly naked. No army any longer protected
       Flanders, and the youthful courage of Enghien already
       meditated its conquest. But the Court, which had expected to
       sustain war in its own provinces, was not prepared to carry it
       into foreign countries. It became necessary to give up all
       idea of an invasion of Maritime Flanders and the siege of
       Dunkirk, with which Enghien had at first flattered himself.
       Then finding that the Spaniards had drawn off their troops
       from the fortifications on the Moselle, Enghien proposed to
       march thither, and take possession of them. ... Although this
       project was very inferior to his first, its greatness
       surprised the Council of Ministers: they at first refused
       their consent, but the Duke insisted--and what could they
       refuse to the victor of Rocroy? Thionville was at that time
       considered to be one of the best fortresses in Europe. On
       arriving before its walls, after a seven days' march, Enghien
       ... established his lines, erected bridges, raised redoubts,
       and opened a double line of trenches on the 25th of June. The
       French were several times repulsed, but always rallied; and
       everywhere the presence of Enghien either prevented or
       repaired the disorder. ... The obstinate resistance of the
       garrison obliged the French to have recourse to mines, which,
       by assiduous labor, they pushed forward under the interior of
       the town. Then Enghien, wishing to spare bloodshed, sent a
       flag of truce to the governor, and allowed him a safe conduct
       to visit the state of the works. This visit convinced the
       Spaniards of the impossibility of defending themselves any
       longer. ... They evacuated the town on the 22d of August.
       Thionville was then little more than a heap of ruins and
       ashes. ... By this conquest Enghien soon became master of the
       whole course of the Moselle down to the gates of Trèves.
       Sierch alone ventured to resist him, but was reduced in 24
       hours. Then, disposing his army in autumn quarters, he set off
       for Paris."

          Lord Mahon,
          Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
          chapter 1.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1644-1646.
       Campaigns in Catalonia.
       The failures at Lerida.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1645-1648.
       Campaigns in Flanders.
       Capture of Dunkirk.
       Loss of the Dutch alliance.
       Conde's victory at Lens.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1634-1646; 1646-1648; 1647-1648.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1646-1648.
       The last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
       Turenne and the Swedes in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1646-1654.
       Hostility to the Pope.
       Siege of Orbitello.
       Attempts to take advantage of the insurrection in Naples.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.
       Conflict between Court and Parliament.
       The question of the Paulette.
       Events leading to the First Fronde.

       "The war was conducted with alternate success and failure, but
       with an unintermitted waste of the public revenue; and while
       Guébriant, Turenne, and Condé were maintaining the military
       renown of France, D'Emery, the superintendent of finance, was
       struggling with the far severer difficulty of raising her ways
       and means to the level of her expenditure. The internal
       history of the first five years of the regency is
       thenceforward a record of the contest between the court and
       the Parliament of Paris; between the court, promulgating
       edicts to replenish the exhausted treasury, and the
       Parliament, remonstrating in angry addresses against the
       acceptance of them." Of the four sovereign courts which had
       their seat at that time in the Palais de Justice of Paris, and
       of which the Parliament was the most considerable--the other
       three being the Chamber 'des Comptes,' the Cour des Aides, and
       the Grand Conseil--the counselors or stipendiary judges held
       their offices for life. "But, in virtue of the law called
       Paulette [named from Paulet, its originator, in the reign of
       Henry IV.] ... they also held them as an inheritance
       transmissible to their descendants. The Paulette ... was a
       royal ordinance which imposed an annual tax on the stipend of
       every judge. It was usually passed for a term of nine years
       only. If the judge died during that term, his heir was
       entitled to succeed to the vacant office. But if the death of
       the judge happened when the Paulette was not in force, his
       heir had no such right. Consequently, the renewal of the tax
       was always welcome to the stipendiary counselors of the
       sovereign courts; and, by refusing or delaying to renew it,
       the king could always exercise a powerful influence over them.
       In April, 1647, the Paulette had expired, and the queen-mother
       proposed the revival of it. But, to relieve the necessities of
       the treasury, she also proposed to increase the annual per
       centage which it imposed on the stipends of the counselors of
       the Chamber 'des Comptes,' of the Cour des Aides, and of the
       Grand Conseil. To concert measures of resistance to the
       contemplated innovation, those counselors held a meeting in
       the Great Hall of St. Louis; and at their request the
       Parliament, though not personally and directly interested in
       the change, joined their assembly." The queen sarcastically
       replied to their remonstrances that the "king would not only
       withdraw his proposal for an increase in the rate of the
       annual tax on their stipends, but would even graciously
       relieve them from that burden altogether. ... Exasperated by
       the threatened loss of the heritable tenure of their offices,
       and still more offended by the sarcastic terms in which that
       menace was conveyed, the judges assembled in the hall of St.
       Louis with increased zeal, and harangued there with yet more
       indignant eloquence. Four different times the queen
       interdicted their meetings, and four different times they
       answered her by renewed resolutions for the continuance of
       them. She threatened severe punishments, and they replied by
       remonstrances. A direct collision of authority had thus
       occurred, and it behooved either party to look well to their
       steps." The queen began to adopt a conciliatory manner. "But
       the associated magistrates derived new boldness from the
       lowered tone and apparent fears of the government.
    {1226}
       Soaring at once above the humble topic on which they had
       hitherto been engaged into the region of general politics,
       they passed at a step from the question of the Paulette to a
       review of all the public grievances under which their fellow
       subjects were labouring. After having wrought during four
       successive days in this inexhaustible mine of eloquence, they
       at length, on the 30th of June, 1648, commenced the adoption
       of a series of resolutions, which, by the 24th of July, had
       amounted in number to 27, and which may be said to have laid
       the basis of a constitutional revolution. ... Important as
       these resolutions were in themselves, they were still more
       important as the assertion, by the associated magistrates, of
       the right to originate laws affecting all the general
       interests of the commonwealth. In fact, a new power in the
       state had suddenly sprung into existence. ... That was an age
       in which the minds of men, in every part of Europe, had been
       rudely awakened to the extent to which the unconstitutional
       encroachments of popular bodies might be carried. Charles I.
       was at that time a prisoner in the hands of the English
       Parliament. Louis XIV. was a boy, unripe for an encounter with
       any similar antagonists. ... The queen-mother, therefore,
       resolved to spare no concessions by which the disaffected
       magistracy might be conciliated. D'Emery was sacrificed to
       their displeasure; the renewal of the Paulette on its ancient
       terms was offered to them; some of the grievances of which
       they complained were immediately redressed; and the young king
       appeared before them in person, to promise his assent to their
       other demands. In return, he stipulated only for the cessation
       of their combined meetings, and for their desisting from the
       further promulgation of arrêts, to which they ascribed the
       force and authority of law. But the authors of this hasty
       revolution were no longer masters of the spirits whom they had
       summoned to their aid. ... With increasing audacity,
       therefore, they persevered in defying the royal power, and in
       requiring from all Frenchmen implicit submission to their own.
       Advancing from one step to another, they adopted, on the 28th
       of August, 1648, an arrêt in direct conflict with a recent
       proclamation of the king, and ordered the prosecution of three
       persons for the offense of presuming to lend him money. At
       that moment their debates were interrupted by shouts and
       discharges of cannon, announcing the great victory of Condé at
       Lens. During the four following days religious festivals and
       public rejoicings suspended their sittings. But in those four
       days, the court had arranged their measures for a coup d'état.
       As the Parliament retired from Notre Dame, where they had
       attended at a solemn thanksgiving for the triumph of the arms
       of France, they observed that the soldiery still stood to the
       posts which, in honour of that ceremonial, had been assigned
       to them in different quarters of the city. Under the
       protection of that force, one of the presidents of the Chamber
       'des Enquêtes,' and De Broussel, the chief of the
       parliamentary agitators, were arrested and consigned to
       different prisons, while three of their colleagues were exiled
       to remote distances from the capital. At the tidings of this
       violence, the Parisian populace were seized with a
       characteristic paroxysm of fury. ... In less than three hours,
       Paris had become an entrenched camp. ... They dictated their
       own terms. The exiles were recalled and the prisoners
       released. ... Then, at the bidding of the Parliament, the
       people laid aside their weapons, threw down the barricades,
       re-opened their shops, and resumed the common business of life
       as quietly as if nothing had occurred. ... It was, however, a
       short-lived triumph. The queen, her son, and Mazarin effected
       their escape to St. Germains; and there, by the mediation of
       Condé and of Gaston, duke of Orleans, the uncle of the king, a
       peace was negotiated. The treaty of St. Germains was regarded
       by the court with shame, and by the Parliament with
       exultation." Fresh quarrels over it soon arose. "Condé was a
       great soldier, but an unskillful and impatient peacemaker. By
       his advice and aid, the queen-mother and the king once more
       retired to St. Germains, and commanded the immediate
       adjournment of the Parliament from Paris to Montargis. To
       their remonstrances against that order they could obtain no
       answer, except that if their obedience to it should be any
       longer deferred, an army of 25,000 men would immediately lay,
       siege to the city. War was thus declared."

          Sir J. Stephen,
          Lectures on the History of France,
          lecture 21.

          ALSO IN:
          Cardinal De Retz,
          Memoirs,
          book 2 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1648.
       The Peace of Westphalia.
       Acquisition of Alsace, etc.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1649.
       The First Fronde.
       Doubtful origin of the name.
       Siege of Paris by Condé.
       Dishonorable conduct of Turenne.
       Deserted by his army.
       The Peace of Reuil.

       "The very name of this movement is obscure, and it is only
       certain that it was adopted in jest, from a child's game. It
       was fitting that the struggle which became only a mischievous
       burlesque on a revolution should be named from the sport of
       gamins and school-boys. Fronde is the name of a sling, and the
       boys of the street used this weapon in their mimic contests.
       How it came to be applied to the opponents of the government
       is uncertain. Some claimed it was because the members of the
       Parliament, like the young frondeurs, hurled their weapons at
       Mazarin, but were ready to fly when the officers of the police
       appeared. Others said the term had been used by chance by some
       counsellor, and had been adopted by the writers of epigrams
       and mazarinades. However derived, it was not ill applied."

          J. B. Perkins,
          France Under Mazarin,
          chapter 9 (volume 1).

       "Paul de Gondi, Coadjutor of Paris [Coadjutor, that is, of the
       Archbishop of Paris, who was his uncle], famous afterwards
       under the name of Cardinal de Retz, placed himself at the head
       of the revolution. ... The Prince of Conti, brother of Condé,
       the Duke of Longueville, the Duke of Beaufort, and the Duke of
       Bouillon adopted the party of the coadjutor and the
       parliament. Generals were chosen for an army with which to
       resist the court. Although taxes levied by Mazarin had been
       resisted, taxes were freely paid to raise troops--12,000 men
       were raised; Condé [commanding for the queen] had 8,000
       soldiers. These he threw around Paris, and invested 100,000
       burgesses, and threatened to starve the town. The citizens,
       adorned with feathers and ribbons, made sorties occasionally,
       but their manœuvres were the subject of scorn by the soldiers.
       ... As Voltaire says, the tone of the civil discords which
       afflicted England at the same time mark well the difference
       between the national characters.
    {1227}
       The English had thrown into their civil war a balanced fury
       and a mournful determination. ... The French on the other hand
       threw themselves into their civil strife with caprice,
       laughter, dissolution and debauchery. Women were the leaders
       of factions--love made and broke cabals. The Duchess of
       Longueville urged Turenne, only a short time back appointed
       Marshal of France, to encourage his army to revolt, which he
       was commanding for his king. Nothing can justify Turenne's
       action in this matter. Had he laid down his command and taken
       the side of his brother [the Duke de Bouillon], on account of
       his family grievance [the loss of the principality of
       Sedan--see above, A. D. 1641-1642], the feudal spirit which in
       those days held affection for family higher than affection for
       country, might have excused him; but, while in the service of
       a sovereign and intrusted with the command of an army, to
       endeavour to lead his troops over to the enemy can be regarded
       as nothing short of the work of a traitor. He himself pleads
       as his apology that Condé was starving the population of Paris
       by the investment. ... As it was he sacrificed his honour, and
       allowed his fair fame to be tarnished for the sake of a
       worthless woman who secretly jeered at his passion, and cared
       nothing for his heart, but merely for his sword for her own
       worldly advantage. As it was he endeavoured to persuade his
       army to declare for the parliament, and purposed taking it
       into Champagne, and marching for the relief of the capital;
       but the treachery of the marshal was no match for the subtlety
       of the cardinal. Before Turenne issued his declaration to his
       troops the colonels of his regiment had already been tampered
       with. The cardinal's emissaries had promised them pensions,
       and distributed £800,000 among the officers and soldiers. This
       was a decisive argument for mercenaries, who taught Turenne by
       forsaking him that mercenary services can only be commanded by
       money. D'Erlach had also stood firm. The regiments of Turenne,
       six German regiments, called by d'Erlach, marched one night to
       join him at Brisach. Three regiments of infantry threw
       themselves under the guns of Philipsburg. Only a small force
       was left to Turenne, who, finding the blow he intended
       hopeless, sent the troops still with him to join d'Erlach at
       Brisach, and retired himself with fifteen or twenty of his
       friends to Heilbron, thence to Holland, where he awaited the
       termination of the civil war. The news of the abandonment of
       Turenne was received with despair at Paris, with wild joy at
       St. Germain. His banishment, however, was not long. The
       leaders of the parliament became aware that the princes of the
       Fronde were trying to obtain foreign assistance to overturn
       the monarchy; that their generals were negotiating a treaty
       with Spain. They felt that order, peace, and the independence
       of parliament, which would in this case become dependent upon
       the nobility, was in danger. They took the patriotic
       resolution quickly to act of their own accord. A conference
       had been opened between the parliament and the Court. Peace
       was concluded at Reuil, which, notwithstanding the
       remonstrances of Conti [brother of Condé, the family being
       divided in the First Fronde], Bouillon, and the other nobles
       of the Fronde, was accepted by the whole parliament. Peace was
       proclaimed in Paris to the discontent of the populace. ...
       Turenne, on the conclusion of the treaty of Reuil, embarked in
       Zeeland, landed at Dieppe, and posted to Paris."

          H. M. Hozier,
          Turenne,
          chapter 6.

       "After the signing of the peace, the Château of St. Germain
       became the resort of many Frondeurs; the Duchess de
       Longueville, the Prince of Conti, and nearly all the other
       chiefs of the party, hastened to pay their respects to the
       Queen. She received everybody without bitterness, some even
       with friendship; and the Minister on his part affected much
       general good-will. ... One of the first effects of the peace
       between the parties was a reconciliation in the House of
       Condé. The Princess Dowager employed herself with zeal and
       success in reestablishing harmony between her children. Condé,
       who despised his brother too much to hate him, readily agreed
       to a reconciliation with him. As to his sister, he had always
       felt for her great affection and confidence, and she no less
       for him: these sentiments were revived at their very first
       interview at Ruel, and he not only gave her back his
       friendship, but began to enter into her views, and even to be
       guided by her counsels. The Prince's policy was to make
       Royalty powerful and respected, but not absolute. He said
       publicly that he had done what he ought in upholding Mazarin,
       because he had promised to do so: but for the future, if
       things took a different line, he should not be bound by the
       past. ... A prey to a thousand conflicting feelings, and
       discontented with everybody, and perhaps with himself, he took
       the resolution of retiring for several months to his
       government in Burgundy. On returning from Dijon in the month
       of August, the Prince found the Queen and the Cardinal at
       Compiègne, and very much dejected. ... He ... pressed her to
       return to Paris with her Minister, answering for Mazarin's
       safety, at the risk of his own head. ... Their entry into
       Paris took place a few days after."

          Lord Mahon,
          Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
          chapter 3-4.

          ALSO IN:
          Guy Joli,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1.

          Cardinal De Retz,
          Memoirs,
          book 2.

          Miss Pardoe,
          Louis XIV.,
          chapters 9-11.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
       The New Fronde, or the Petits Maitres.
       Its alliance with Spain and defeat at Rethel.
       Revolt, siege and reduction of Bordeaux.

       "Faction, laid asleep for one night, woke again fresh and
       vigorous next morning. There was a Parliamentary party, a De
       Retz party, and a Condé party, and each party plotted and
       schemed unceasingly to discredit the others and to evoke
       popular feeling against all except itself. ... Neither of the
       leaders, each pretending fear of assassination, ever stirred
       abroad unless in the company of 400 or 500 gentlemen, thus
       holding the city in hourly peril of an 'émeute.' Condé's
       arrogance and insolence becoming at last totally unbearable,
       the Court proceeded to the bold measure of arresting him. New
       combinations: De Retz and Orleans coalesce once more; De Retz
       coquets with Mazarin and is promised a cardinal's hat. Wily
       Mazarin strongly supports De Retz's nomination in public, and
       privately urges every member of the council to vote against it
       and to beseech the Queen to refuse the dignity. It was
       refused; upon which De Retz turned his energies upon a general
       union of parties for the purpose of effecting the release of
       Condé and the overthrow of the minister.'

          De Retz and the Fronde
          (Temple Bar, volume 38, pages 535-536).

    {1228}

       Condé, his brother Conti, and his brother-in-law Longueville,
       were arrested and conducted to Vincennes on the 18th of
       January, 1650. "This was the second crisis of the sedition.
       The old Fronde had expired; its leaders had sold themselves to
       the Court; but in its place sprang up the New Fronde, called
       also, from the affected airs of its leaders, the Petits
       Maîtres. The beautiful Duchess of Longueville was the soul of
       it, aided by her admirer, Marsillac, afterwards Duke de la
       Rochefoucauld, and by the Duke of Bouillon. On the arrest of
       her husband and her brother, the duchess had fled to Holland,
       and afterwards to Stenai; where she and Bouillon's brother,
       Turenne, who styled himself the 'King's Lieutenant-General for
       the liberation of the Princes,' entered into negotiations with
       the Archduke Leopold. Bouillon himself had retired into
       Guienne, which province was alienated from the Court because
       Mazarine maintained as its governor the detested Epernon. In
       July Bouillon and his allies publicly received a Spanish envoy
       at Bordeaux. Condé's wife and infant son had been received in
       that city with enthusiasm. But on the approach of Mazarine
       with the royal army, the inhabitants of Guienne, alarmed for
       their vintage, now approaching maturity, showed signs of
       submission; after a short siege Bordeaux surrendered, on
       condition of an amnesty, in which Bouillon and La
       Rochefoucauld were included; and the Princess of Condé was
       permitted to retire (October 1st 1650). In the north, the
       Frondeurs, with their Spanish allies, seemed at first more
       successful. In the summer Leopold had entered Champagne,
       penetrated to Ferté Milon, and some of his marauding parties
       had even reached Dammartin. Turenne tried to persuade the
       Archduke to march to Vincennes and liberate the princes; but
       while he was hesitating, Gaston transferred the captives to
       Marcoussis, whence they were soon after conveyed to Havre.
       Leopold and Turenne, after a vain attempt to rouse the
       Parisians, retreated to the Meuse and laid siege to Mouzon.
       The Cardinal himself, like his master Richelieu, now assumed
       the character of a general. Uniting with his troops in the
       north the army of Guienne, he took up his quarters at Rethel,
       which had been captured by Du Plessis Praslin. Hence he
       ordered an attack to be made on the Spaniards. In the battle
       which ensued, these were entirely defeated, many of their
       principal officers were captured, and even Turenne himself
       narrowly escaped the same fate (December 15th 1650). The
       Cardinal's elation was unbounded. It was a great thing to have
       defeated Turenne, and though the victory was Du Plessis',
       Mazarine assumed all the credit of it. His head began to turn.
       He forgot that he owed his success to the leaders of the old
       Fronde, and especially to the Coadjutor; he neglected his
       promises to that intriguing prelate, though Gondi plainly
       declared that he must either be a prince of the Church or the
       head of a faction. Mazarine was also imprudent enough to
       offend the Parliament; and he compared them with that sitting
       at London--which indeed was doing them too much honour. The
       Coadjutor went over to the party of the princes, dragging with
       him the feeble-minded Orleans, who had himself been insulted
       by the Queen. Thus was produced a third phase of this singular
       sedition--the union of the old Fronde with the new. The
       Parliament now clamoured for the liberation of the princes. As
       the Queen hesitated, Gaston bluntly declared that the
       dismissal of Mazarine was necessary to the restoration of
       peace; while the Parliament added to their former demand
       another for the Cardinal's banishment. Mazarine saw his
       mistake and endeavoured to rectify it. He hastened to Havre in
       order to liberate the princes in person, and claim the merit
       of a spontaneous act. But it was too late; it was plain that
       he was acting only by constraint. The princes were conducted
       back in triumph to Paris by a large retinue sent to escort
       them. On February 25th 1651, their innocence was established
       by a royal declaration, and they were restored to all their
       dignities and charges. Mazarine, meanwhile, who saw that for
       the present the game was lost, retired into exile; first into
       Bouillon, and afterwards to Brühl on the Rhine, where the
       Elector of Cologne offered him an asylum. From this place he
       corresponded with the Queen, and continued to direct her
       counsels. The anarchy and confusion that had ensued in France
       were such as promised him a speedy return."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 5, chapter 1 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

          Miss Pardoe,
          Louis XIV. and the Court of France,
          volume 1, chapter 13-15.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1652.
       The loss of Catalonia.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.
       The arrogance of Condé and his renewal of civil war.
       The King's majority proclaimed.
       General changing of sides.
       Battle of Porte St. Antoine and massacre of
       the Hôtel de Ville.
       End of the Fronde.
       Condé in the service of Spain.

       "The liberated captives were received with every demonstration
       of joy by all Paris and the Frondeurs, including the Duke of
       Orleans. The Queen, melancholy, and perhaps really ill, lay in
       bed to receive their visit of cold ceremony; but the Duke of
       Orleans gave them a grand supper, and there was universal joy
       at being rid of Mazarin. ... There was a promise to assemble
       the States General, while Condé thought himself governing the
       kingdom, and as usual his arrogance gave offence in various
       quarters. One article in the compact which had gained his
       liberty was that the Prince of Conti should marry Mademoiselle
       de Chevreuse, but this alliance offended the pride of the
       elder brother, and he broke the marriage off hastily and
       haughtily. Madame de Chevreuse, much offended, repented of the
       aid she had given, went over to the Queen's party, and took
       with her the coadjutor, who was devoted to the rejected
       daughter, and could always sway the mob of Paris. So many
       persons had thus come to desert the cause of the Prince that
       Anne of Austria thought of again arresting him." Condé,
       supposing himself in danger, fled from the city on the 6th of
       July, and "went to his château of St. Maur, where his family
       and friends joined him; and he held a kind of court. Queen and
       Parliament both sent entreaties to him to return, but he
       disdained them all, and made the condition of his return the
       dismissal of the secretaries whom Mazarin had left. The Queen,
       most unwillingly, made them retire, and Condé did return for a
       short time; but he was haughtier than ever, and openly
       complained of Mazarin's influence, making every preparation
       for a civil war. Strangely violent scenes took place," between
       the Prince and the Coadjutor and their respective adherents;
       and presently the Prince "quitted Paris, went to Chantilly,
       and decided on war.
    {1229}
       Mazarin wrote to the Queen that the most prudent course would
       be to ally herself with the Parliament to crush the Princes.
       After they should have been put down the Parliament would be
       easily dealt with. She acted on this advice. The elections for
       the States General were beginning, but in order to quash them,
       and cancel all her promises, the Queen decided on proclaiming
       the majority of the King, and thus the close of her own
       regency. It was of course a farce, since he had only just
       entered his fourteenth year, and his mother still conducted
       the Government; but it made a new beginning, and was an
       occasion for stirring up the loyalty of the people. ... Condé
       was unwilling to begin a civil war, and was only driven into
       it by his sister's persuasions and those of his friends.
       'Remember,' he said, 'if I once draw the sword, I shall be the
       last to return it to the scabbard.' On the other side, Anne of
       Austria said, 'Monsieur le Prince shall perish, or I will.'
       From Montrond, Condé directed his forces to take possession of
       the cities in Guyenne, and he afterwards proceeded to
       Bordeaux. On the other hand, Mazarin repaired to Sedan, and
       contrived to raise an army in the frontier cities, with which
       he marched to join the King and Queen at Poitiers. War was
       raging again, still as the Fronde, though there had been a
       general change of sides, the Parliament being now for the
       Court, and the Princes against it, the Duke of Orleans in a
       state of selfish agitation between the two. Learning that the
       royal army was advancing to his own appanage of Orleans, and
       fearing that the city might open its gates to them, he sent
       off his daughter, Mademoiselle [de Montpensier], to keep the
       citizens to what he called their duty to himself. She went
       with only two ladies and her servants ... and found the gates
       closed against her." The persevering Mademoiselle succeeded,
       however, in gaining admission to the town, despite the orders
       of the magistrates, and she kept out of it the soldiers of
       both factions in the war. But her own inclinations were
       strongly towards Condé and his side. "She went out to a little
       inn to hold a council with the Dukes of Beaufort and Nemours,
       and had to mediate between them in a violent quarrel. ...
       Indeed, Condé's party were ill-agreed; he had even quarreled
       with his sister, and she had broken with De la Rochefoucauld!
       The Duke de Bouillon and his brother Turenne were now on the
       Queen's side, and the command of the royal army was conferred
       on the Viscount. Condé, with only eight persons, dashed across
       France, to take the command of the army over which Beaufort and
       Nemours were disputing. The very morning after he arrived,
       Turenne saw by the disposition of the troops who must be
       opposed to him. 'M. le Prince is come,' he said. They were the
       two greatest captains of the age, and they fought almost in
       sight of the King and Queen at Bleneau. But though there were
       skirmishes [including, at the outset, the serious defeat of a
       division of the royal forces under Hocquincourt], no decisive
       engagement took place. It was a struggle of manœuvres, and in
       this Condé had the disadvantage. ... Week after week the two
       armies ... watched one another, till at last Condé was driven
       up to the walls of Paris, and there the gates were closed
       against both armies. Condé was at St. Cloud, whence, on the
       2nd of July [1652], he endeavoured to lead his army round to
       Charenton at the confluence of the Seine and the Loire; but
       when he came in front of the Porte St. Antoine, he found that
       a battle was inevitable and that he was caught in a trap,
       where, unless he could escape through the city, his
       destruction was inevitable. He barricaded the three streets
       that met there, heaping up his baggage as a protection, and
       his friends within, many of them wives of gentlemen in his
       army, saw the situation with despair." The only one who had
       energy to act was Mademoiselle. She extorted from her
       hesitating father an order, by virtue of which she persuaded
       the magistrates of the city, not only to open the gates to
       Condé, but to send 2,000 men to the Faubourg St. Antoine.
       "Mademoiselle now repaired to the top of the great square
       tower of the Bastille, whence she could see the terrible
       conflict carried on in the three suburban streets which
       converged at the Porte St. Antoine." Seeing an opportunity to
       turn the cannon of the Bastille on the pursuing troops, she
       did so with effect. "Turenne was obliged to draw back, and at
       last Condé brought his army into the city, where they encamped
       in the open space of the Pré des Clercs. ... Condé unworthily
       requited the hospitality wrung from the city. He was resolved
       to overcome the neutrality of the Parliament, and, in concert
       with Beaufort, instigated the mob to violence. Many soldiers
       were disguised as artizans, and mingled with the rabble, when,
       on the 4th of July, he went to the Hotel de Ville, ostensibly
       to thank, the magistrates, but really to demand their support
       against the Crown. These loyal men, however, by a majority of
       votes, decided on a petition to the King to return without
       Mazarin. On this Condé exclaimed publicly, 'These gentlemen
       will do nothing for us. They are Mazarinists. Treat them as
       you please.' Then he retired to the Luxembourg with Gaston,
       while Beaufort let loose the mob. The Hotel de Ville was
       stormed, the rabble poured in at doors and windows, while the
       disguised soldiers fired from the opposite houses, and the
       magistrates were threatened and pursued on all sides. They had
       one advantage, that they knew their way through the intricate
       passages and the mob did not. The first who got out rushed to
       the Luxembourg to entreat the Duke and Prince to stop the
       massacre; but Monsieur only whistled and beat his tattoo, and
       Condé said he knew nothing about sedition. Nor would Beaufort
       interfere till the disturbance had lasted many hours; but
       after all many more of the rabble were killed than of the
       magistrates. It was the last remarkable scene in the strange
       drama of the Fronde. The Parliament suspended its sittings,
       and the King transferred it to Pontoise, whither Molé and all
       the other Presidents proceeded, leaving Paris in disguise.
       This last ferocious proceeding of Condé's, though he tried to
       disavow it, had shocked and alienated everyone, and he soon
       after fell sick of a violent fever. Meanwhile, his castle of
       Montrond was taken after a year's siege, Nemours was killed in
       a duel by the Duke of Beaufort, and the party was falling to
       pieces. ... Mazarin saw the opportunity, and again left the
       Court for the German frontier. This was all that was wanting
       to bring back the malcontents. Condé offered to make terms,
       but was haughtily answered that it was no time for
       negotiation, but for submission. Upon this, he proceeded to
       the Low Countries, and offered his sword to the Spaniards.
    {1230}
       The King entered Paris in state and held a bed of justice, in
       which he proclaimed an amnesty, excepting from it Condé and
       Conti, and some others of their party, and forbidding the
       Parliament to interfere in State affairs. The Coadjutor, who
       had become a Cardinal, was arrested, and imprisoned until he
       made his escape, dislocating his shoulder in his fall from the
       window, but finally reaching Rome, where he lived till the
       Fronde was forgotten, but never becoming Archbishop of Paris.
       ... When all was quiet, Mazarin returned, in February, 1653,
       without the slightest opposition, and thus ended the Fronde,
       in the entire triumph of the Crown. ... The misery, distress
       and disease caused by these wars of the Fronde were
       unspeakable. There was nothing to eat in the provinces where
       they had raged but roots, rotten fruit, and bread made of
       bran. ... Le misère de la Fronde' was long a proverbial
       expression in France."

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon,
          Life of Condé,
          chapters 8-9.

          G. P. R. James,
          Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
          chapters 11-12.

          Cardinal de Retz,
          Memoirs,
          books 3-4 (volumes 2-3).

          M'lle de Montpensier,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapters 11-17.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1652.
       Loss of Gravelines and Dunkirk.
       Spanish invasion of Picardy.

       "In the spring of 1652, the Spanish forces, under the command
       of the archduke had undertaken the siege of Gravelines, which
       was obliged to capitulate on the 18th of May. The archduke
       next undertook the siege of Dunkirk, but, at the earnest
       desire of the princes, he merely blockaded the place, and sent
       Fuensaldaña with about 14,000 men into Picardy to their
       assistance. ... The court, in great alarm, sought first a
       retreat in Normandy, but the Duke of Longueville, who still
       held the government of that province, refused to receive
       Mazarin. The fears of the court were not lessened by this
       proceeding, and it was even proposed to carry the king to
       Lyons; but the wiser counsels of Turenne finally prevailed,
       and it was resolved to establish the army at Compiègne, and
       lodge the court at Pontoise. Fuensaldaña forced the passage of
       the Oise at Chauni, and then joined the duke of Lorraine at
       Fismes, on the 29th of July, when their joint forces amounted
       to full 20,000 men, while Turenne had not more than 11,000 to
       oppose to them. But the Spaniards were, as usual, only
       pursuing a selfish policy, and Fuensaldaña, in pursuance of
       the archduke's orders, left a body of 3,000 cavalry to
       reinforce the duke of Lorraine, and returned with the rest of
       his troops to assist in the siege of Dunkirk," which soon
       surrendered to his arms.

          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          volume 2, page 89.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1652-1653.
       Last phase of the Fronde at Bordeaux.
       Attempted revolution by the Society of the Ormée.

       See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
       Condé's campaigns against his own country, in the service of
       Spain.

       "Condé, unfortunately for his fame, made no attempts at
       reconciliation, and retired to the Spaniards--an enemy of his
       country! He captured several small places on the [Flemish]
       frontier, and hoped to return in spring victorious. A few days
       after the entry into Paris, Turenne set out to oppose him;
       and, retaking some towns, had the satisfaction, of compelling
       him to seek winter quarters beyond the limits of France. ...
       Condé persuaded the Spanish to bring 30,000 men into the field
       for the next campaign: Turenne and La Ferté had but 13,000. To
       paralyze the plans of the enemy, the Viscount proposed, and
       his proposal was allowed, to be always threatening their rear
       and communications; to occupy posts they would not dare to
       attack, and so to avoid fighting, at the same time hindering
       them from all important undertakings. He began by throwing
       himself between two corps of their army, at the point where
       they expected to effect a junction; and in the eight or nine
       days thus gained, he recovered Rhétel, without which it would
       have been, as he declares himself, impossible to defend
       Picardy and Champagne. Rhétel, so much an object of anxiety,
       was taken in three days. Baffled in their original purposes,
       and at a loss, the Spanish expected a large convoy from
       Cambray, escorted by 3,000 horse. Turenne got news of this,
       and, posting himself near Peronne to intercept it, drove it
       back to Cambray [August 11, 1653]. There Condé and Fuensaldaña
       turned upon him; but he took up a position, which they watched
       for three or four days, and there defied their attack. They
       refused the challenge. Thence the enemy drew off," with
       designs on Guise, which Turenne frustrated. "Condé then laid
       siege to Rocroi, where his own first glory had been gained;
       and this place is so hemmed in by woods and defiles, that the
       relief of it was impossible. But Turenne compensated for the
       loss of it by the equally valuable recapture, of Mouson. Thus
       the whole year was spent in marches and countermarches, in
       gains and losses, which had no influence on events. By this
       time the malcontents were so prostrate that Condé's brother,
       the Prince de Conti, and his sister, the Duchesse de
       Longueville, made their peace with the court. ... The year
       1654 opened with the siege of Stenay by the young king in
       person, who was carried thither by Mazarin, to overawe Condé's
       governor with the royal name and majesty. That officer was
       more true to his trust than to his allegiance, and Stenay cost
       a siege. ... Condé could do no better than imitate Turenne's
       policy of the previous year, and besiege Arras as an
       equivalent for Stenay; to which end he mustered 32,000 men.
       Arras was a town of some value. Condé had caught it at
       disadvantage; the governor, Mondejeu ... was put on his
       defence with 2,500 foot and 100 horse. To reinforce this
       slender garrison was the first care of Turenne. ... Mazarin
       was anxious for Arras, and offered Turenne to break up the
       siege of Stenay, for the sake of reinforcing the army of
       relief. This proposal the Viscount declined. He must have been
       very confident of his own capacity; for he could collect only
       14,000 men to hover around the enemy's camp. ... He proposed
       no attempt upon the intrenchments till he had the aid of the
       troops from Stenay ... ; but he disposed his parties around so
       as to prevent the enemy's convoys from reaching them." Stenay
       surrendered on the 6th of August, and Turenne, with
       reinforcements from its besiegers, attacked the Spanish lines
       at Arras on the night of the 24th, with complete success. The
       Spaniards raised the siege and retreated to Cambray, leaving
       3,000 prisoners and 63 pieces of cannon in the hands of the
       French. "The capture of Quesnoy and Binches filled up the rest
       of the year; the places were weak and the garrisons feeble.
    {1231}
       Nor did the next season, 1655, offer anything of interest.
       Turenne reduced Landrecies, Condé, and Guislain, while his
       active opponent was sometimes foiled by his precautions, and
       sometimes baffled by the absurd behaviour of the Spanish
       authorities. ... The great event of 1656 was the siege of
       Valenciennes. This place ... was invested by Turenne about the
       middle of June: but hardly had his camp been intrenched before
       he repented of his undertaking. The Scheldt flows through the
       town, and by reservoirs and sluices was flooded at the will of
       the enemy. Turenne's camp was largely inundated. ... He had
       overestimated his means: so great was the circle of his
       circumvallation that he had not men enough to guard it
       adequately, when Condé and the Spanish appeared with 20,000
       men to the relief of the place." They broke through his lines
       and forced him to retreat, with a heavy loss of prisoners
       taken. "The Viscount retrieved his credit by the bold stand he
       made after the defeat."

          T. O. Cockayne,
          Life of Marshal Turenne,
          pages 58-69.

          ALSO IN:
          Lord Mahon,
          Life of Condé,
          chapter 10.

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under Mazarin,
          chapters 16-17 (volume 2).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1660.
       First persecution of the Jansenists.

          See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
       Alliance with the English Commonwealth against Spain.
       The taking of Dunkirk for England and Gravelines for France.
       End of the war.

       "Mazarin was now bent upon an enterprise which, if successful,
       must finish the war. A deadly blow would be struck at the
       strength of Spain if Dunkirk, Mardyck, and Gravelines--the
       possession of which was of vital importance to her
       communication with Flanders, as well as enabling her to ruin
       French commerce on that coast--could be wrested from her. For
       this the cooperation of some maritime power was necessary, and
       Mazarin determined at all costs to secure England. With
       Cromwell, the only diplomatist by whose astuteness he
       confessed himself baffled, he had been negotiating since 1651.
       ... At length on November 3, 1655, a treaty was signed at
       Westminster, based upon freedom of commerce and an engagement
       that neither country should assist the enemies or rebels of
       the other; Mazarin consented to expel Charles II., James, and
       twenty named royalists from France. Cromwell similarly agreed
       to dismiss from England the emissaries of Condé. But Mazarin
       was soon anxious for a more effectual bond. ... Cromwell had
       equally good reasons for drawing closer to France, for Spain
       was preparing actively to assist Charles II. French and
       English interests thus coinciding, an alliance was signed at
       Paris on March 23, 1657

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

       Gravelines and Dunkirk were to be at once besieged both by
       land and sea. England was to send 6,000 men to assist the
       French army. Gravelines was to become French and Dunkirk
       English; should the former fall first it was to be held by
       England until Dunkirk too was taken. ... The alliance was not
       a moment too soon. The campaign of 1657 had opened
       disastrously. The tide was however turned by the arrival of
       the English contingent. Montmédy was immediately besieged, and
       capitulated on August 4. The effect was again to make Mazarin
       hang back from further effort, since it seemed possible now to
       make peace with Spain, and thereby avoid an English occupation
       of Dunkirk. But Cromwell would stand no trifling, and his
       threats were so clear that Mazarin determined to act loyally
       and without delay. On September 30, Turenne laid siege to
       Mardyck, which protected Dunkirk, and took it in four days. It
       was at once handed over to the English." In the spring of 1658
       the siege of Dunkirk was begun. The Spaniards, under Don John
       of Austria and Condé, attempting to relieve the place, were
       defeated (June 13) in the battle of the Dunes, by Turenne and
       Cromwell's Ironsides (see ENGLAND: A. D.1655-1658). "Dunkirk
       immediately surrendered, and on the 25th was in Cromwell's
       possession. Two months later Gravelines also fell. A short and
       brilliant campaign followed, in which Don John and Condé, shut
       up in Brussels and Tournai respectively, were compelled to
       remain inactive while fortress after fortress fell into French
       hands. A few days after the fall of Gravelines Cromwell died;
       but Mazarin was now near his goal. Utterly defeated on her own
       soil, beaten, too, by the Portuguese at Elvas, and threatened
       in Milan, her army ruined, her treasury bankrupt, without a
       single ally in Europe, Spain stood at last powerless before
       him."

          O. Airy,
          The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
          chapter 6.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1657.
       Candidacy of Louis XIV. for the imperial crown.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
       The treaty of the Pyrenees.
       Marriage of Louis XIV. to the Spanish Infanta.

       "The Spaniards could struggle no longer: they sued for peace.
       Things were prepared for it on every hand: Spain was
       desperate; matters far from settled or safe in France; in
       England the Protector's death had come very opportunely for
       Mazarin; the strong man was no longer there to hold the
       balance between the European powers. Questions as to a Spanish
       marriage and the Spanish succession had been before men since
       1648; the Spaniards had disliked the match, thinking that in
       the end it must subject them to France. But things were
       changed; Philip IV. now had an heir, so that the nations might
       hope to remain under two distinct crowns; moreover, the needs
       of Spain were far greater than in 1648, while the demands of
       France were less. So negociation between Mazarin and Louis de
       Haro on the little Isle of Pheasants in the Bidassoa, under
       the very shadow of the Pyrenees, went on prosperously; even
       the proposal that Louis XIV. should espouse the Infanta of
       Spain, Maria Theresa, was at last agreed to at Madrid. The
       only remaining difficulty arose from" the fact that the young
       King, Louis XIV., had fallen in love with Maria Mancini,
       Cardinal Mazarin's niece, and wished to marry her. "The King
       at last abandoned his youthful and pure passion, and signed
       the Treaty of the Pyrenees [concluded November 7, 1659],
       condemning himself to a marriage of state, which exalted high
       the dignity of the French Crown, only to plunge it in the end
       into the troubles and disasters of the Succession War. The
       treaty of peace begins with articles on trade and navigation:
       then follow cessions, restitutions, and exchanges of
       territories.

    {1232}

       1. On the Northern frontier Spain ceded all she had in Artois,
       with exception of Aire and S. Omer; in Flanders itself France
       got Gravelines and its outer defences. In Hainault she became
       mistress of the important towns, Landrecies, Quesnoy, and
       Avesnes, and also strengthened her position by some exchanges:
       in Luxemburg she retained Thionville, Montmédy, and several
       lesser places; so that over her whole northern border France
       advanced her frontier along a line answering to her old
       limits. ... In return she restored to Spain several of her
       latest conquests in Flanders: Ypres, Oudenarde, Dixmüden,
       Furnes, and other cities. In Condé's country France recovered
       Rocroy, Le Câtelet and Linchamp, occupied by the Prince's
       soldiers; and so secured the safety and defences of Champagne
       and Paris.

       2. More to the East, the Duke of Lorraine, having submitted
       with such good grace as might be, was reinstated in his Duchy.
       ... But France received her price here also, the Duchy of Bar,
       the County of Clermont on the edge of Champagne, Stenay, Dun,
       Jametz, Moyenvic, became hers. The fortifications of Nancy
       were to be rased for ever; the Duke of Lorraine bound himself
       to peace, and agreed to give France free passage to the
       Bishopricks and Alsace. This was the more necessary, because
       Franche-Comté, the other highway into Alsace, was left to the
       Spaniards, and such places in it as were in the King's hands
       were restored to them. Far out in Germany Louis XIV. replaced
       Jülich in the hands of the Duke of Neuberg; and that element
       of controversy, the germ or pretext of these long wars, was
       extinct for ever. On the Savoyard border France retained
       Pinerolo, with all the means and temptations of offence which
       it involved: she restored to the Duke her other conquests
       within his territories, and to the Spaniards whatever she held
       in Lombardy; she also honourably obtained an amnesty for those
       subjects of Spain, Neapolitans or Catalans, who had sided with
       France. Lastly, the Pyrenees became the final, as it was the
       natural, boundary between the two Latin kingdoms. ...
       Roussillon and Conflans became French: all French conquests to
       the south of the Pyrenees were restored to Spain. The Spanish
       King renounced all claims on Alsace or Breisach: on the other
       hand the submission of the great Condé was accepted; he was
       restored to all his domains; his son, the young Duke of
       Enghien, being made Grand Master of France, and he himself
       appointed Governor of Burgundy and Bresse: his friends and
       followers were included in the amnesty. Some lesser
       stipulations, with a view to the peace of Europe, for the
       settlement of the differences between Spain and Portugal,
       between the Dukes of Savoy and Mantua, between the Catholic
       and the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland, and an agreement to
       help forward peace between the Northern Courts, worthily close
       this great document, this weighty appendix to the Treaties of
       Westphalia. A separate act, as was fitting, regulated all
       questions bearing on the great marriage. It contains a solemn
       renunciation, intended to bar for ever the union of the two
       Crowns under one sceptre, or the absorption into France of
       Flanders, Burgundy, or Charolais. It was a renunciation which,
       as Mazarin foresaw long before, would never hold firm against
       the temptations and exigencies of time. The King's marriage
       with the Infanta Maria Theresa of Spain did not take place
       till the next year, by which time Mazarin's work in life
       seemed well nigh over; racked with gout, he had little
       enjoyment of his triumphs. ... He betook himself to the
       arrangement of his own affairs: his physicians giving him,
       early in 1661, no hopes of recovery. ... These things
       arranged, the Cardinal resigned himself to die 'with a
       serenity more philosophic than Christian'; and passed away on
       the 8th of March, 1661."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3).

       "The Treaty of the Pyrenees, which completed the great work of
       pacification that had commenced at Munster, is justly
       celebrated as having put an end to such bitter and useless
       animosities. But, it is more famous, as having introduced a
       new æra in European politics. In its provisions all the
       leading events of a century to come had their origin--the wars
       which terminated with the Treaties of Aix-la-Chapelle,
       Nimeguen, and Ryswick, and that concerning the Spanish
       succession. So great an epoch in history has the Pyrenean
       Treaty been accounted by politicians, that Lord Bolingbroke
       was of opinion, 'That the only part of history necessary to be
       thoroughly studied, goes no farther back than this treaty,
       since, from that period, a new set of motives and principles
       have prevailed all over Europe.'"

          J. Dunlop,
          Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of
          Philip IV. and Charles II., volume 1.
          chapter 11.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1660-1688.
       A footing gained in Newfoundland.

          See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1661.
       Personal assumption of the government by Louis XIV.
       The extraordinary characteristics of the reign of the Grand
       Monarch, now begun.

       On the death of Mazarin Louis XIV., then twenty-three years
       old, announced to his council his intention of taking the
       government solely upon himself. His ministers were
       henceforward to receive instructions from him in person; there
       was to be no premier at their head. The reign which then began
       "was the culminating epoch in the history of the French
       Monarchy. What the age of Pericles was in the history of the
       Athenian Democracy, what the age of the Scipios was in the
       history of the Roman Republic, that was the reign of Louis
       XIV. in the history of the old Monarchy of France. ... It is
       not only the most conspicuous reign in the history of
       France--it is the most conspicuous reign in the history of
       Monarchy in general. Of the very many kings whom history
       mentions, who have striven to exalt the monarchical principle,
       none of them achieved a success remotely comparable to his. ...
       They may have ruled over wider dominions, but they never
       attained the exceptional position of power and prestige which
       he enjoyed for more than half a century. They never were
       obeyed so submissively at home, nor so dreaded, and even
       respected, abroad. For Louis XIV. carried off that last reward
       of complete success, that he for a time silenced even envy,
       and turned it into admiration. We who can examine with cold
       scrutiny the make and composition of this Colossus of a French
       Monarchy; who can perceive how much the brass and clay in it
       exceeded the gold; who know how it afterwards fell with a
       resounding ruin, the last echoes of which have scarcely died
       away, have difficulty in realising the fascination it
       exercised upon contemporaries who witnessed its first setting
       up. Louis XIV.'s reign was the very triumph of commonplace
       greatness, of external magnificence and success, such as the
       vulgar among mankind can best and most sincerely appreciate.
       ... His qualities were on the surface, visible and
       comprehensible to all. ...
    {1233}
       He was indefatigably industrious: worked on an average eight
       hours a day for fifty-four years; had, great tenacity of will;
       that kind of solid judgment which comes of slowness of brain,
       and withal a most majestic port and great dignity of manners.
       He had also as much kindliness of nature as the very great can
       be expected to have. ... He must have had great original
       fineness of tact, though it was in the end nearly extinguished
       by adulation and incense. His court was an extraordinary
       creation, and the greatest thing he achieved. He made it the
       microcosm of all that was most brilliant and prominent in
       France. Every order of merit was invited there, and received
       courteous welcome. To no circumstance did he so much owe his
       enduring popularity. By its means he impressed into his
       service that galaxy of great writers, the first and the last
       classic authors of France, whose calm and serene lustre will
       for ever illumine the epoch of his existence. It may even be
       admitted that his share in that lustre was not so accidental
       and undeserved as certain king-haters have supposed. That
       subtle critic, M. Ste. Beuve, thinks he can trace a marked
       rise even in Bossuet's style from the moment he became a
       courtier of Louis XIV. The king brought men together, placed
       them in a position where they were induced and urged to bring
       their talents to a focus. His Court was alternately a
       high-bred gala and a stately university. ... But Louis XIV.'s
       reign has better titles than the adulations of courtiers and
       the eulogies of wits and poets to the attention of posterity.
       It marks one of the most memorable epochs in the annals of
       mankind. It stretches across history like a great
       mountain-range, separating ancient France from the France of
       modern times. On the farther slope are Catholicism and
       feudalism in their various stages of splendour and decay--the
       France of crusade and chivalry, of St. Louis and Bayard. On
       the hither side are free-thought, industry, and
       centralization--the France of Voltaire, Turgot and Condorcet.
       When Louis came to the throne, the Thirty Years' War still
       wanted six years of its end, and the heat of theological
       strife was at its intensest glow. When he died, the religious
       temperature had cooled nearly to freezing-point, and a new
       vegetation of science and positive inquiry was overspreading
       the world. This amounts to saying that his reign covers the
       greatest epoch of mental transition through which the human
       mind has hitherto passed, excepting the transition we are
       witnessing in the day which now is. We need but recall the
       names of the writers and thinkers who arose during Louis
       XIV.'s reign, and shed their seminal ideas broadcast upon the
       air, to realise how full a period it was, both of birth and
       decay; of the passing away of the old and the uprising of the
       new forms of thought. To mention only the greatest;--the
       following are among the chiefs who helped to transform the
       mental fabric of Europe in the age of Louis XIV.:--Descartes,
       Newton, Leibnitz, Locke, Boyle. ... But the chief interest
       which the reign of Louis XIV. offers to the student of history
       has yet to be mentioned. It was the great turning-point in the
       history of the French people. The triumph, of the Monarchical
       principle was so complete under him, independence and
       self-reliance were so effectually crushed, both in localities
       and individuals, that a permanent bent was given to the
       national mind--a habit of looking to the Government for all
       action and initiative permanently established. Before the
       reign of Louis XIV. it was a question which might fairly be
       considered undecided, whether the country would be able or
       not, willing or not, to co-operate with its rulers in the work
       of the Government and the reform of abuses. On more than one
       occasion such co-operation did not seem entirely impossible or
       improbable. ... After the reign of Louis' XIV. such
       co-operation of the ruler and the ruled became impossible. The
       Government of France had become a machine depending upon the
       action of a single spring. Spontaneity in the population at
       large was extinct, and whatever there was to do must be done
       by the central authority. As long as the Government could
       correct abuses it was well; if it ceased to be equal to this
       task they must go uncorrected. When at last the reform of
       secular and gigantic abuses presented itself with imperious
       urgency, the alternative before the Monarchy was either to
       carry the reform with a high hand, or perish in the failure to
       do so. We know how signal the failure was, and could not help
       being, under the circumstances; and through having placed the
       Monarchy between these alternatives, it is no paradox to say
       that Louis XIV. was one of the most direct ancestors of the
       Great Revolution."

          J. C. Morison,
          The Reign of Louis XIV.
          (Fortnightly Review, March, 1874).

          ALSO IN:
          J. I. von Döllinger,
          The Policy of Louis XIV.
          (Studies in European History, chapter 11).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.
       Revived and growing persecution of the Huguenots.

       "One of the King's first acts, on assuming the supreme control
       of affairs at the death of Mazarin, was significant, of his
       future policy with regard to the Huguenots. Among the
       representatives of the various public bodies who came to
       tender him their congratulations, there appeared a deputation
       of Protestant ministers, headed by their president Vignole;
       but the King refused to receive them, and directed that they
       should be ordered to leave Paris forthwith. Louis was not slow
       to follow up this intimation by measures of a more positive
       kind, for he had been carefully taught to hate Protestantism;
       and, now that he possessed unrestrained power, he flattered
       himself with the idea of compelling the Huguenots to abandon
       their convictions and adopt his own. His minister Louvois
       wrote to the governors throughout the provinces that 'his
       majesty will not suffer any person in his kingdom but those
       who are of his religion.' ... A series of edicts was
       accordingly published with the object of carrying the King's
       purposes into effect. The conferences of the Protestants were
       declared to be suppressed. Though worship was still permitted
       in their churches, the singing of psalms in private dwellings
       was declared to be forbidden. ... Protestant children were
       invited to declare themselves against the religion of their
       parents. Boys of fourteen and girls of twelve years old might,
       on embracing Roman Catholicism, become enfranchised and
       entirely free from parental control. ... The Huguenots were
       again debarred from holding public offices, though a few, such
       as Marshal Turenne and Admiral Duquesne, who were Protestants,
       broke through this barrier by the splendor of their services
       to the state. In some provinces, the exclusion was so severe
       that a profession of the Roman Catholic faith was required
       from simple artisans. ...
    {1234}
       Colbert, while, he lived, endeavored to restrain the King, and
       to abate these intolerable persecutions. ... He took the
       opportunity of cautioning the King lest the measures he was
       enforcing might tend, if carried out, to the impoverishment of
       France and the aggrandizement of her rivals. ... But all
       Colbert's expostulations were in vain; the Jesuits were
       stronger than he was, and the King was in their hands;
       besides, Colbert's power was on the decline. ... In 1666 the
       queen-mother died, leaving to her son, as her last bequest,
       that he should suppress and exterminate heresy within his
       dominions. ... The Bishop of Meaux exhorted him to press on in
       the path his sainted mother had pointed out to him. ... The
       Huguenots had already taken alarm at the renewal of the
       persecution, and such of them as could readily dispose of
       their property and goods were beginning to leave the kingdom
       in considerable numbers for the purpose of establishing
       themselves in foreign countries. To prevent this, the King
       issued an edict forbidding French subjects from proceeding
       abroad without express permission, under penalty of
       confiscation of their goods and property. This was followed by
       a succession of severe measures for the conversion or
       extirpation of such of the Protestants--in numbers about a
       million and a half--as had not by this time contrived to make
       their escape from the kingdom. The kidnapping of Protestant
       children was actively set on foot by the agents of the Roman
       Catholic priests, and their parents were subjected to heavy
       penalties if they ventured to complain. Orders were issued to
       pull down the Protestant places of worship, and as many as
       eighty were shortly destroyed in one diocese. ... Protestants
       were forbidden to print books without the authority of
       magistrates of the Romish communion. Protestant teachers were
       interdicted from teaching children any thing more than
       reading, writing, and arithmetic. ... Protestants were only
       allowed to bury their dead at daybreak or at nightfall. They
       were prohibited from singing psalms on land or on water, in
       workshops or in dwellings. If a priestly procession passed one
       of their churches while the psalms were being sung, they must
       stop instantly on pain of the fine or imprisonment of the
       officiating minister. In short, from the pettiest annoyance to
       the most exasperating cruelty, nothing was wanting on the part
       of the 'Most Christian King' and his abettors."

          S. Smiles,
          The Huguenots,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Maury,
          Memoirs of a Huguenot Family (Fontaine),
          chapters 4-7.

          W. S. Browning,
          History of the Huguenots,
          chapters 59-60.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.
       The administration of Colbert.
       His economic system and its results.

       "With Colbert the spirit of the great Cardinal came back to
       power. Born at Reims on the 29th of August, 1619, Colbert was
       educated by the Jesuits, and at the early age of nineteen
       entered the War Office, in which department Le Tellier, a
       connection of his family by marriage, filled the post of
       Under-Secretary of State. From the first Colbert distinguished
       himself by his abnormal powers of work, by his extraordinary
       zeal in the public service, and by an equal devotion to his
       own interests. His Jesuit training showed fruit in his
       dealings with all those who, like Le Tellier or Mazarin, could
       be of use to him on his road to power, whilst the old
       tradition of his Scotch blood is favoured by a certain
       'dourness' of character which rendered him in general
       difficult of access. His marvellous strength of brain,
       seconded by rare powers of endurance, enabled him to work
       habitually fourteen hours a day to enter into every detail of
       every branch of the administration, whilst at the same time he
       never lost sight of that noble project of universal reform
       which he had conceived, and which embraced both Church and
       State. ... Qualified in every way for the work of
       administration, absolutely indifferent to popularity, Colbert
       seemed destined by nature to lead the final charge against the
       surviving forces of the feudal system. After the troubles of
       the Fronde had died away and the death of Mazarin had left
       Louis XIV. a king in deed as well as in name, these forces of
       the past were personified by Fouquet, and the duel between
       Fouquet and Colbert was the dramatic close of a struggle
       predestined to end in the complete triumph of absolutism. The
       magnificent and brilliant Fouquet, who for years past had
       taken advantage of his position as 'Surintendant des Finances'
       to lavish the resources of the State on his private pleasures,
       was plainly marked out as the object of Colbert's hostility.
       ... On the losing side were ranged all the spendthrift princes
       and facile beauties of the Court, all the greedy recipients of
       Fouquet's ostentatious bounties. He had reckoned that the
       greatest names in France would be compromised by his fall, and
       that by their danger his own safety was assured. He had
       reckoned without Colbert; he had reckoned without that power
       which had been steadily growing throughout all vicissitudes of
       fate during the last two generations, and which was now
       centred in the King. No stranger turn of fortune can be
       pictured than that which, on the threshold of the modern era,
       linked the nobles of France in their last struggle for
       independence with the fortunes of a rapacious and fraudulent
       financier, nor can anything be more suggestive of the
       character of the coming epoch than the sight of this last
       battle fought, not in the field of arms, but before a court of
       law. To Colbert, the fall of Fouquet was but the necessary
       preliminary to that reform of every branch of the
       administration which had been ripening in his mind ever since
       he had entered the public service. To bring the financial
       situation into order, it was necessary first to call Fouquet
       to account. ... The fall of the chief offender, Fouquet,
       having been brought about, it was easy to force all those who
       had been guilty of similar malversations on a minor scale to
       run the gauntlet of the High Commission. Restitution and
       confiscation became the order of the day, and when the Chamber
       of Justice was finally dissolved in 1669, far beyond any
       advantage which might be reckoned to the Treasury from these
       sources was the gain to the nation in the general sense of
       security and confidence. It was felt that the days of
       wholesale dishonesty and embezzlement were at an end. ...
       Colbert went forward from this moment without hesitation,
       devoting his whole energies to the gigantic task of re-shaping
       the whole internal economy of France. ... Backed by despotic
       power, his achievements in these directions have to an
       incredible extent determined the destinies of modern industry,
       and have given origin to the whole system of modern
       administration, not only in France, but throughout Europe.
    {1235}
       In the teeth of a lavish expenditure which he was utterly
       unable to check, once and again did Colbert succeed in
       establishing a financial equilibrium when the fortunes of
       France seemed desperate. ... He aimed ... at the fostering of
       home production by an elaborate system of protection, whilst
       at the same time the markets of other countries were to be
       forced open and flooded with French goods. Any attempt on the
       part of a weaker power to imitate his own policy, such for
       instance as that made in the papal states by Alexander VII.
       and Clement IX., was instantly repressed with a high hand. ...
       His leading idea was to lower all export dues on national
       produce and manufactures, and, whilst diminishing import
       duties on such raw materials as were required for French
       manufactures, to raise them until they became prohibitive on
       all foreign goods.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1664-1667 (FRANCE).

       The success of the tariff of 1664 misled Colbert. That tariff
       was a splendidly statesmanlike attempt to put an end to the
       conflict and confusion of the duties, dues, and customs then
       existing in the different provinces and ports of France, and
       it was in effect a tariff calculated for purely fiscal
       purposes. Far other were the considerations embodied in the
       tariff of 1667, which led to the Dutch and English wars, and
       which, having been enacted in the supposed interests of home
       industry, eventually stimulated production in other countries.
       ... If, however, the industrial policy of Colbert cannot be
       said to have realised his expectations, since it neither
       brought about a great increase in the number of home
       manufactures nor succeeded in securing a larger share of
       foreign trade, there is not a doubt that, in spite even of the
       disastrous wars which it provoked, it powerfully contributed,
       on the whole, to place France in the front rank as a
       commercial nation. ... The pitiless and despotic Louvois, who
       had succeeded his father, Colbert's old patron Le Tellier, as
       Secretary of State for War, played on the imperious vanity of
       King Louis, and engaged him in wars big and little, which in
       most cases wanted even the shade of a pretext. ... All the
       zeal of the great Minister's strict economy could only stay
       for a while the sure approach of national distress. ... When
       Colbert died, on 6th September, 1683, the misery of France,
       exhausted by oppressive taxation, and depopulated by armies
       kept constantly on foot, cried out against the Minister who,
       rather than fall from power, had lent himself to measures
       which he heartily condemned. For the moment men forgot how
       numerous were the benefits which he had conferred ... and
       remembered only the harshness with which he had dealt justice
       and stinted mercy. Yet order reigned where, before his advent,
       all had been corruption and confusion; the navy of France had
       been created, her colonies fostered, her forests saved from
       destruction; justice and the authority of the law had been
       carried into the darkest corners of the land; religious
       toleration, socially if not politically, had been advocated;
       whilst the encroachments of the Church had been more or less
       steadfastly opposed. To the material prosperity of the
       nation--even after we have made all possible deductions for
       the evils arising from an exaggerated system of protection--an
       immense and enduring impulse had been given; and although it
       is true that, with the death of Colbert, many parts of his
       splendid scheme fell to the ground, yet it must be confessed
       that the spirit in which it was originated and improved still
       animates France."

          Lady Dilke,
          France under Colbert
          (Fortnightly Rev., February, 1886).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 1, chapters 1-7.

          See, also, TAILLE AND GABELLE.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1662.
       The purchase of Dunkirk from Charles II.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1663-1674.
       New France made a Royal Province.
       The French West India Company.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1663-1674.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1664.
       Aid given to Austria against the Turks.
       The victory of St. Gothard.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1664-1666.
       War with the piratical Barbary States.
       The Jijeli expedition.
       Treaties with Tunis and Algiers.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1664-1690.
       The building of Versailles.

          See VERSAILLES.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1665.
       The Great Days of Auvergne.

       "We must read the curious account of the Great Days of
       Auvergne, written by Fléchier in his youth, if we would form
       an idea of the barbarism in which certain provinces of France
       were still plunged, in the midst of the brilliant civilization
       of the 17th century, and would know how a large number of
       those seigniors, who showed themselves so gallant and tender
       in the boudoirs of Paris, lived on their estates, in the midst
       of their subjects: we might imagine ourselves in the midst of
       feudalism. A moment bewildered by the hammer of the great
       demolisher [Richelieu], which had battered down so many
       Chateaux, the mountain squires of Auvergne, Limousin, Marche
       and Forez had resumed their habits under the feeble government
       of Mazarin. Protected by their remoteness from Paris and the
       parliament, and by the nature of the country they inhabited,
       they intimidated or gained over the subaltern judges, and
       committed with impunity every species of violence and
       exaction. A single feature will enable us to comprehend the
       state of these provinces. There were still, in the remoter
       parts of Auvergne, seigniors who claimed to use the wedding
       right (droit de jambage), or, at the least, to sell exemption
       from this right at a high price to bridegrooms. Serfhood of
       the glebe still existed in some districts. August 31, 1665, a
       royal declaration, for which ample and noble reasons were
       given, ordered the holding of a jurisdiction or court
       'commonly called the Great Days,' in the city of Clermont, for
       Auvergne, Bourbonnais, Nivernais, Forez, Beaujolais, Lyonnais,
       Combrailles, Marche, and Berry. A president of parliament, a
       master of requests, sixteen councillors, an attorney-general,
       and a deputy procurator-general, were designated to hold these
       extraordinary assizes. Their powers were almost absolute. They
       were to judge without appeal all civil and criminal cases, to
       punish the 'abuses and delinquencies of officers of the said
       districts,' to reform bad usages, as well in the style of
       procedure as in the preparation and expedition of trials, and
       to try all criminal cases first. It was enjoined on bailiffs,
       seneschals, their lieutenants and all other judges, to give
       constant information of all kinds of crimes, in order to
       prepare matter for the Great Days. A second declaration
       ordered that a posse should be put into the houses of the
       contumacious, that the chateaux where the least resistance was
       made to the law should be razed; and forbade, under penalty of
       death, the contumacious to be received or assisted.
    {1236}
       The publication of the royal edicts, and the prompt arrival of
       Messieurs of the Great Days at Clermont, produced an
       extraordinary commotion in all those regions. The people
       welcomed the Parisian magistrates as liberators, and a
       remarkable monument of their joy has been preserved, the
       popular song or Christmas hymn of the Great Days. Terror, on
       the contrary, hovered over the châteaux; a multitude of
       noblemen left the province, and France, or concealed
       themselves in the mountains; others endeavored to conciliate
       their peasants. ... The Great Days at least did with vigor
       what it was their mission to do: neither dignities, nor
       titles, nor high connections preserved the guilty. ... The
       Court of Great Days was not content with punishing evil; it
       undertook to prevent its return by wise regulations: first,
       against the abuses of seigniorial courts; second, against the
       vexations of seigniors on account of feudal service due them;
       third, concerning the mode and abbreviation of trials; and
       lastly, concerning the reformation of the clergy, who had no
       less need of being reformed than the nobility. The Great Days
       were brought to a close after three months of assizes (end of
       October, 1665--end of January, 1666), and their recollection
       was consecrated by a medal."

          H. Martin,
          History of France: The Age of Louis XIV:,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

    FRANCE: A. D.1665-1670.
       The East India Company.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1666.
       Alliance with Holland against England.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1667.
       The War of the Queen's Rights.
       Conquests in the Spanish Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1668.
       The king's conquests in Flanders checked by the Triple
       Alliance.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1670.
       The secret treaty of Dover.
       The buying of the English king.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1672-1678.
       War with Holland and the Austro-Spanish Coalition.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714;
          and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674,
          and 1674-1678.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1673-1682.
       Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi
       by Marquette and La Salle.
       Possession taken of Louisiana.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673, and 1669-1687.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1678-1679.
       The Peace of Nimeguen.

          See NIMEGUEN. PEACE OF.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
       Complete absorption of Les Trois-Evêchés and Alsace.
       Assumption of entire sovereignty by Louis XIV.
       Encroachments of the Chambers of Reannexation.
       The seizure of Strasburg.

       "The Lorraine Trois-Evêchés, recovered by France from the Holy
       Roman Empire, had remained in an equivocal position, as to
       public law, during nearly a century, between their old and new
       ties: the treaty of Westphalia had cut the knot by the formal
       renunciation of the Empire to all rights over these countries;
       difficulties nevertheless still subsisted relative to the
       fiefs and the pendencies of Trois-Evêchés possessed by members
       of the Empire. Alsace, in its turn, from the treaty of
       Westphalia to the peace of Nimeguen, had offered analogous and
       still greater difficulties, this province of Teutonic tongue
       not having accepted the annexation to France as easily as the
       Walloon province of Trois-Evêchés, and the treaty of
       Westphalia presenting two contradictory clauses, one of which
       ceded to France all the rights of the Emperor and the Empire,
       and the other of which reserved the 'immediateness' of the
       lords and the ten cities of the prefecture of Alsace towards
       the Empire. ...

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

       At last, on the complaints carried to the Germanic Diet by the
       ten Alsacian cities, joined by the German feudatories of
       Trois-Evêchés, Louis, who was then very conciliatory towards
       the Diet, consented to take for arbiters the King of Sweden
       and some princes and towns of Germany (1665). The arbitration
       was protracted for more than six years. In the beginning of
       1672, the arbiters rendered an ambiguous decision which
       decided nothing and satisfied no one. War with Holland broke
       out meanwhile and changed all the relations of France with
       Germany. ... Louis XIV. disarmed or took military occupation
       of the ten cities and silenced all opposition. ... In the
       conferences of Nimeguen, the representatives of the Emperor
       and the Empire endeavored to return to the 'immediateness,'
       but the King would not listen to a renewal of the arbitration,
       and declared all debate superfluous. 'Not only,' said the
       French plenipotentiaries, 'ought the King to exercise, as in
       fact he does exercise, sovereign domain over the ten cities,
       but he might also extend it over Strasburg, for the treaty of
       Münster furnishes to this city no special title guaranteeing
       its independence better than that of the other cities.' It was
       the first time that Louis had disclosed this bold claim,
       resting on an inaccurate assertion. The Imperialists,
       terrified, yielded as regarded the ten cities, and Alsace was
       not called in question in the treaty of Nimeguen. Only the
       Imperialists protested, by a separate act, against the
       conclusions which might be drawn from this omission. The ten
       cities submitted and took to the King an oath of fidelity,
       without reservation towards the Empire; their submission was
       celebrated by a medal bearing the device: 'Alsatia in
       provinciam reducta' (1680). The treaty of Nimeguen was
       followed by divers measures destined to win the Alsacian
       population. ... This wise policy bore its fruits, and Alsace,
       tranquillized, gave no more cause of anxiety to the French
       government. France was thenceforth complete mistress of the
       possessions which had been ceded to her by the Empire; this
       was only the first part of the work; the point in question now
       was, to complete these possessions by joining to them their
       natural appendages which the Empire had not alienated. The
       boundaries of Lower Alsace and the Messin district were ill
       defined, encroached upon, entangled, on the Rhine, on the
       Sarre, and in the Vosges, by the fiefs of a host of petty
       princes and German nobles. This could not be called a
       frontier. Besides, in the very heart of Alsace, the great city
       of Strasburg preserved its independence towards France and its
       connection with the Empire. A pacific method was invented to
       proceed to aggrandizements which it would seem could only be
       demanded by arms; a pacific method, provided that France could
       count on the weakness and irresolution of her neighbors; this
       was to investigate and revendicate everything which, by any
       title and at any epoch whatsoever, had been dependent on
       Alsace and Trois-Evêchés.
    {1237}
       We may comprehend whither this would lead, thanks to the
       complications of the feudal epoch; and it was not even
       designed to stop at the feudal system, but to go back to the
       times of the Frankish kings! Chambers of 'reannexation' were
       therefore instituted, in 1679, in the Parliament of Metz, and
       in the sovereign council of Alsace, with a mission which their
       title sufficiently indicated. ... Among the nobles summoned,
       figured the Elector of Treves, for Oberstein, Falkenburg,
       etc.; the Landgrave of Hesse, for divers fiefs; the Elector
       Palatine, for Seltz and the canton situated between the Lauter
       and the Keich (Hogenbach, Germersheim, etc.); another prince
       palatine for the county of Veldentz: the Bishop of Speyer, for
       a part of his bishopric; the city of Strasburg, for the
       domains which it possessed beyond the Rhine (Wasselonne and
       Marlenheim); lastly, the King of Sweden, for the duchy of
       Deux-Ponts or Zweibrücken, a territory of considerable extent
       and of irregular form, which intersected the cis-Rhenish
       Palatinate. ... By divers decrees rendered in March, August,
       and October, 1680, the sovereign council of Alsace adjudged to
       the King the sovereignty of all the Alsacian seigniories. The
       nobles and inhabitants were summoned to swear fidelity to the
       King, and the nobles were required to recognize the sovereign
       council as judge in last resort. The chamber of Metz acted on
       a still larger scale than the chamber of Breisach. April 12,
       1680, it united to Trois-Evêchés more than 80 fiefs, the
       Lorraine marquisate of Pont-à-Mousson, the principality of
       Salm, the counties of Saarbourg and Veldentz, the seigniories
       of Sarrebourg, Bitche, Homburg, etc. The foundation of the new
       town of Sarre-Louis and the fortification of Bitche
       consolidated this new frontier; and not only was the course of
       the Sarre secured to France, but France, crossing the Sarre,
       encroached deeply on the Palatinate and the Electorate of
       Treves, posted herself on the Nahe and the Blies, and threw,
       as an advance-guard, on a peninsula of the Moselle, the
       fortress of Mont-Royal, half-way from Treves to Coblentz, on
       the territories of the county of Veldentz. The parliament of
       Franche-Comté, newly French as it was, zealously followed the
       example of the two neighboring courts. There was also a
       frontier to round towards the Jura. ... The Duke of Würtemberg
       was required to swear allegiance to the King for his county of
       Montbéliard. ... The acquisitions made were trifling compared
       with those which remained to be made. He [Louis XIV.] was not
       sure of the Rhine, not sure of Alsace, so long as he had not
       Strasburg, the great city always ready to throw upon the
       French bank of the river the armies of the Empire. France had
       long aimed at this conquest. As soon as she possessed Metz she
       had dreamed of Strasburg. ... Though the King and Louvois had
       prevented Créqui from besieging the place during the war, it
       was because they counted on surprising it after peace. This
       great enterprise was most ably manœuvred." The members of the
       regency of the city were gained over, one by one. "The
       Imperial troops had evacuated the city pursuant to the treaty
       of Nimeguen; the magistrates dismissed 1,200 Swiss which the
       city had in its pay; then, on the threatening demands of the
       French, they demolished anew Fort Kehl, which they had rebuilt
       since its destruction by Créqui. When the fruit seemed ripe,
       Louis stretched out his hand to gather it. In the latter part
       of September, 1681, the garrisons of Lorraine, Franche-Comté,
       and Alsace put themselves in motion. ... The 28th, 35,000 men
       were found assembled before the city; Baron de Montclar, who
       commanded this army, informed the magistrates that 'the
       sovereign chamber of Breisach having adjudged to the king the
       sovereignty of all Alsace, of which Strasburg was a member,
       his Majesty desired that they should recognize him as their
       sovereign lord, and receive a garrison." On the 30th the
       capitulation of the city was signed; on the 23d of October the
       King entered Strasburg in person and was received as its
       sovereign.

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1680.
       Imprisonment of the "Man in the Iron Mask."

          See IRON MASK.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1684.
       Threatening relations with the Turks.
       War with the Barbary States.
       Destructive bombardment of Algiers.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
       Climax of the persecution of the Huguenots.
       The Dragonnades.
       The revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
       The great exodus of French Protestants and the consequent
       national loss.

       "Love and war suspended for a considerable time" the ambition
       of the king to extinguish heresy in his dominions and
       establish uniformity of religious worship; "but when Louis
       became satiated at once with glory and pleasure, and when
       Madame de Maintenon, the Duke de Beauvilliers, the Duke de
       Montausier, Bossuet, the Archbishop of Rheims, the Chancellor
       Letellier, and all the religious portion of the court, began
       to direct his now unoccupied and scrupulous mind to the
       interests of religion, Louis XIV. returned to his plans with
       renewed ardor. From bribery they proceeded to compulsion.
       Missionaries, escorted by dragoons, spread themselves at the
       instigation of Bossuet, and even of Fénelon, over the western,
       southern and eastern provinces, and particularly in those
       districts throughout which Protestantism, more firmly rooted
       among a more tenacious people, had as yet resisted all
       attempts at conversion by preaching. ... Children from above
       seven years of age were authorized to abjure legally the
       religion of their fathers. The houses of those parents who
       refused to deliver up their sons and daughters were invaded
       and laid under contributions by the royal troops. The
       expropriation of their homes, and the tearing asunder of
       families, compelled the people to fly from persecution. The
       king, uneasy at this growing depopulation, pronounced the
       punishment of the galleys against those who sought liberty in
       flight; he also ordered the confiscation of all the lands and
       houses which were sold by those proprietors who were preparing
       to quit the kingdom. ... Very soon the proscription was
       organized en masse: all the cavalry in the kingdom, who, on
       account of the peace, were unemployed, were placed at the
       disposal of the preachers and bishops, to uphold their
       missions [known as the dragonnades] with the sabre. ...
       Bossuet approved of these persecutions. Religious and
       political faith, in his eyes, justified their necessity. His
       correspondence is full of evidence, while his actions prove
       that he was an accomplice: even his eloquence ... overflowed
       with approbation of, and enthusiasm for, these oppressions of
       the soul and terrors of heresy."

          A. de Lamartine,
          Memoirs of Celebrated Characters,
          volume 3: Bossuet.

    {1238}

       "The heroism of conviction, it has been truly said, was now
       displayed, not in resistance, but, if the paradox may be
       admitted, in flight. The outflow was for the moment arrested
       at the remonstrance of Colbert, now for the last time listened
       to in the royal councils, and by reason of the sympathy
       aroused by the fugitives in England: but not before 3,000
       families had left the country. The retirement and death of the
       great minister were the signal for revived action, wherever an
       assembly of Huguenots larger than usual might warrant or
       colour a suspicion of rebellion. In such excuses, not as yet
       an avowed crusade, the troopers of the duke de Noailles were
       called in at Grenoble, Bourdeaux, and Nimes. Full forty
       churches were demolished in 1683, more than a hundred in 1684.
       But the system of military missions was not organized until in
       1685 the defence of the Spanish frontier offered the
       opportunity for a final subjugation of the Huguenots of Bearn.
       The dragonnade passed through the land like a pestilence. From
       Guienne to Dauphine, from Poitou to Upper Languedoc, no place
       was spared. Then it pervaded the southeast country, about the
       Cevennes and Provence, and ravaged Lyons and the Pays de Gex.
       In the end, the whole of the north was assailed, and the
       failing edict of Nantes was annulled on the 1st of October.
       The sombre mind of Madame de Maintenon had postulated the
       Recall as a preliminary to the marriage which the king had
       already conceded. On the 21st of the month the great church at
       Charenton was doomed; and on the 22nd the 'unadvised and
       precipitate' Edict of Revocation was registered in the Chambre
       des Vacations. ... The year 1685 is fitly identified with the
       depopulation of France. And yet, with a blindness that appears
       to us incredible, the government refused to believe in the
       desire or the possibility of escape. The penalties attached to
       capture on the road,--the galleys or the nunnery,--the
       vigilant watch at the frontier, the frigates cruising by every
       coast, all these difficulties seem to have persuaded Louvois
       that few would persist in risking flight. What these measures
       actually effected was doubtless to diminish the exodus, but in
       no marked degree. At length, it came to be thought that the
       emigration was due to its prohibition, as though the Huguenots
       must do a thing from mere perverseness. The watch was relaxed,
       and a result unlooked for issued. It was the signal of the
       greatest of the emigrations, that of 1688. ... In the
       statistical question [as to the total number of the Huguenot
       exiles from France after the revocation of the edict of
       Nantes] it is impossible to arrive at a certain result; and
       the range which calculation or conjecture has allowed to
       successive historians may make one pause before attempting a
       dogmatic solution. Basnage, a year after the Recall, reckoned
       the emigrants above 150,000: next year Jurieu raised the total
       above 200,000. Writing later Basnage found between 300,000 and
       400,000; and the estimate has been accepted by Sismondi.
       Lastly Voltaire, followed in our own day by Hase, counted
       500,000. These are a few of the sober calculations, and their
       mean will perhaps supply the ultimate figure. I need only
       mention, among impossible guesses, that of Limiers, which
       raises the account to 800,000, because it has been taken up by
       the Prussian statesman Von Dohm. ... The only historian who
       professes to have pursued the enquiry in exact detail is
       Capefigue; and from his minute scrutiny of the cartons des
       généralités, as prepared in the closing years of the 17th
       century, he obtains a computation of 225,000 or 230,000. Such
       a result must be accepted as the absolute minimum; for it was
       the plain interest of the intendants who drew up the returns,
       to put all the facts which revealed the folly of the king's
       action at the lowest cipher. And allowing the accuracy of
       Capefigue's work, there are other reasons for increasing his
       total. ... We cannot set the emigration at a lower fraction
       than one-fifth of the total Huguenot society. If the body
       numbered two millions, the outflow will be 400,000. If this
       appear an extreme estimate, it must be remembered that
       one-fifth is also extreme on the other side. Reducing the
       former aggregate to 1,500,000, it will be clearly within the
       bounds of moderation to leave the total exodus a range between
       300,000 and 350,000. How are we to distribute this immense
       aggregation? Holland certainly claims near 100,000; England,
       with Ireland and America, probably 80,000. Switzerland must
       have received 25,000; and Germany, including Brandenburg,
       thrice that number. The remainder will be made up from the
       north of Europe, and from the exiles whom commerce or other
       causes carried in isolated households elsewhere, and of whom
       no record is preserved to us. ... The tale then of the
       emigrants was above 300,000. It follows to ask what was the
       material loss involved in their exodus. Caveirac is again the
       lowest in his estimate: he will not grant the export of more
       than 250,000 livres. He might have learnt from Count d'Avaux
       himself, that those least likely to magnify the sum confessed
       that by the very year of the Recall twenty million livres had
       gone out of the country; and it is certain that the wealthier
       merchants deferred their departure in order to carry as much
       as they could with them. Two hundred and fifty traders are
       said to have quitted Rouen in 1687 and 1688. Probably the
       actual amount was very far in excess of these twenty millions:
       and a calculation is cited by Macpherson which even affirms
       that every individual refugee in England brought with him on
       an average money or effects to the value of £60. ... It will
       be needless to add many statistics of the injury caused by
       their withdrawal from France. Two great instances are typical
       of the rest. Lyons which had employed 18,000 silk-looms had
       but 4,000 remaining by the end of the century. Tours with the
       same interest had had 800 mills, 80,000 looms, and perhaps
       4,000 work-people. Of its 3,000 ribbon-factories only sixty
       remained: Equally significant was the ruin of the woollen
       trade of Poitou. Little was left of the drugget-manufacture of
       Coulonges and Châtaigneraie, or of the industry in serges and
       bombazines at Thouars; and the export traffic between
       Châtaigneraie and Canada, by way of La Rochelle, was in the
       last year of the century absolutely extinct."

          R. L. Poole,
          History of the Huguenots of the Dispersion,
          chapters 3 and 15.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Weiss,
          History of the French Protestant Refugees.

          N. Peyrat,
          The Pastors in the Wilderness,
          volume 1, chapters 5-7.

          A. Maury,
          Memoirs of a Huguenot Family
          (Fontaine), chapters 4-9.

          J. I. von Döllinger,
          Studies in European History,
          chapters 11-12.

          C. W. Baird,
          History of the Huguenot Emigration to America,
          chapters 4-8 (volumes 1-2).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1686.
       Claims upon the Palatinate.
       Formation of the League of Augsburg.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

    {1239}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
       War of the League of Augsburg.
       The second devastation of the Palatinate.

       "The interference of Lewis in Ireland on behalf of James [the
       Second, the dethroned Stuart king] caused William [prince of
       Orange, now King of England] to mature his plans for a great
       Continental confederacy against France. On May 12, 1689,
       William, as Stadtholder of the United Provinces, had entered
       into an offensive and defensive alliance with the Emperor
       against Lewis. On May 17, as King of England, he declared war
       against France; and on December 30 joined the alliance between
       the Emperor and the Dutch. His example was followed on June 6,
       1690, by the King of Spain, and on October 20 of the same year
       by Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy. This confederation was
       called the 'Grand Alliance.' Its main object was declared to
       be to curb the power and ambition of Lewis XIV.; to force him
       to surrender his conquests, and to confine his territories to
       the limits agreed upon between him and the Emperor at the
       treaty of Westphalia (1648), and between France and Spain at
       the treaty of the Pyrenees (1659). The League of Augsburg,
       which William had with so much trouble brought about, had now
       successfully developed into the Grand Alliance."

          E. Hale,
          The Fall of the Stuarts and Western Europe,
          chapter 14, section 5.

       "The work at which William had toiled indefatigably during
       many gloomy and anxious years was at length accomplished. The
       great coalition was formed. It was plain that a desperate
       conflict was at hand. The oppressor of Europe would have to
       defend himself against England allied with Charles the Second
       King of Spain, with the Emperor Leopold, and with the Germanic
       and Batavian federations, and was likely to have no ally
       except the Sultan, who was waging war against the House of
       Austria on the Danube. Lewis had, towards the close of the
       preceding year, taken his enemies at a disadvantage, and had
       struck the first blow before they were prepared to parry it.
       But that blow, though heavy, was not aimed at the part where
       it might have been mortal. Had hostilities been commenced on
       the Batavian frontier, William and his army would probably
       have been detained on the continent, and James might have
       continued to govern England. Happily, Lewis, under an
       infatuation which many pious Protestants confidently ascribed
       to the righteous judgment of God, had neglected the point on
       which the fate of the whole civilised world depended, and had
       made a great display of power, promptitude, and energy, in a
       quarter where the most splendid achievements could produce
       nothing more than an illumination and a Te Deum. A French army
       under the command of Marshal Duras had invaded the Palatinate
       and some of the neighbouring principalities. But this
       expedition, though it had been completely successful, and
       though the skill and vigour with which it had been conducted
       had excited general admiration, could not perceptibly affect
       the event of the tremendous struggle which was approaching.
       France would soon be attacked on every side. It would be
       impossible for Duras long to retain possession of the
       provinces which he had surprised and overrun. An atrocious
       thought rose in the mind of Louvois, who, in military affairs,
       had the chief sway at Versailles. ... The ironhearted
       statesman submitted his plan, probably with much management
       and with some disguise, to Lewis; and Lewis, in an evil hour
       for his fame, assented. Duras received orders to turn one of
       the fairest regions of Europe into a wilderness. Fifteen years
       had elapsed since Turenne had ravaged part of that fine
       country. But the ravages committed by Turenne, though they
       have left a deep stain on his glory, were mere sport in
       comparison with the horrors of this second devastation. The
       French commander announced to near half a million of human
       beings that he granted them three days of grace, and that,
       within that time, they must shift for themselves. Soon the
       roads and fields, which then lay deep in snow, were blackened
       by innumerable multitudes of men, women, and children flying
       from their homes. Many died of cold and hunger: but enough
       survived to fill the streets of all the cities of Europe with
       lean and squalid beggars, who had once been thriving farmers
       and shopkeepers. Meanwhile the work of destruction began. The
       flames went up from every marketplace, every hamlet, every
       parish church, every country seat, within the devoted
       provinces. The fields where the corn had been sown were
       ploughed up. The orchards were hewn down. No promise of a
       harvest was left on the fertile plains near what had once been
       Frankenthal. Not a vine, not an almond tree, was to be seen on
       the slopes of the sunny hills round what had once been
       Heidelberg. No respect was shown to palaces, to temples, to
       monasteries, to infirmaries, to beautiful works of art, to
       monuments of the illustrious dead. The far-famed castle of the
       Elector Palatine was turned into a heap of ruins. The
       adjoining hospital was sacked. The provisions, the medicines,
       the pallets on which the sick lay, were destroyed. The very
       stones on which Manheim had been built were flung into the
       Rhine. The magnificent Cathedral of Spires perished, and with
       it the marble sepulchres of eight Cæsars. The coffins were
       broken open. The ashes were scattered to the winds. Treves,
       with its fair bridge, its Roman baths and amphitheatre, its
       venerable churches, convents, and colleges, was doomed to the
       same fate. But, before this last crime had been perpetrated,
       Lewis was recalled to a better mind by the execrations of all
       the neighbouring nations, by the silence and confusion of his
       flatterers, and by the expostulations of his wife. ... He
       relented; and Treves was spared. In truth he could hardly fail
       to perceive that he had committed a great error. The
       devastation of the Palatinate, while it had not in any
       sensible degree lessened the power of his enemies, had
       inflamed their animosity, and had furnished them with
       inexhaustible matter for invective. The cry of vengeance rose
       on every side. Whatever scruple either branch of the House of
       Austria might have felt about coalescing with Protestants was
       completely removed."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
          (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2.

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of the German Empire,
          book 3, chapter 3 (volume. 3).

          See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
       Aid to James II. in Ireland.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

    {1240}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
       Campaigns in the Netherlands and in Savoy.

       "Our limits will not permit us to describe at any length the
       war between Louis XIV. and the Grand Alliance, which lasted
       till the Peace of Ryswick, in 1697, but only to note some of
       the chief incidents of the different campaigns. The
       Imperialists had, in 1689, notwithstanding the efforts it was
       still necessary to make against the Turks, brought an army of
       80,000 men into the field, which was divided into three bodies
       under the command of the Duke of Lorraine, the Elector of
       Bavaria, and the Elector of Brandenburg; while the Prince of
       Waldeck, in the Netherlands, was at the head of a large Dutch
       and Spanish force, composed, however, in great part of German
       mercenaries. In this quarter, Marshal d'Humières was opposed
       to Waldeck, while Duras commanded the French army on the
       Rhine. In the south, the Duke of Noailles maintained a French
       force in Catalonia. Nothing of much importance was done this
       year; but on the whole the war went in favour of the
       imperialists, who succeeded in recovering Mentz and Bonn.

       1690: This year, Marshal d'Humières was superseded by the Duke
       of Luxembourg, who infused more vigour into the French
       operations. ... Catinat was sent this year into Dauphiné to
       watch the movements of the Duke of Savoy, who was suspected by
       the French Court, and not without reason, of favouring the
       Grand Alliance. The extravagant demands of Louis, who required
       Victor Amadeus to unite his troops with the army of Catinat,
       and to admit a French garrison into Vercelli, Verrua, and even
       the citadel of Turin itself, till a general peace should be
       effected, caused the Duke to enter into treaties with Spain
       and the Emperor, June 3d and 4th; and on October 20th, he
       joined the Grand Alliance by a treaty concluded at the Hague
       with England and the States-General. This last step was taken
       by Victor Amadeus in consequence of his reverses. He had
       sustained from Catinat in the battle of Staffarda (August
       17th) a defeat which only the skill of a youthful general, his
       cousin the Prince Eugene, had saved from becoming a total
       rout. As the fruits of this victory, Catinat occupied Saluzzo,
       Susa, and all the country from the Alps to the Tanaro. During
       these operations another French division had reduced, without
       much resistance, the whole of Savoy, except the fortress of
       Montmélian. The only other event of importance during this
       campaign was the decisive victory gained by Luxembourg over
       Prince Waldeck at Fleurus, July 1st. The captured standards,
       more than a hundred in number, which Luxembourg sent to Paris
       on this occasion, obtained for him the name of the 'Tapassier
       de Notre Dame.' Luxembourg was, however, prevented from
       following up his victory by the orders of Louvois, who forbade
       him to lay siege to Namur or Charleroi. Thus, in this
       campaign, France maintained her preponderance on land as well
       as at sea by the victory off Beachy Head. ...

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1690.

       The Imperialists had this year lost one of their best leaders
       by the death of the Duke of Lorraine (April). He was succeeded
       as commander-in-chief by Maximilian Emanuel, Elector of
       Bavaria; but nothing of importance took place upon the Rhine.

       1691: The campaign of this year was singularly barren of
       events, though both the French and English kings took a
       personal part in it. In March, Louis and Luxembourg, laid
       siege to Mons, the capital of Hainault, which surrendered in
       less than three weeks. King William, who was in the
       neighbourhood, could not muster sufficient troops to venture
       on its relief. Nothing further of importance was done in this
       quarter, and the campaign in Germany was equally a blank. On
       the side of Piedmont, Catinat took Nice, but, being confronted
       by superior numbers, was forced to evacuate Piedmont; though,
       by way of compensation, he completed the conquest of Savoy by
       the capture of Montmélian. Noailles gained some trifling
       successes in Spain; and the celebrated French corsair, Jean
       Bart, distinguished himself by his enterprises at sea. One of
       the most remarkable events of the year was a domestic
       occurrence, the death of Louvois."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 44 (volume 5).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1692.
       The taking of Namur and the victory of Steinkirk, or
       Steenkerke.

       Never perhaps in the whole course of his unresting life were
       the energies of William [of Orange] more severely taxed, and
       never did his great moral and intellectual qualities shine
       forth with a brighter lustre, than in the years 1692-93.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

       The great victory of La Hogue and the destruction of the
       flower of the French fleet did, it is true, relieve England of
       any immediate dread either of insurrection or invasion, and so
       far the prospect before him acquired a slight improvement
       towards the summer of 1692. But this was the only gleam of
       light in the horizon. ... The great coalition of Powers which
       he had succeeded in forming to resist the ambition of Louis
       was never nearer dissolution than in the spring of 1692. The
       Scandinavian states, who had held aloof from it from the
       first, were now rapidly changing the benevolence of their
       neutrality into something not easily distinguishable from its
       reverse. The new Pope Innocent XII. showed himself far less
       amicably disposed towards William than his two predecessors.
       The decrepitude of Spain and the arrogant self-will of Austria
       were displaying themselves more conspicuously than ever. Savoy
       was ruled by a duke who was more than half suspected of being
       a traitor. ... William did succeed in saving the league from
       dissolution, and in getting their armies once more into the
       field. But not, unfortunately, to any purpose. The campaign of
       the present year was destined to repeat the errors of the
       last, and these errors were to be paid for at a heavier cost.
       ... The French king was bent upon the capture of the great
       stronghold of Namur, and the enemy, as in the case of Mons,
       were too slow in their movements and too ineffective in their
       dispositions to prevent it. Marching to the assault of the
       doomed city, with a magnificence of courtly pageantry which
       had never before been witnessed in warfare, Louis sat down
       before Namur, and in eight days its faint-hearted governor,
       the nominee of the Spanish viceroy of the Netherlands,
       surrendered at discretion. Having accomplished, or rather
       having graciously condescended to witness the accomplishment
       of this feat of arms, Louis returned to Versailles, leaving
       his army under the command of Luxembourg. The fall of Namur
       was a severe blow to the hopes of William, but yet worse
       disasters were in store for him. He was now pitted against one
       who enjoyed the reputation of the greatest general of the age,
       and William, a fair but by no means brilliant strategist, was
       unequal to the contest with his accomplished adversary.
    {1241}
       Luxembourg lay at Steinkirk, and William approaching him from
       a place named Lambeque, opened his attack upon him by a
       well-conceived surprise which promised at first to throw the
       French army into complete disorder. Luxembourg's resource and
       energy, however, were equal to the emergency. He rallied and
       steadied his troops with astonishing speed, and the nature of
       the ground preventing the allies from advancing as rapidly as
       they had expected, they found the enemy in a posture to
       receive them. The British forces were in the front, commanded
       by Count Solmes, the division of Mackay, a name now honourable
       for many generations in the annals of continental, no less
       than of Scottish, warfare, leading the way. These heroes, for
       so, though as yet untried soldiers, they approved themselves,
       were to have been supported by Count Solmes with a strong body
       of cavalry and infantry, but at the critical moment he failed
       them miserably, and his failure decided the fortunes of the
       day. ... The division was practically annihilated. Its five
       regiments, 'Cutt's, Mackay's, Angus's, Graham's, and Leven's,
       all,' as Corporal Trim relates pathetically, cut to pieces,
       and so had the English Life-guards been too, had it not been
       for some regiments on the right, who marched up boldly to
       their relief, and, received the enemy's fire in their faces,
       before anyone of their own platoons discharged a musket.'
       Bitter was the resentment in the English army at the desertion
       of these gallant troops by Count de Solmes, and William gave
       vent to one of his rare outbursts of anger at the sight. We
       have it indeed on the authority above quoted--unimpeachable as
       first-hand tradition, for Sterne had heard the story of these
       wars at the knees of an eye-witness of and actor in them--that
       the King 'would not suffer the Count to come into his presence
       for many months after.' The destruction of Mackay's division
       had indeed decided the issue of the struggle. Luxembourg's
       army was being rapidly strengthened by reinforcements from
       that of Boufflers, and there was nothing for it but retreat.
       The loss on both sides had been great, but the moral effect of
       the victory was still greater. William's reputation for
       generalship, perhaps unduly raised by his recent exploits in
       Ireland, underwent a serious decline."

          H. D. Traill,
          William the Third,
          chapter 10.

       On the Rhine and on the Spanish frontier nothing of importance
       occurred during 1692. The Duke of Savoy gained some advantages
       on his side and invaded Dauphiny, without any material result.
       The invasion called into action a young heroine, Mademoiselle
       de La Tour-du-Pin, whose portrait has a place at Saint-Denis
       by the side of that of Jeanne D'Arc.

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. H. Torriano,
          William the Third,
          chapter 20.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (July).
       The Battle of Neerwinden, or Landen.

       "Lewis had determined not to make any advance towards a
       reconciliation with the new government of England till the
       whole strength of his realm had been put forth in one more
       effort. A mighty effort in truth it was, but too exhausting to
       be repeated. He made an immense display of force at once on
       the Pyrenees and on the Alps, on the Rhine and on the Meuse,
       in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean. That nothing might
       be wanting which could excite the martial ardour of a nation
       eminently high-spirited, he instituted, a few days before he
       left his palace for the camp, a new military order of
       knighthood, and placed it under the protection of his own
       sainted ancestor and patron. The cross of Saint Lewis shone on
       the breasts of the gentlemen who had been conspicuous in the
       trenches before Mons and Namur, and on the fields of Fleurus
       and Steinkirk. ... On the 18th of May Lewis left Versailles.
       Early in June he was under the walls of Namur. The Princesses,
       who had accompanied him, held their court within the fortress. He
       took under his immediate command the army of Boufflers, which
       was encamped at Gembloux. Little more than a mile off lay the
       army of Luxemburg. The force collected in that neighbourhood
       under the French lilies did not amount to less than 120,000
       men. Lewis had flattered himself that he should be able to
       repeat in 1693 the stratagem by which Mons had been taken in
       1691 and Namur in 1692; and he had determined that either
       Liege or Brussels should be his prey. But William had this
       year been able to assemble in good time a force, inferior
       indeed to that which was opposed to him, but still formidable.
       With this force he took his post near Louvain, on the road
       between the two threatened cities, and watched every movement
       of the enemy. ... Just at this conjuncture Lewis announced his
       intention to return instantly to Versailles, and to send the
       Dauphin and Boufflers, with part of the army which was
       assembled near Namur, to join Marshal Lorges who commanded in
       the Palatinate. Luxemburg was thunderstruck. He expostulated
       boldly and earnestly. Never, he said, was such an opportunity
       thrown away. ... The Marshal reasoned: he implored: he went on
       his knees: but all was vain; and he quitted the royal presence
       in the deepest dejection. Lewis left the camp a week after he
       had joined it, and never afterwards made war in person. ...
       Though the French army in the Netherlands had been weakened by
       the departure of the forces commanded by the Dauphin and
       Boufflers, and though the allied army was daily strengthened
       by the arrival of fresh troops, Luxemburg still had a
       superiority of force; and that superiority he increased by an
       adroit stratagem." He succeeded by a feint in inducing William
       to detach 20,000 men from his army and to send them to Liege.
       He then moved suddenly upon the camp of the allies, with
       80,000 men, and found but 50,000 to oppose him. "It was still
       in the [English] King's power, by a hasty retreat, to put
       between his army and the enemy the narrow, but deep, waters of
       the Gette, which had lately been swollen by rains. But the
       site which he occupied was strong; and it could easily be made
       still stronger. He set all his troops to work. Ditches were
       dug, mounds thrown up, palisades fixed in the earth. In a few
       hours the ground wore a new aspect; and the King trusted that
       he should be able to repel the attack even of a force greatly
       outnumbering his own. ... On the left flank, the village of
       Romsdorff rose close to the little stream of Landen, from
       which the English have named the disastrous day. On the right
       was the village of Neerwinden. Both villages were, after the
       fashion of the Low Countries, surrounded by moats and fences.
       "Notwithstanding the strength of the position held by the
       allies, and the valor with which they defended it, they were
       driven out of Neerwinden [July 29]--but only after the
       shattered village had been five times taken and retaken--and
       across the Gette, in confusion and with heavy loss.
    {1242}
       "The French were victorious: but they had bought their victory
       dear. More then 10,000 of the best troops of Lewis had fallen.
       Neerwinden was a spectacle at which the oldest soldiers stood
       aghast. The streets were piled breast high with corpses. Among
       the slain were some great lords and some renowned warriors.
       ... The region, renowned as the battle field, through many
       ages, of the greatest powers of Europe, has seen only two more
       terrible days, the day of Malplaquet and the day of Waterloo.
       ... There was no pursuit, though the sun was still high in the
       heaven when William crossed the Gette. The conquerors were so
       much exhausted by marching and fighting that they could
       scarcely move. ... A very short delay was enough for William.
       ... Three weeks after his defeat he held a review a few miles
       from Brussels. The number of men under arms was greater than
       on the morning of the bloody day of Landen: their appearance
       was soldierlike; and their spirit seemed unbroken. William now
       wrote to Heinsius that the worst was over. 'The crisis,' he
       said, 'has been a terrible one. Thank God that it has ended
       thus.' He did not, however, think it prudent to try at that
       time the event of another pitched field. He therefore suffered
       the French to besiege and take Charleroi; and this was the
       only advantage which they derived from the most sanguinary
       battle fought in Europe during the seventeenth century."

          Lord Macaulay,
          History of England,
          chapter 20 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          G. Burnet,
          History of My Own Time,
          book 5 (1693), volume 4.

          Duc de Saint-Simon,
          Memoirs (translated by St. John),
          volume 1, chapter 4.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (October).
       Defeat of the Duke of Savoy at Marsaglia.

       "The great efforts made by Louis in the north prevented him
       from strengthening the army of Catinat sufficiently to act
       with energy against the Savoyard prince, and it was determined
       to restrict the campaign of 1693 to the defensive on the part
       of France. The forces of the duke had in the meantime been
       reinforced from Germany, and he opened the campaign with a
       brilliant and successful movement against Pignerol. ... He is
       said to have entertained hopes of carrying the war in that one
       campaign to the very gates of Lyons; but the successes which
       inspired him with such expectations alarmed the court of
       France, and Louis detached in haste a large body of cavalry to
       reinforce Catinat. That general marched at once to fight the Duke
       of Savoy, who, presuming on his strength, suffered the French
       to pour out from the valley of Suza into the plain of
       Piedmont, abandoned the heights, and was consequently defeated
       at Marsaglia on the 4th of October. Catinat, however, could not
       profit by his victory; he was too ill supplied in every
       respect to undertake the siege of Coni, and the state of the
       French armies at this time marks as plainly that Louvois was
       dead, as the state of the finances speaks the loss of
       Colbert."

          G. P. R. James,
          Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
          volume 2, chapter 11.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1694.
       Campaigns without battles.
       Operations at sea.

       In 1694, King William was "in a position to keep an army afoot
       in the Netherlands stronger than any had hitherto been. It was
       reckoned at 31,800 horse, including a corps of dragoons, and
       58,000 foot; so great a force had never been seen within the
       memory of man. All the best-known generals, who had hitherto
       taken part in the wars of western Europe, were gathered round
       him with their troops. The French army, with which the
       Dauphin, but not the King, was present, was not much smaller;
       it was once more led by Marshal Luxembourg. These two hosts
       lay over against one another in their camps for a couple of
       months; neither offered battle to the other. ... This campaign
       is notable in the annals of the art of war for the skill with
       which each force pursued or evaded the other; but the results
       were limited to the recovery by the allies of that unimportant
       place, Huy. William had thought himself fortunate in having
       come out of the previous campaign without disaster: in this
       campaign the French were proud to have held their lines in
       presence of a superior force. On the coast also the French
       were successful in repelling a most vehement and perilous
       attack. They had been warned that the English were going to
       fall on Brest, and Vauban was sent down there in haste to
       organise the defence; and in this he was thoroughly
       successful. When the English landed on the coast in Camaret
       Bay (for the fort of that name had first to be taken) they
       were saluted by two batteries, which they had never detected,
       and which were so well placed that every shot told, and the
       grape-shot wounded almost every man who had ventured ashore.
       The gallant General, Talmash, was also hit, and ere long died
       of his wounds. The English fleet, which had come to bombard
       Brest, was itself bombarded from the walls. But though this
       great effort failed, the English fleet still held the mastery
       of the Channel: it also blockaded the northern coast of
       France. After Brest it attacked Dieppe, laying it almost
       entirely in ashes; thence it sailed to Havre, and St. Malo, to
       Calais, and Dunkirk. This was of great use in the conduct of
       the war. King William observes that had not the coasts been
       kept in a state of alarm, all the forces detained there for
       defensive purposes would have been thrown on the Netherlands.
       ... But the most important result of the maritime war lay on
       another side. In May, 1694, Noailles pushed into Catalonia,
       supported by Tourville, who lay at anchor with the fleet in
       the Bay of Rosas. ... It was of incalculable importance to
       Spain to be in alliance with the maritime powers. Strengthened
       by a Dutch fleet and some Spanish ships, Admiral Russell now
       appeared in the Mediterranean. He secured Barcelona from the
       French, who would never have been kept out of the city by the
       Spaniards alone. The approach of the English fleet had at this
       time the greatest influence in keeping the Duke of Savoy
       staunch to the confederation. In Germany the rise of the house
       of Hanover to the Electoral dignity had now caused most
       unpleasant complications. A shoal of German princes, headed by
       the King of Denmark, as a Prince of the Empire, and offended
       by the preference shown to Hanover, inclined, if not to
       alliance with France, at least to neutrality. ... We can have
       no conception, and in this place we cannot possibly
       investigate, with what unbroken watchfulness King William,
       supported by Heinsius, looked after the German and the
       Northern courts, so as to keep their irritation from reacting
       on the course of the great war. ... When the French, in June,
       1694, crossed the Rhine, meaning, as they boasted with true
       Gallic arrogance, soon to dip their swords in the Danube, they
       found the Prince of Baden so well prepared, and posted so
       strongly near Wisloch, that they did not venture to attack
       him. ... The general result is this: neither side was as yet
       really superior to the other: but the French power was
       everywhere checked and held within bounds by the arms and
       influence of William III."

          L. von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th Century,
          book 20, chapter 6 (volume 5).

    {1243}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.
       The end of the War of the League of Augsburg.
       Loss of Namur.
       Terms with Savoy.
       The Peace of Ryswick.

       "Military and naval efforts were relaxed on all sides: on the
       Rhine the Prince of Baden and the Marechal de Lorges, both ill
       in health, did little but observe each other; and though the
       Duke of Savoy made himself master of Casal on the 11th July,
       1695, no other military event of any consequence took place on
       the side of Italy, where Louis entered into negotiations with
       the duke, and succeeded, in the following year, in detaching
       him from the league of Augsburg. As the price of his defection
       the whole of his territories were to be restored to him, with
       the exception of Suza, Nice, and Montmeillan, which were
       promised to be delivered also on the signature of a general
       peace. Money was added to render the consent of a needy prince
       more ready. ... The duke promised to obtain from the emperor a
       pledge that Italy should be considered as neutral ground, and
       if the allies refused such a pledge, then to join the forces
       of Savoy to those of France, and give a free passage to the
       French through his dominions. In consequence of this treaty
       ... he applied to the emperor for a recognition of the
       neutrality of Italy, and was refused. He then hastened, with a
       facility which distinguished him through life, to abandon his
       friends and join his enemies, and within one month was
       generalissimo for the emperor in Italy fighting against
       France, and generalissimo for the King of France in Italy
       fighting against the emperor. Previous to this change,
       however, the King of England opened the campaign of 1695 in
       the Netherlands by the siege of Namur. The death of Luxemburg
       had placed the French army of Flanders under the command of
       the incapable Marshal Villeroi: and William, feeling that his
       enemy was no longer to be much respected, assumed at once the
       offensive. He concealed his design upon Namur under a variety
       of manœuvres which kept the French generals in suspense; and,
       then leaving the Prince of Vaudemont to protect the principal
       Spanish towns in Flanders, he collected his troops suddenly;
       and while the Duke of Bavaria invested Namur, he covered the
       operations of the siege with a considerable force. Villeroi
       now determined to attack the Prince of Vaudemont, but twice
       suffered him to escape: and then, after having apparently
       hesitated for some time how to drive or draw the King of
       England from the attack upon Namur, he resolved to bombard the
       city of Brussels, never pretending to besiege it, but alleging
       as his motive for a proceeding which was merely destructive,
       the bombardment of the maritime towns of France by the
       English. During three days he continued to fire upon the city,
       ruining a great part thereof, and then withdrew to witness the
       surrender of the citadel of Namur on the 2nd September, the
       town itself having capitulated on the 4th of the preceding
       month. As some compensation, though but a poor one, for the
       loss of Namur, and the disgrace of the French arms in
       suffering such a city to be captured in the presence of 80,000
       men, Montal took Dixmude and Deynse in the course of June. ...
       The only after-event of any importance which occurred in
       Flanders during this war, was the capture of Ath by the
       French, in the year 1697, while negotiations for peace were
       going on with activity at Ryswick. ... Regular communications
       regarding peace having been once established, Ryswick, near
       the Hague, was appointed for the meeting of plenipotentiaries;
       and Harlay, Torci, and Callières appeared at that place as
       representatives of Louis. The articles which had been formerly
       sketched out at Utrecht formed the base of the treaties now
       agreed upon; and Louis yielded far more than could have been
       expected from one so proud and so successful."

          G. P. R. James,
          Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
          volume 2, chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 3, chapter 5.

          Sir J. Dalrymple,
          Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
          part 3, book 4 (volume 3).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1697 (April).
       The sacking of Carthagena.

          See CARTHAGENA: A. D. 1697.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
       The Peace of Ryswick.

       "The Congress for the treaty or series of treaties that was to
       terminate the great European war, which had now lasted for
       upwards of nine years, was held at Ryswick, a château near the
       Hague. The conferences were opened in May, 1697. Among the
       countries represented were Sweden, Austria, France, Spain,
       England, Holland, Denmark and the various States of the German
       Empire. The treaties were signed, in severalty, between the
       different States, except Austria, in September and October,
       1697, and with the Emperor, in November. The principal
       features of the treaty were, as between France and Spain,
       that, the former country was to deliver to Spain Barcelona,
       and other places in Catalonia; also various places which
       France had taken in the Spanish Netherlands, during the war,
       including Luxembourg and its Duchy, Charleroi, Mons and
       Courtrai. Various others were excepted, to be retained by
       France, as dependencies of French possessions. The principal
       stipulations of the treaty, as between France and Great
       Britain, were that France formally recognized William III. as
       lawful king of Great Britain, and agreed not to trouble him in
       the possession of his dominions, and not to assist his
       enemies, directly or indirectly. This article had particular
       relation to the partisans of the exiled Stuart king, then
       living in France. By another article, all places taken by
       either country in America, during the war, were to be
       relinquished, and the Principality of Orange and its estates
       situated in the south of France were to be restored to
       William. In the treaty with Holland, certain possessions in
       the East Indies were to be restored to the Dutch East India
       Company: and important articles of commerce were appended,
       among which the principle was laid down that free ships should
       make free goods, not contraband of war. By the treaty with the
       Emperor and the German States, the Treaties of Westphalia and
       Nymeguen were recognized as the basis of the Treaty of
       Ryswick, with such exceptions only as were to be provided in
       the latter treaty. France also was to give up all territory
       she had occupied or controlled before or during the war under
       the name of 'reunions,' outside of Alsace, but the Roman
       Catholic religion was to be preserved in Alsace as it then
       existed.
    {1244}
       This concession by France included among other places
       Freiburg, Brisach, and Treves; and certain restitutions were
       to be made by France, in favor of Spire, the Electors of
       Treves, and Brandenburg and the Palatinate; also, others in
       favor of certain of the smaller German Princes. The city of
       Strasburg, in return, was formally ceded to France, ... and
       the important fort of Kehl was yielded to the Empire. The
       navigation of the Rhine was to be free to all persons. The
       Duke of Lorraine was to be restored to his possessions with
       such exceptions as were provided in the treaty. By the terms
       of this treaty, a more advantageous peace was given to Spain
       than she had any expectation of. ... Not only were the places
       taken in Spain, including the numerous fortified places in
       Catalonia, yielded up, but also, with some exceptions, those
       in the Spanish Netherlands, and also the important territory
       of Luxembourg; some places were even yielded to Spain that
       France had gained under former treaties."

          J. W. Gerard,
          The Peace of Utrecht,
          chapter 4.

       "The restitutions and cessions [from France to Germany]
       comprised Treves, Germersheim, Deux-Ponts, Veldentz,
       Montbéliard, Kehl, Freiburg, Breisach, Philippsburg, the
       Emperor and the Empire ceding in exchange Strasbourg to the
       King of France in complete sovereignty. ... Louis XIV. had
       consented somewhat to relax the rigor of the treaty of
       Nimeguen towards the heir of the Duchy of Lorraine, nephew of
       the Emperor by his mother; he restored to the young Duke
       Leopold his inheritance in the condition in which Charles IV.
       had possessed it before the French conquest of 1670; that is
       to say, he restored Nancy, allowing only the ramparts of the
       Old Town to remain, and razing all the rest of the
       fortifications without the power of restoring them; he kept
       Marsal, an interior place calculated to hold Lorraine in
       check, and also Sarre-Louis, a frontier-place which separated
       Lorraine from the Germanic provinces; he restored Bitche and
       Homburg dismantled, without power to reestablish them, and
       kept Longwy in exchange for a domain of similar value in one
       of the Trois-Evêchés; finally, he no longer demanded, as at
       Nimeguen, four great strategic routes through Lorraine, and
       consented that the passage should always be open to his
       troops. The House of Lorraine was thus reestablished in its
       estates after twenty-seven years of exile."

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of England, 17th Century,
          book 20, chapter 11 (volume 5).

          See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697;
          and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1698-1712.
       The colonization of Louisiana.
       Broad claims to the whole valley of the Mississippi.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1700.
       Bequest of the Spanish crown to a French royal prince.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1701-1702.
       Provocation of the Second Grand Alliance
       and War of the Spanish Succession.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702,
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
       The Camisard rising of the French Protestant's in the
       Cévennes.

       "The movement known as the War of the Camisards is an episode
       of the history of Protestantism in France which, though rarely
       studied in detail and perhaps but partially understood, was
       not devoid of significance. When it occurred, in the summer of
       1702, a period of little less than 17 years had elapsed since
       Louis XIV., by his edict of Fontainebleau, October, 1685,
       solemnly revoked the great and fundamental law enacted by his
       grandfather, Henry IV., for the protection of the adherents of
       the Reformed faith, known in history as the Edict of Nantes.
       During the whole of that period the Protestants had submitted,
       with scarcely an attempt at armed resistance, to the
       proscription of their tenets: ... The majority, unable to
       escape from the land of oppression, remained at home ...
       nearly all of them cherishing the confident hope that the
       king's delusion would be short-lived, and that the edict under
       which they and their ancestors had lived for three generations
       would, before long, be restored to them with the greater part,
       if not the whole, of its beneficent provisions. Meanwhile, all
       the Protestant ministers having been expelled from France by
       the same law that prohibited the expatriation of any of the
       laity, the people of the Reformed faith found themselves
       destitute of the spiritual food they craved. True, the new
       legislation affected to regard that faith as dead, and
       designated all the former adherents of Protestantism, without
       distinction, as the 'New Converts,' 'Nouveaux Convertis.' And,
       in point of fact, the great majority had so far yielded to the
       terrible pressure of the violent measures brought to bear upon
       them ... that they had consented to sign a promise to be
       're-united' to the Roman Catholic Church, or had gone at least
       once to mass. But they were still Protestants at heart. ...
       Under these circumstances, feeling more than ever the need of
       religious comfort, now that remorse arose for a weak betrayal
       of conscientious conviction, the proscribed Protestants,
       especially in the south of France, began to meet clandestinely
       for divine worship in such retired places as seemed most
       likely to escape the notice of their vigilant enemies. ... It
       was not strange that in so exceptional a situation, a phase of
       religious life and feeling equally exceptional should manifest
       itself. I refer to that appearance of prophetic inspiration
       which attracted to the province of Vivarais and to the
       Cévennes Mountains the attention of all Europe. ...
       Historically ... the influence of the prophets of the Cévennes
       was an important factor in the Protestant problem of the end
       of the 17th and the commencement of the 18th centuries. ...
       Various methods were adopted to put an end to the prophets
       with their prophecies, which were for the most part
       denunciatory of Rome as Antichrist and foreshadowed the
       approaching fall of the papacy. But this form of enthusiasm
       had struck a deep root and it was hard to eradicate it.
       Imprisonment, in convent or jail, was the most common
       punishment, especially in the case of women. Not infrequently
       to imprisonment was, added corporal chastisement, and the
       prophets, male and female, were flogged until they might be
       regarded as fully cured of their delusion. ... But no
       utterances of prophets, however fervid and impassioned, would
       have sufficed to occasion an uprising of the inhabitants of
       the Cévennes Mountains, had it not been for the virulent
       persecution to which the latter found themselves exposed at
       the hands of the provincial authorities directly instigated
       thereto by the clergy of the established church.
    {1245}
       For it must be noticed that a large part of the population of
       the Cévennes was still Protestant, and made no concealment of
       the fact, even though the king's ministers affected to call
       them 'New Catholics,' or 'New Converts.' The region over which
       the Camisard war extended with more or less violence comprised
       six episcopal dioceses, which, in 1698, had an aggregate
       population of about two-thirds of a million of souls. Of these
       souls, though Protestantism had been dead in the eye of the
       law for 13 years, fully one-fourth were still Protestant. ...
       The war may be said to have begun on the 24th of July, 1702,
       when the Abbé du Chayla, a noted persecutor, was killed in his
       house, at Pont de Montvert, by a band of 40 or 50 of the
       'Nouveaux Convertis,' whom he had driven to desperation by his
       cruelty to their fellow believers. If we regard its
       termination to be the submission of Jean Cavalier, the most
       picturesque, in the month of May, 1704, the war lasted a
       little less than two years. But, although the French
       government had succeeded, rather by craft than by force, in
       getting rid of the most formidable of its opponents ... it was
       not until five or six years later--that is, until 1709 or
       1710--that ... comparative peace was finally restored. ...
       During the first months of the insurrection the exploits of
       the malcontents were confined to deeds of destruction
       accomplished by companies of venturesome men, who almost
       everywhere eluded the pursuit of the enemy by their superior
       knowledge of the intricacies of the mountain woods and paths.
       The track of these companies could easily be made out; for it
       was marked by the destruction of vicarages and rectories, by
       the smoke of burned churches, too often by the corpses of
       slain priests. The perpetrators of these acts of violence soon
       won for themselves some special designations, to distinguish
       them from the more passive Protestants who remained in their
       homes, taking no open part in the struggle. ... About the
       close of 1702, however, or the first months of 1703, a new
       word was coined for the fresh emergency, and the armed
       Protestants received the appellation under which they have
       passed into history--the Camisards. Passing by all the strange
       and fanciful derivations of the word which seem to have no
       claim upon our notice, unless it be their evident absurdity,
       we have no difficulty in connecting it with those nocturnal
       expeditions which were styled 'Camisades'; because the
       warriors who took advantage of the darkness of the night to
       ride out and explore or force the enemy's entrenchments,
       sometimes threw over their armor a shirt that might enable
       them to recognize each other. Others will have it that, though
       the name was derived from the same article of apparel--the
       'camisa' or shirt--it was applied to the Cévenol bands for
       another reason, namely," that when they found opportunities,
       they carried off clean linen from the villages and left their
       soiled garments in exchange. The final overthrow of the
       Camisards "was not accomplished without the employment of
       100,000 troops, certainly far more than ten times the total
       number ever brought into the field by the Camisards. ... Not
       less than three officers of the highest grade in the service,
       marshals of France, were successively appointed to put down a
       revolt which it might have been expected a simple colonel
       could suffice to quell--M. de Broglie being succeeded by the
       Marshal de Montrevel, the Marshal de Montrevel by the Marshal
       de Villars, and the Marshal de Villars by the Marshal de
       Berwick."

          H. M. Baird,
          The Camisard Uprising
          (Papers of the American Society of Church History,
          volume 2, pages 13-34).

          ALSO IN:
          Mrs. Bray,
          The Revolt of the Protestants of the Cevennes.

          N. Peyrat,
          The Pastors in the Wilderness.

          S. Smiles,
          The Huguenots in France after the Revocation of the Edict
          of Nantes, chapters 5-8.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1711.
       The War of the Spanish Succession in America
       (called Queen Anne's War).

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
          and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1713.
       The War of the Spanish Succession in Europe.

          See
          ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
          SPAIN: A.D. 1702, to 1707-1710;
          GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1706-1711;
          NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1715.
       Renewed Jesuitical persecution of the Jansenists.
       The odious Bull Unigenitus and its tyrannical enforcement.

          See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

    A. D. 1710.
       The War of the Spanish Succession: Misery of the nation.
       Overtures for Peace.
       Conferences at Gertruydenberg.

       "France was still reduced to extreme and abject wretchedness.
       Her finances were ruined. Her people were half starving.
       Marlborough declared that in the villages through which he
       passed in the summer of 1710, at least half the inhabitants
       had perished since the beginning of the preceding winter, and
       the rest looked as if they had come out of their graves. All
       the old dreams of French conquests in the Spanish Netherlands,
       in Italy, and in Germany were dispelled, and the French
       generals were now struggling desperately and skilfully to
       defend their own frontier. ... In 1710, while the Whig
       ministry [in England] was still in power, but at a time when
       it was manifestly tottering to its fall, Lewis had made one
       more attempt to obtain peace by the most ample concessions.
       The conferences were held at the Dutch fortress of
       Gertruydenberg. Lewis declared himself ready to accept the
       conditions exacted as preliminaries of peace in the preceding
       year, with the exception of the article compelling Philip
       within two months to cede the Spanish throne. He consented, in
       the course of the negotiations, to grant to the Dutch nearly
       all the fortresses of the French and Spanish Netherlands,
       including among others Ypres, Tournay, Lille, Furnes, and even
       Valenciennes, to cede Alsace to the Duke of Lorraine, to destroy
       the fortifications of Dunkirk, and those on the Rhine from
       Bale to Philipsburg. The main difficulty was on the question
       of the Spanish succession. ... The French troops had already
       been recalled from Spain, and Lewis consented to recognise the
       Archduke as the sovereign, to engage to give no more
       assistance to his grandchild, to place four cautionary towns
       in the hands of the Dutch as a pledge for the fulfilment of
       the treaty, and even to pay a subsidy to the allies for the
       continuance of the war against Philip. The allies, however,
       insisted that he should join with them in driving his grandson
       by force of arms from Spain, and on this article the
       negotiations were broken off."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 1.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

    {1246}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1713-1714.
       Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
       The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1714.
       The desertion of the Catalans.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1715.
       Death of Louis XIV.
       The character of his reign.

       Louis XIV. died September 1, 1715, at the age of 77 years,
       having reigned 72 years. "Richelieu, and after him Mazarin,
       governing as if they had been dictators of a republic, had
       extinguished, if I may use the expression, their personality
       in the idea and service of the state. Possessing only the
       exercise of authority, they both conducted themselves as
       responsible agents towards the sovereign and before the
       judgment of the country; while Louis XIV., combining the
       exercise with the right, considered himself exempted from all
       rule but that of his own will, and acknowledged no
       responsibility for his actions except to his own conscience.
       It was this conviction of his universal power, a conviction
       genuine and sincere, excluding both scruples and remorse,
       which made him upset one after the other the twofold system
       founded by Henry IV., of religious liberty at home, and abroad
       of a national preponderance resting upon a generous protection
       of the independence of states and European civilisation. At
       the personal accession of Louis XIV., more than fifty years
       had passed since France had pursued the work of her policy in
       Europe, impartial towards the various communions of
       Christians, the different forms of governments, and the
       internal revolutions of the states. Although France was
       catholic and monarchical, her alliances were, in the first
       place, with the Protestant states of Germany and with
       republican Holland; she had even made friendly terms with
       regicide England. No other interest but that of the
       well-understood development of the national resources had
       weight in her councils, and directed the internal action of
       her government. But all was changed by Louis XIV., and special
       interests, the spawn of royal personality, of the principle of
       the hereditary monarchy, or that of the state religion, were
       admitted, soon to fly upward in the scale. Thence resulted the
       overthrow of the system of the balance of power in Europe,
       which might be justly called the French system, and the
       abandonment of it for dreams of an universal monarchy, revived
       after the example of Charles V. and Philip II. Thence a
       succession of enterprises, formed in opposition to the policy
       of the country, such as the war with Holland, the factions
       made with a view to the Imperial crown, the support given to
       James II. and the counter-revolution in England, the
       acceptance of the throne of Spain for a son of France,
       preserving his rights to the Crown. These causes of
       misfortune, under which the kingdom was obliged to succumb,
       all issued from the circumstance applauded by the nation and
       conformable to the spirit of its tendencies, which, after
       royalty had attained its highest degree of power under two
       ministers, delivered it unlimited into the hands of a prince
       endowed with qualities at once brilliant and solid, an object
       of enthusiastic affection and legitimate admiration. When the
       reign, which was to crown under such auspices the ascendant
       march of the French monarchy, had falsified the unbounded
       hopes which its commencement had excited; when in the midst of
       fruitless victories and continually increasing reverses, the
       people beheld progress in all the branches of public economy
       changed into distress,--the ruin of the finances, industry,
       and agriculture--the exhaustion of all the resources of the
       country,--the impoverishment of all classes of the nation, the
       dreadful misery of the population, they were seized with a
       bitter disappointment of spirit, which took the place of the
       enthusiasm of their confidence and love."

          A. Thierry,
          Formation and Progress of the Tiers
          État or Third Estate in France,
          chapter 9.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1715.
       Accession of King Louis XV.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.
       State of the kingdom at the death of Louis XIV.
       The minority of Louis XV. and Regency of the Duke of Orleans.

       "Louis XIV. ... left France excessively exhausted. The State
       was ruined, and seemed to have no resource but bankruptcy.
       This trouble seemed especially imminent in 1715, after the
       war, during which the government had been obliged to borrow at
       400 per cent., to create new taxes, to spend in advance the
       revenue of two years, and to increase the public debt to 2,400
       millions. The acquisition of two provinces (Flanders,
       Franche-Comté) and a few cities (Strassburg, Landau, and
       Dunkirk) was no compensation for such terrible poverty.
       Succeeding generations have remembered only the numerous
       victories, Europe defied, France for twenty years
       preponderant, and the incomparable splendor of the court of
       Versailles, with its marvels of letters and arts, which have
       given to the 17th century the name of the age of Louis XIV. It
       is for history to show the price which France has paid for her
       king's vain attempts abroad to rule over Europe, and at home
       to enslave the wills and consciences of men. ... The weight of
       the authority of Louis XIV. had been crushing during his last
       years. When the nation felt it lifted, it breathed more
       freely; the court and the city burst into disrespectful
       demonstrations of joy; the very coffin of the great king was
       insulted. The new king [Louis XV., great-grandson of Louis
       XIV.] was five years old. Who was to govern? Louis XIV. had
       indeed left a will, but he had not deceived himself with
       regard to the value of it. 'As soon as I am dead, it will be
       disregarded; I know too well what became of the will of the
       king, my father!' As after the death of Henry IV. and Louis
       XIII. there was a moment of feudal reaction; but the decline
       of the nobility may be measured by the successive weakening of
       its efforts in each case. Under Mary de'Medici it was still able
       to make a civil war; under Anne of Austria it produced the
       Fronde; after Louis XIV. it only produced memorials. The Duke
       of Saint-Simon desired that the first prince of the blood,
       Philip of Orleans, to whom the will left only a shadow of
       power, should demand the regency from the dukes and peers, as
       heirs and representatives of the ancient grand vassals. But
       the Duke of Orleans convoked Parliament in order to break down
       the posthumous despotism of the old king, feigning that the
       king had committed the government to his hands. The regency,
       with the right to appoint the council of regency as he would,
       was conferred upon him, and the command of the royal household
       was taken from the Duke of Maine [one of the bastard sons of
       Louis XIV.], who yielded this important prerogative only after
       a violent altercation.
    {1247}
       As a reward for the services of his two allies, the Duke of
       Orleans called the high nobility into affairs, by substituting
       for the ministries six councils; in which they occupied almost
       all the places, and accorded to Parliament the right of
       remonstrance. But two years had hardly passed when the
       ministries were re-established, and the Parliament again
       condemned to silence. It was plain that neither nobility nor
       Parliament were to be the heirs of the absolute monarchy. ...
       Debauchery had, until then, kept within certain limits;
       cynicism of manners as well as of thought was now adopted
       openly. The regent set the example. There had never been seen
       such frivolity of conduct nor such licentious wit as that
       exhibited in the wild meetings of the roués of the Duke of
       Orleans. There had been formerly but one salon in France, that
       of the king; a thousand were now open to a society which, no
       longer occupied with religious questions, or with war, or the
       grave futilities of etiquette, felt that pleasure and change
       were necessities. ... Louis XV. attained his majority February
       13, 1723, being then 13 years old. This terminated the regency
       of the Duke of Orleans. But the king was still to remain a
       long time under tutelage; the duke, in order to retain the
       power after resigning the regency, had in advance given
       [Cardinal] Dubois the title of prime minister. At the death of
       the wretched Dubois he took the office himself, but held it
       only four months, dying of apoplexy in December, 1723."

          V. Duruy,
          History of France,
          chapters 52 and 55.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Taylor,
          Memoirs of the House of Orleans,
          volume 1, chapters 11-17,
          and volume 2, chapters 1-3.

          F. Rocquain,
          The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
          chapter 1.

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under the Regency.

    FRANCE: 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.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.
       John Law and his Mississippi Scheme.

       "When the Regent Orleans assumed the government of France, he
       found its affairs in frightful confusion. The public debt was
       three hundred millions; putting the debt on one side, the
       expenditure was only just covered by the revenue. St. Simon
       advised him to declare a national bankruptcy. De Noailles,
       less scrupulous, proposed to debase the coinage. ... In such
       desperate circumstances, it was no wonder that the regent was
       ready to catch eagerly at any prospect of success. A remedy
       was proposed to him by the famous John Law of Lauriston. This
       new light of finance had gambled in, and been banished from,
       half the courts of Europe; he had figured in the English 'Hue
       and Cry,' as 'a very tall, black, lean man, well-shaped, above
       six feet high, large pock-holes in his face, big-nosed, speaks
       broad and loud.' He was a big, masterful, bullying man, one of
       keen intellect as well; the hero of a hundred romantic
       stories. ... He studied finance at Amsterdam, then the great
       school of commerce, and offered his services and the 'system'
       which he had invented, first to Godolphin, when that nobleman
       was at the head of affairs in England, then to Victor Amadeus,
       duke of Savoy, then to Louis XIV., who, as the story goes,
       refused any credit to a heretic. He invented a new combination
       at cards, which became the despair of all the croupiers in
       Europe; so successful was this last invention, that he arrived
       for the second time at Versailles, in the early days of the
       regency, with upwards of £120,000 at his disposal, and a copy
       of his 'system' in his pocket. ... There was a dash of daring
       in the scheme which suited well with the regent's peculiar
       turn of mind; it was gambling on a gigantic scale. ...
       Besides, the scheme was plausible and to a certain point
       correct. The regent, with all his faults, was too clever a man
       not to recognize the genius which gleamed in Law's dark eyes.
       Law showed that the trade and commerce of every country was
       crippled by the want of a circulating medium; specie was not
       to be had in sufficient quantities; paper, backed by the
       credit of the state, was the grand secret. He adduced the
       examples of Great Britain, of Genoa, and of Amsterdam to prove
       the advantage of a paper currency; he proposed to institute a
       bank, to be called the 'Bank of France,' and to issue notes
       guaranteed by the government and secured on the crown lands,
       exchangeable at sight for specie, and receivable in payment of
       taxes; the bank was to be conducted in the king's name, and to
       be managed by commissioners appointed by the States-General.
       The scheme of Law was based on principles which are now
       admitted as economical axioms; the danger lay in the enormous
       extent to which it was intended to push the scheme. ... While
       the bank was in the hands of Law himself, it appears to have
       been managed with consummate skill; the notes bore some
       proportion to the amount of available specie; they contained a
       promise to pay in silver of the same standard and weight as
       that which existed at the time. A large dividend was declared;
       then the regent stepped in. The name of the bank was changed
       to that of the Royal Bank of France, the promise to pay in
       silver of a certain weight and standard was dropped, and a
       promise substituted to pay 'in silver coin.' This omission, on
       the part of a prince who had already resorted to the expedient
       of debasing the currency, was ominous, and did much to shake
       public confidence; the intelligence that in the first year of
       the new bank 1,000,000,000 of livres were fabricated, was not
       calculated to restore it. But these trifles were forgotten in
       the mad excitement which followed. Law had long been
       elaborating a scheme which is for ever associated with his
       name, and beside which the Bank of France sank into
       insignificance. In 1717, the year before the bank had been
       adopted by the regent, the billets d'état of 500 livres each
       were worth about 160 livres in the market. Law, with the
       assent of the regent, proposed to establish a company which
       should engross all the trade of the kingdom, and all the
       revenues of the crown, should carry on the business of
       merchants in every part of the world, and monopolize the
       farming of the taxes and the coining of money; the stock was
       to be divided into 200,000 shares of 500 livres each. The
       regent nearly marred the scheme at starting by inserting a
       proviso that the depreciated billets d'état were to be
       received at par in payment for the new stock, on which four
       per cent. was guaranteed by the State." Law's company was
       formed, under the name of the Company of the West, and
       obtained for the basis of its operations a monopoly of the
       trade of that vast territory of France in the valley of the
       Mississippi which bore the name of Louisiana. The same
       monopoly had been held for five years by one Crozat, who now
       resigned it because he found it unprofitable; but the fact
       received little attention.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

    {1248}

       "Louisiana was described as a paradise. ... Shareholders in
       the company were told that they would enjoy the monopoly of
       trade throughout French North America, and the produce of a
       country rich in every kind of mineral wealth. Billets d'état
       were restored to their nominal value; stock in the Mississippi
       scheme was sold at fabulous prices; ingots of gold, which were
       declared to have come from the mines of St. Barbe, were taken
       with great pomp to the mint; 6,000 of the poor of Paris were
       sent out as miners, and provided with tools to work in the new
       diggings. New issues of shares were made; first 50,000, then
       50,000 more; both at an enormous premium. The jobbers of the
       rue Quincampoix found ordinary language inadequate to express
       their delight: they invented a new slang for the occasion, and
       called the new shares 'les filles,' and, 'les petites filles,'
       respectively. Paris was divided between the 'Anti-system' party
       who opposed Law, and the Mississippians who supported him. The
       State borrowed from the company fifteen hundred millions;
       government paid its creditors in warrants on the company. To
       meet them, Law issued 100,000 new shares; which came out at a
       premium of 1,000 per cent. The Mississippians went mad with
       joy--they invented another new slang phrase; the 'cinq cents'
       eclipsed the filles and the petites filles in favour. The
       gates of Law's hotel had to be guarded by a detachment of
       archers; the cashiers were mobbed in their bureaux; applicants
       for shares sat in the ante-rooms; a select body slept for
       several nights on the stairs; gentlemen disguised themselves
       in Law's livery to obtain access to the great man. ... By this
       time the charter of the company of Senegal had been merged in
       the bank, which also became sole farmer of the tobacco duties;
       the East India Company had been abolished, and the exclusive
       privilege of trading to the East Indies, China, and the South
       Seas, together with all the possessions of Colbert's company
       were transferred to Law. The bank now assumed the style of the
       Company of the Indies. Before the year [1719] was out the
       regent had transferred to it the exclusive privilege of the
       mint, and the contract of all the great farms. Almost every
       branch of industry in France, its trade, its revenue, its
       police, were now in the hands of Law. Every fresh privilege
       was followed by a new issue of shares. ... The shares of 500
       franks were now worth 10,000. The rue Quincampoix became
       impassable, and an army of stockjobbers camped in tents in the
       Place Vendome. ... The excitement spread to England [where the
       South Sea Bubble was inflated by the madness of the hour].

          See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.

       ... Law's system and the South Sea scheme both went down
       together. Both were calculated to last so long, and so long
       only, as universal confidence existed; when it began to be
       whispered that those in the secret were realizing their
       profits and getting out of the impending ruin, the whole
       edifice came down with a crash. ... No sooner was it evident
       that the system was about to break down, than Law, the only
       man who could at least have mitigated the blow, was banished."

          Viscount Bury,
          Exodus of the Western Nations,
          volume 2, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Mackay,
          Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

          A. Thiers,
          The Mississippi Bubble.

          W. C. Taylor,
          Memoirs of the House of Orleans,
          volume 2, chapter 2.

          C. Gayarre,
          History of Louisiana, second series,
          lecture 1.

          Duke de Saint-Simon,
          Memoirs:
          abridged translation by St. John, volume 3, chapter 25,
          and volume 4, chapters 4, and 13-15.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1720.
       The fortifying of Louisbourg.

          See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.
       Character and reign of Louis XV.
       The King's mistresses and their courtiers
       who conducted the government.
       State and feeling of the nation.

       After the death of the Duke of Orleans, "a short period of
       about two years and a-half comprehends the administration of
       the Duke of Bourbon, or rather of his mistress, la Marquise de
       Prie. Fleury [Cardinal] then appears on the stage, and dies in
       1743. He was, therefore, minister of France for seventeen
       years. On his death, the king (Louis XV.) undertook to be his
       own prime minister; an unpromising experiment for a country at
       any time. In this instance the result was only that the king's
       mistress, Madame de Chateauroux, became the ruler of France,
       and soon after Madame de Pompadour, another mistress, whose
       reign was prolonged from 1745 to 1768. Different courtiers and
       prelates were seen to hold the first offices of the state
       during this apparent premiership of the monarch. The ladies
       seem to have chosen or tolerated Cardinal Tençin, Argençon,
       Orsy, Mauripaux, and Amelot, who, with the Dukes Noailles and
       Richelieu, succeeded to Fleury. Afterwards, we have Argençon
       and Machault, and then come the most celebrated of the
       ministers or favourites of Madame de Pompadour, the Abbé de
       Bemis and the Duc de Choiseul. The last is the most
       distinguished minister after Fleury. He continued in favour
       from 1758, not only to 1763, when Madame de Pompadour died,
       but for a few years after. He was at length disgraced by la
       Comtesse Dubarri, who had become the king's mistress soon
       after the death of Madame de Pompadour, and remained so,
       nearly to the death of the monarch himself, in 1774."

          W. Smyth,
          Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
          lecture 3.

       "The regency of the Duke of Orleans lasted only eight years,
       but it was not without a considerable effect upon the
       destinies of the country. It was a break in the political and
       the religious traditions of the reign of Louis XIV. The new
       activity imparted to business during this period was an event
       of equal importance. Nothing is more erroneous than to suppose
       that constantly increasing misery at last excited revolt
       against the government and the institutions of the old regime.
       The Revolution in France at the close of the eighteenth
       century was possible, not because the condition of the people
       had grown worse, but because it had become better. The
       material development of that country, during the fifty years
       that preceded the convocation of the States General, had no
       parallel in its past history. Neither the weight of taxation,
       nor the extravagance of the court, nor the bankruptcy of the
       government, checked an increase in wealth that made France in
       1789 seem like a different land from France in 1715. The lot
       of large classes was still miserable, the burden of taxation
       upon a large part of the population was still grievous, there
       were sections where Arthur Young could truly say that he found
       only poverty and privileges, but the country as a whole was
       more prosperous than Germany or Spain; it was far more
       prosperous than it had been under Louis XIV. ...
    {1249}
       Such an improvement in material conditions necessitated both
       social and political changes. ... But while social conditions
       had altered, political institutions remained unchanged. New
       wine had been poured in, but the old bottles were still used.
       Tailles and corvées were no more severe in the eighteenth than
       in the fifteenth century, but they were more odious. A feudal
       privilege, which had then been accepted as a part of the law
       of nature, was now regarded as contrary to nature. ... A
       demand for social equality, for the abolition of privileges
       and immunities by which any class profited at the expense of
       others, was fostered by economical changes. It received an
       additional impetus from the writings of theorists,
       philosophers, and political reformers. The influence of
       literature in France during the eighteenth century was
       important, yet it is possible to overestimate it. The seed of
       political and social change was shown by the writers of the
       period, but the soil was already prepared to receive it. ...
       The course of events, the conduct of their rulers, prepared
       the minds of the French people for political change, and
       accounted for the influence which literature acquired. The
       doctrines of philosophers found easy access to the hearts of a
       people with whom reverence for royalty and a tranquil
       acceptance of an established government had been succeeded by
       contempt for the king and hatred for the regime under which
       they lived. We can trace this change of sentiment during the
       reign of Louis XV. The popular affection which encircled his
       cradle accompanied him when he had grown to be a man. ... Few
       events are more noticeable in the history of the age than the
       extraordinary expressions of grief and affection that were
       excited by the illness of Louis XV. in 1744. ... A preacher
       hailed him as Louis the well beloved, and all the nation
       adopted the title. 'What have I done to be so loved?' the king
       himself asked. Certainly he had done nothing, but the
       explanation was correctly given. 'Louis XV. is dear to his
       people, without having done anything for them, because the
       French are, of all nations, most inclined to love their king.'
       This affection, the result of centuries of fidelity and zeal
       for monarchical institutions, and for the sovereigns by whom
       they were personified, was wholly destroyed by Louis's
       subsequent career. The vices to which he became addicted were
       those which arouse feelings not only of reprehension, but of
       loathing. They excited both aversion and contempt. The
       administration of the country was as despicable as the
       character of the sovereign. Under Louis XIV. there had been
       suffering and there had been disaster, but France had always
       preserved a commanding position in Europe. ... But now defeat
       and dishonor were the fate of a people alike powerful and
       proud. ... The low profligacy into which the king had sunk,
       the nullity of his character, the turpitude of his mistress,
       the weakness of his administration, the failure of all his
       plans, went far toward destroying the feelings of loyalty that
       had so long existed in the hearts of the French people. Some
       curious figures mark the decline in the estimation in which
       the king was held. In 1744, six thousand masses were said at
       Nôtre Dame for the restoration of Louis XV. to health; in
       1757, after the attempted assassination by Damiens, there were
       six hundred; when the king actually lay dying, in 1774, there
       were only three. The fall from six thousand to three measures
       the decline in the affection and respect of the French people
       for their sovereign. It was with a public whose sentiments had
       thus altered that the new philosophy found acceptance."

          J. B. Perkins,
          France under the Regency,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Rocquain,
          The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
          chapters 2-8.

          J. Murray,
          French Finance and Financiers under Louis XV.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1725.
       The alliance of Hanover.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1727-1731.
       Ineffectual congress at Soissons.
       The Treaty of Seville, with Spain and England.
       The Second Treaty of Vienna.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
       The First Family Compact of the Bourbons (France and Spain).

       "The two lines of the house of Bourbon [in France and in
       Spain] once more became in the highest degree prominent. ...
       As early as November 1733 a Family Compact (the first of the
       series) was concluded between them, in which they contemplated
       the possibility of a war against England, but without waiting
       for it entered into an agreement against the maritime
       supremacy of that power. ... The commercial privileges granted
       to the English in the Peace of Utrecht seemed to both courts
       to be intolerable."

          L. von Ranke,
          History of England,
          book 22, chapter 4 (volume 5).

       "It is hardly too much to say that the Family Compact of 1733,
       though even yet not generally known to exist, is the most
       important document of the middle period of the 18th century
       and the most indispensable to history. If that period seems to
       us confused, if we lose ourselves in the medley of its
       wars--war of the Polish election, war of Jenkins's ears, war
       of the Austrian succession, colonial war of 1756--the simple
       reason is that we do not know this treaty, which furnishes the
       clue. From it we may learn that in this period, as in that of
       Louis XIV. and in that of Napoleon, Europe struggled against
       the ambitious and deliberately laid design of an ascendant
       power, with this difference, that those aggressors were
       manifest to all the world and their aims not difficult to
       understand, whereas this aggression proceeded by ambuscade,
       and, being the aggression not of a single state but of an
       alliance, and a secret alliance, did not become clearly
       manifest to Europe even when it had to a considerable extent
       attained its objects. ... The first two articles define the
       nature of the alliance, that it involves a mutual guarantee of
       all possessions, and has for its object, first, the honour,
       glory, and interests of both powers, and, secondly, their
       defence against all damage, vexation, and prejudice that may
       threaten them." The first declared object of the Compact is to
       secure the position of Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain,
       afterwards Charles III., in Italy, and "to obtain for him the
       succession in Tuscany, protecting him against any attack that
       may be attempted by the Emperor or by England. Next, France
       undertakes to 'aid Spain with all her forces by land or sea,
       if Spain should suspend England's enjoyment of commerce and
       her other advantages, and England out of revenge should resort
       to hostilities and insults in the dominions and states of the
       crown of Spain, whether within or outside of Europe.'"
    {1250}
       Further articles provide for the making of efforts to induce
       Great Britain to restore Gibraltar to Spain; set forth "that
       the foreign policy of both states is to be guided exclusively
       by the interests of the house"; denounce the Austrian
       Pragmatic as "opposed to the security of the house of
       Bourbon." "The King of France engages to send 32,000 infantry
       and 8,000 cavalry into Italy, and to maintain other armies on
       his other frontiers; also to have a squadron ready at Toulon,
       either to join the Spanish fleet or to act separately, and
       another squadron at Brest, 'to keep the English in fear and
       jealousy'; also, in case of war with England breaking out, to
       commission the largest possible number of privateers. Spain
       also promises a fixed number of troops. The 11th and 12th
       articles lay the foundation of a close commercial alliance to
       be formed between France and Spain. Article 13 runs as
       follows:--'His Catholic majesty, recognising all the abuses
       which have been introduced into commerce, chiefly by the
       British nation, in the eradication of which the French and
       Spanish nations are equally interested, has determined to
       bring everything back within rule and into agreement with the
       letter of treaties'"--to which end the two kings make common
       cause. "Finally the 14th article provides that the present
       treaty shall remain profoundly secret as long as the
       contracting parties shall judge it agreeable to their
       interests, and shall be regarded from this day as an eternal
       and irrevocable Family Compact. ... Here is the explanation of
       the war which furnished the immediate occasion of the first
       Compact, a war most misleadingly named from the Polish
       election which afforded an ostensible pretext for it, and
       deserving better to be called the Bourbon invasion of Italy.
       Here too is sketched out the course which was afterwards taken
       by the Bourbon courts in the matter of the Pragmatic Sanction.
       Thirdly, here most manifestly is the explanation of that war
       of Jenkins's ears, which we have a habit of representing as
       forced upon Spain by English commercial cupidity, but which
       appears here as deliberately planned in concert by the Bourbon
       courts in order to eradicate the 'abuses which have been
       allowed to creep into trade.'"

          J. R. Seeley,
          The House of Bourbon
          (English History Review, January, 1886).

          ALSO IN:
          J. McCarthy,
          History of the Four Georges,
          chapter 22 (volume 2).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
       War with Austria, in Germany and Italy.
       Final acquisition of Lorraine.
       Naples and Sicily transferred to Spain.

       In the war with Austria which was brought about by the
       question of the Polish succession (see POLAND: A. D.
       1732-1733), the French "struck at the Rhine and at Italy,
       while the other powers looked on unmoved; Spain watching her
       moment, at which she might safely interfere for her own
       interests in Italy. The army of the Rhine, which reached
       Strasburg in autumn 1733, was commanded by Marshal Berwick,
       who had been called away from eight years of happy and
       charming leisure at Fitz-James. With him served for the first
       time in the French army their one great general of the coming
       age, and he too a foreigner, Maurice, son of Augustus II. of
       Poland and the lovely Countess of Königsmark. ... He is best
       known to us as Marshal Saxe. It was too late to accomplish
       much in 1733, and the French had to content themselves with
       the capture of Kehl: in the winter the Imperialists
       constructed strong lines at Ettlingen, a little place not far
       from Carlsruhe, between Kehl, which the French held, and
       Philipsburg, at which they were aiming. In the spring of 1734
       French preparations were slow and feeble: a new power had
       sprung up at Paris in the person of Belle-Isle, Fouquet's
       grandson, who had much of the persuasive ambition of his
       grandfather. He was full of schemes, and induced the aged
       Fleury to believe him to be the coming genius of French
       generalship; the careful views of Marshal Berwick suited ill
       his soaring spirit; he wanted to march headlong into Saxony
       and Bohemia. Berwick would not allow so reckless a scheme to
       be adopted; still Belle-Isle, as lieutenant-general with an
       almost independent command, was sent to besiege Trarbach on
       the Moselle, an operation which delayed the French advance on
       the Rhine. At last, however, Berwick moved forwards. By
       skilful arrangements he neutralised the Ettlingen lines, and
       without a battle forced the Germans to abandon them. Their
       army withdrew to Heilbronn, where it was joined by Prince
       Eugene. Berwick, freed from their immediate presence, and
       having a great preponderance in force, at once sat down before
       Philipsburg. There, on the 12th of June, as he visited the
       trenches, he was struck by a ball and fell dead. So passed
       away the last but one of the great generals of Louis XIV.:
       France never again saw his like till the genius of the
       Revolution evoked a new race of heroes. It was thought at
       first that Berwick's death, like Turenne's, would end the
       campaign, and that the French army must get back across the
       Rhine. The position seemed critical, Philipsburg in front, and
       Prince Eugene watching without. The Princes of the Empire,
       however, had not put out any strength in this war, regarding
       it chiefly as an Austrian affair; and the Marquis d'Asfeld,
       who took the command of the French forces, was able to hold
       on, and in July to reduce the great fortress of Philipsburg.
       Therewith the campaign of the Rhine closed. In Italy things
       had been carried on with more vigour and variety. The veteran
       Villars, now 81 years old, was in command, under
       Charles-Emmanuel, King of Sardinia. ... Villars found it quite
       easy to occupy all the Milanese: farther he could not go; for
       Charles-Emmanuel, after the manner of his family, at once
       began to deal behind his back with the Imperialists and the
       campaign dragged. The old Marshal, little brooking
       interference and delay, for he still was full of fire, threw
       up his command, and started for France: on the way he was
       seized with illness at Turin, and died there five days after
       Berwick had been killed at Philipsburg. With them the long
       series of the generals of Louis XIV. comes to an end. Coigny
       and the Duke de Broglie succeeded to the command. Not far from
       Parma they fought a murderous battle with the Austrians, hotly
       contested, and a Cadmean victory for the French: it arrested
       their forward movement, and two months were spent in enforced
       idleness. In September 1734 the Imperialists inflicted a heavy
       check on the French at the Secchia; afterwards however
       emboldened by this success, they fought a pitched battle at
       Guastalla, in which, after a fierce struggle, the French
       remained masters of the field. Their losses, the advanced time
       of the year, and the uncertainty as to the King of Sardinia's
       movements and intentions, rendered the rest of the campaign
       unimportant.
    {1251}
       As however the Imperialists, in order to make head against the
       French in the valley of the Po, had drawn all their available
       force out of the Neapolitan territory, the Spaniards were able
       to slip in behind them, and to secure that great prize. Don
       Carlos landed at Naples and was received with transports of
       joy: the Austrians were defeated at Bitonto; the Spaniards
       then crossed into Sicily, which also welcomed them gladly; the
       two kingdoms passed willingly under the rule of the Spaniards.
       In 1735 Austria made advances in the direction of peace; for
       the French had stirred up their old friend the Turk, who, in
       order to save Poland, proposed to invade Hungary. Fleury, no
       lover of war, and aware that England's neutrality could not
       last forever, was not unwilling to treat: a Congress at Vienna
       followed, and before the end of 1735 peace again reigned in
       Europe. The terms of the Treaty of Vienna (3 October 1735)
       were very favourable to France. Austria ceded Naples and
       Sicily, Elba, and the States degli Presidii to Spain, to be
       erected into a separate kingdom for Don Carlos: France
       obtained Lorraine and Bar, which were given to Stanislaus
       Leczinski on condition that he should renounce all claim to
       the Polish Crown; they were to be governed by him under French
       administration: Francis Stephen the former Duke obtained, as
       an indemnity, the reversion of Tuscany, which fell to him in
       the following year. Parma and Piacenza returned to the
       Emperor, who also obtained from France a guarantee of the
       Pragmatic Sanction. Thus France at last got firm hold of the
       much-desired Lorraine country, though it was not absolutely
       united to her till the death of Stanislaus in 1766."

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          book 6, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 52 (volume 6).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1738-1740.
       The Question of the Austrian Succession.
       Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1740-1741.
       Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
       Seizure of Silesia by Frederick the Great.
       French responsibility for the war.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741;
          and 1741 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-JUNE).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1741-1743.
       The War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743;
          and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741, to 1743.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (October).
       The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.

       "France and Spain signed a secret treaty of perpetual alliance
       at Fontainebleau, October 25th, 1743. The treaty is remarkable
       as the precursor of the celebrated Family Compact between the
       French and Spanish Bourbons. The Spaniards, indeed, call it
       the Second Family Compact, the first being the Treaty of
       November 7th, 1733, of which, with regard to colonial affairs,
       it was a renewal. But this treaty had a more special reference
       to Italy. Louis XV. engaged to declare war against Sardinia,
       and to aid Spain in conquering the Milanese. Philip V.
       transferred his claims to that duchy to his son, the Infant
       Don Philip, who was also to be put in possession of Parma and
       Piacenza. All the possessions ceded by France to the King of
       Sardinia, by the Treaty of Utrecht, were to be again wrested
       from him. A public alliance was to be formed, to which the
       Emperor Charles VII. was to accede; whose states, and even
       something more, were to be recovered for him. Under certain
       circumstances war was to be declared against England; in which
       case France was to assist in the recovery of Gibraltar, and
       also, if possible, of Minorca. The new colony of Georgia was
       to be destroyed, the Asiento withdrawn from England, &c."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1743-1752.
       Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1744-1745.
       The War of the Austrian Succession in America.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744, and 1745.

    A. D. 1741-1747.
       War of the Austrian Succession in Italy,
       Germany and the Netherlands.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1744, to 1746-1747;
          AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744;
          and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1748 (October).
       Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

          See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748;
          and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1748-1754.
       Active measures in America to fortify possession of the Ohio
       valley and the West.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1749-1755.
       Unsettled boundary disputes in America.
       Preludes of the last contest with England for dominion in the
       New World.

          See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
          CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
          OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1755.
       Causes and provocations of the Seven Years War.

          See GERMANY: A.D. 1755-1756;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1755.
       Naval reverse on the Newfoundland coast.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1755-1762.
       The Seven Years War: Campaigns in America.

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

    FRANCE: A. D. 1756 (May).
       The Seven Years War: Minorca wrested from England.

          See MINORCA: A. D. 1756.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1757-1762.
       The Seven Years War: Campaigns in Germany.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER),
          to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST); 1760; and 1761-1762.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1758-1761.
       The Seven Years War: Loss of footing and influence in India.
       Count Lally's failure.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1760.
       The Seven Years War: The surrender of Canada.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (August).
       The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.

       "On the 15th of August [1761] ... Grimaldi [Spanish ambassador
       at the French court] and Choiseul [the ruling minister, at the
       time, in France] signed the celebrated Family Compact. By this
       treaty the Kings of France and Spain agreed for the future to
       consider every Power as their enemy which might become the
       enemy of either, and to guarantee the respective dominions in
       all parts of the world which they might possess at the next
       conclusion of peace. Mutual succours by sea and land were
       stipulated, and no proposal of peace to their common enemies
       was to be made, nor negotiation entered upon, unless by common
       consent. The subjects of each residing in the European
       dominions of the other were to enjoy the same commercial
       privileges as the natives.
    {1252}
       Moreover, the King of Spain stipulated the accession of his
       son, the King of Naples, to this alliance; but it was agreed
       that no prince or potentate, except of the House of Bourbon,
       should ever be admitted to its participation. Besides this
       treaty, which in its words at least applied only to future and
       contingent wars, and which was intended to be ultimately
       published, there was also signed on the same day a special and
       secret convention. This imported, that in case England and
       France should still be engaged in hostilities on the 1st of
       May 1762 Spain should on that day declare war against England,
       and that France should at the same period restore Minorca to
       Spain. ... Not only the terms but the existence of a Family
       Compact were for some time kept scrupulously secret. Mr.
       Stanley, however, gleaned some information from the scattered
       hints of the Duke de Choiseul, and these were confirmed to
       Pitt from several other quarters." As the result of the Family
       Compact, England declared war against Spain on the 4th of
       January, 1762. Pitt had gone out of office in October because
       his colleagues and the King would not then consent to a
       declaration of war against the Spanish Bourbons.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.

       The force of circumstances soon brought them to the measure.

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 37 (volume 4).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1761-1764.
       Proceedings against the Jesuits.
       Their expulsion from the kingdom.

          See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
       The end and results of the Seven Years War.
       The Peace of Paris.
       America lost, nothing gained.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1763.
       Rights in the North American fisheries secured by the Treaty
       of Paris.

          See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1763.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1768.
       Acquisition of Corsica.

          See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.
       The Court and Government of Louis XV!., his inheritance of
       troubles, his vacillations, his helpless ministers.
       Turgot, Necker, Calonne, Brienne.
       Blind selfishness of the privileged orders.
       The Assembly of Notables.
       The Parliament of Paris.

       "Louis XVI., an equitable prince, moderate in his
       propensities, carelessly educated, but naturally of a good
       disposition, ascended the throne [May 11, 1774] at a very
       early age. He called to his side an old courtier, and
       consigned to him the care of his kingdom; and divided his
       confidence between Maurepas and the Queen, an Austrian
       princess [Marie Antoinette], young, lively, and amiable, who
       possessed a complete ascendency over him. Maurepas and the
       Queen were not good friends. The King, sometimes giving way to
       his minister, at others to his consort, began at an early
       period the long career of his vacillations. ... The public
       voice, which was loudly expressed, called for Turgot, one of
       the class of economists, an honest, virtuous man, endowed with
       firmness of character, a slow genius, but obstinate and
       profound. Convinced of his probity, delighted with his plans
       of reform, Louis XVI. frequently repeated: 'There are none
       besides myself and Turgot who are friends of the people.'
       Turgot's reforms were thwarted by the opposition of the
       highest orders in the state, who were interested in
       maintaining all kinds of abuses, which the austere minister
       proposed to suppress. Louis XVI. dismissed him [1776] with
       regret. During his whole life, which was only a long
       martyrdom, he had the mortification to discern what was right,
       to wish it sincerely, but to lack the energy requisite for
       carrying it into execution. The King, placed between the
       court, the parliaments, and the people, exposed to intrigues
       and to suggestions of all sorts, repeatedly changed his
       ministers. Yielding once more to the public voice, and to the
       necessity for reform, he summoned to the finance department
       Necker, a native of Geneva, who had amassed wealth as a
       banker, a partisan and disciple of Colbert, as Turgot was of
       Sully; an economical and upright financier, but a vain man,
       fond of setting himself up for arbitrator in everything. ...
       Necker re-established order in the finances, and found means
       to defray the heavy expenses of the American war. ... But it
       required something more than financial artifices to put an end
       to the embarrassments of the exchequer, and he had recourse to
       reform. He found the higher orders not less adverse to him
       than they had been to Turgot; the parliaments, apprised of his
       plans, combined against him, and obliged him to retire [1781].
       The conviction of the existence of abuses was universal;
       everybody admitted it. ... The courtiers, who derived
       advantage from these abuses, would have been glad to see an
       end put to the embarrassments of the exchequer, but without
       its costing them a single sacrifice. ... The parliaments also
       talked of the interests of the people, loudly insisted on the
       sufferings of the poor, and yet opposed the equalization of
       the taxes, as well as the abolition of the remains of feudal
       barbarism. All talked of the public weal, few desired it; and
       the people, not yet knowing who were its true friends,
       applauded all those who resisted power, its most obvious
       enemy. By the removal of Turgot and Necker, the state of
       affairs was not changed: the distress of the treasury remained
       the same. ... An intrigue brought forward M. de Calonne [in
       1783, after brief careers in office of M. de Fleury and M.
       d'Ormesson]. ... Calonne, clever, brilliant, fertile in
       resources, relied upon his genius, upon fortune, and upon men,
       and awaited the future with the most extraordinary apathy. ...
       That future which had been counted upon now approached: it
       became necessary at length to adopt decisive measures. It was
       impossible to burden the people with fresh imposts, and yet
       the coffers were empty. There was but one remedy which could
       be applied; that was to reduce the expenses by the suppression
       of grants; and if this expedient should not suffice, to extend
       the taxes to a greater number of contributors, that is, to the
       nobility and clergy. These plans, attempted successively by
       Turgot and Necker, and resumed by Calonne, appeared to the
       latter not at all likely to succeed, unless the consent of the
       privileged classes themselves could be obtained. Calonne,
       therefore, proposed to collect them together in an assembly,
       to be called the Assembly of the Notables, in order to lay his
       plans before them, and to gain their consent either by address or
       by conviction. The assembly [which met February 22, 1787] was
       composed of distinguished members of the nobility, clergy, and
       magistracy, of a great number of masters of requests and some
       magistrates of the provinces. ... Very warm discussions
       ensued." The Notables at length "promised to sanction the
       plans of Calonne, but on condition that a minister more moral
       and more deserving of confidence should be appointed to carry
       them into execution."
    {1253}
       Calonne, consequently, was dismissed, and replaced by M. de
       Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse. "The Notables, bound by the
       promises which they had made, readily consented to all that
       they had at first refused: land-tax, stamp-duty, suppression
       of the gratuitous services of vassals ('corvées'), provincial
       assemblies, were all cheerfully granted. ... Had M. de Brienne
       known how to profit by the advantages of his position; had he
       actively proceeded with the execution of the measures assented
       to by the Notables; had he submitted them all at once and
       without delay to the parliament, at the instant when the
       adhesion of the higher orders seemed to be wrung from
       them--all would probably have been over; the parliament,
       pressed on all sides, would have consented to everything. ...
       Nothing of the kind, however, was done. By imprudent delays
       occasion was furnished for relapses; the edicts were submitted
       only one after another; the parliament had time to discuss, to
       gain courage, and to recover from the sort of surprise by
       which the Notables had been taken. It registered, after long
       discussions, the edict enacting the second abolition of the
       'corvées,' and another permitting the free exportation of
       corn. Its animosity was particularly directed against the
       land-tax; but it feared lest by a refusal it should enlighten
       the public, and show that its opposition was entirely selfish.
       It hesitated, when it was spared this embarrassment by the
       simultaneous presentation of the edict on the stamp-duty and
       the land-tax, and especially by opening the deliberations with
       the former. The parliament had thus an opportunity of refusing
       the first without entering into explanations respecting the
       second; and, in attacking the stamp-duty, which affected the
       majority of the payers of taxes, it seemed to defend the
       interest of the public. At a sitting which was attended by the
       peers, it denounced the abuses, the profligacy, and the
       prodigality of the court, and demanded statements of
       expenditure. A councillor, punning upon the 'états'
       (statements) exclaimed ... --'It is not statements, but
       States-General that we want.' ... The utterance of a single
       word presented an unexpected direction to the public mind: it
       was repeated by every mouth, and States-General were loudly
       demanded."

          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 1, pages 17-21.

       "There is no doubt that the French administrative body, at the
       time when Louis XVI. began to reign, was corrupt and
       self-seeking. In the management of the finances and of the
       army, illegitimate profits were made. But this was not the
       worst evil from which the public service was suffering. France
       was in fact governed by what in modern times is called 'a
       ring.' The members of such an organization pretend to serve
       the sovereign, or the public, and in some measure actually do
       so; but their rewards are determined by intrigue and favor,
       and are entirely disproportionate to their services. They
       generally prefer jobbery to direct stealing, and will spend a
       million of the state's money in a needless undertaking, in
       order to divert a few thousands into their own pockets. They
       hold together against all the world, while trying to
       circumvent each other. Such a ring in old France was the
       court. By such a ring will every country be governed, where
       the sovereign who possesses the political power is weak in
       moral character or careless of the public interest; whether
       that sovereign be a monarch, a chamber, or the mass of the
       people. Louis XVI., king of France and of Navarre, was more
       dull than stupid, and weaker in will than in intellect. ... He
       was ... thoroughly conscientious, and had a high sense of the
       responsibility of his great calling. He was not indolent,
       although heavy, and his courage, which was sorely tested, was
       never broken. With these virtues he might have made a good
       king, had he possessed firmness of will enough to support a
       good minister, or to adhere to a good policy. But such
       strength had not been given him. Totally incapable of standing
       by himself, he leant successively, or simultaneously, on his
       aunt, his wife, his ministers, his courtiers, as ready to
       change his policy as his adviser. Yet it was part of his
       weakness to be unwilling to believe himself under the guidance
       of any particular person; he set a high value on his own
       authority, and was inordinately jealous of it. No one,
       therefore, could acquire a permanent influence. Thus a
       well-meaning man became the worst of sovereigns. ... Louis XV.
       had been led by his mistresses; Louis XVI. was turned about by
       the last person who happened to speak to him. The courtiers,
       in their turn, were swayed by their feelings, or their
       interests. They formed parties and combinations, and intrigued
       for or against each other. They made bargains, they gave and
       took bribes. In all these intrigues, bribes, and bargains, the
       court ladies had a great share. They were as corrupt as the
       men, and as frivolous. It is probable that in no government
       did women ever exercise so great an influence. The factions
       into which the court was divided tended to group themselves
       round certain rich and influential families. Such were the
       Noailles, an ambitious and powerful house, with which
       Lafayette was connected by marriage; the Broglies, one of whom
       had held the thread of the secret diplomacy which Louis XV.
       had carried on behind the backs of his acknowledged ministers;
       the Polignacs, new people, creatures of Queen Marie
       Antoinette; the Rohans, through the influence of whose great
       name an unworthy member of the family was to rise to high
       dignity in the church and the state, and then to cast a deep
       shadow on the darkening popularity of that ill-starred
       princess. Such families as these formed an upper class among
       nobles. ... It is not easy, in looking at the French
       government in the eighteenth century, to decide where the
       working administration ended, and where the useless court that
       answered no real purpose began. ... There was the department of
       hunting and that of buildings, a separate one for royal
       journeys, one for the guard, another for police, yet another
       for ceremonies. There were five hundred officers 'of the
       mouth,' table-bearers distinct from chair-bearers. There were
       tradesmen, from apothecaries and armorers at one end of the
       list to saddle-makers, tailors and violinists at the other. ...
       The military and civil households of the king and of the
       royal family are said to have consisted of about fifteen
       thousand souls, and to have cost forty-five million francs per
       annum. The holders of many of the places served but three
       months apiece out of every year, so that four officers and
       four salaries were required, instead of one. With such a
       system as this we cannot wonder that the men who administered
       the French government were generally incapable and
       self-seeking. Most of them were politicians rather than
       administrators, and cared more for their places than for their
       country. Of the few conscientious and patriotic men who
       obtained power, the greater number lost it very speedily."

          E. J. Lowell,
          The Eve of the French Revolution,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Rocquain,
          The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
          chapters 9-11.

          Mme. de Stael,
          Considerations on the Principal Events
          of the French Revolution,
          chapters 3-10 (volume 1).

          J. Necker,
          On the French Revolution,
          part. 1, section 1 (volume 1).

          Condorcet,
          Life of Turgot,
          chapters 5-6.

          L. Say,
          Turgot,
          chapters 5-7.

          C. D. Yonge,
          Life of Marie Antoinette,
          chapters 8-21.

    {1254}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1778 (February).
       Treaty with the United States of America.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778,
          and 1778 (FEBRUARY).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1780 (July).
       Fresh aid to the United States of America.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (July).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1782.
       Disastrous naval defeat by Rodney.
       Unsuccessful siege of Gibraltar.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1782.
       The negotiation of Peace between Great Britain and the United
       States of America.
       Dissatisfaction of the French minister.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER),
          and (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.
       The affair of the Diamond Necklace.

       The chief actor in the affair of the diamond necklace, which
       caused a great scandal and smirched the queen's name, was an
       adventuress who called herself the Comtesse de Lamotte, and
       claimed descent from Henry II., but who had been half servant,
       half companion, to a lady of quality, and had picked up a
       useful acquaintance with the manners and the gossip of court
       society. "Madame de Lamotte's original patroness had a
       visiting acquaintance with the Cardinal Prince Louis de Rohan,
       and in her company her protégée learned to know him also.
       Prince Louis, who had helped to receive Marie Antoinette at
       Strasburg, had been the French ambassador at Vienna, where he
       had disgusted and incensed Maria Theresa by his worldliness,
       profligacy, and arrogance. She had at last procured his
       withdrawal, and her letters expressing a positive terror lest
       he should come near Marie Antoinette and acquire an influence
       over her, were not without their effect. He was not allowed to
       appear at Court, and for ten long years fretted and fumed
       under a sense of the royal displeasure. ... He was now a man
       bordering on fifty, grey-headed, rosy, 'pursy,' with nothing
       save his blue blood and the great offices which he disgraced
       to recommend him. Madame de Lamotte, hovering about Paris and
       Versailles, where she had lodgings in La Belle Inage, tried to
       make her own of backstairs gossip, and picked up a hint or
       two. Suddenly a great idea struck her, founded on the history
       of a magnificent necklace dangled before bright eyes, over
       which many an excitable imagination gloated. The Queen had a
       court jeweller, Bœhmer, who had formerly been jeweller to the
       King of Saxony at Dresden. ... For a period of years he had
       been collecting and assorting the stones which should form an
       incomparable necklace, in row upon row, pendants and tassels
       of lustrous diamonds, till the price reached the royal pitch
       of from eighty to ninety thousand pounds English money. This
       costly 'collar,' according to rumour, was ... meant, in the
       beginning, for the Comtesse du Barry. In the end, it ... was
       offered with confidence to the Queen. ... She declined to
       buy--she had enough diamonds. ... There was nothing for it but
       that Bœhmer should 'hawk' his necklace in every Court of
       Europe, without success, till the German declared himself
       ruined, and passionately protested that, if the Queen would
       not buy the diamonds, there was no resource for him save to
       throw himself into the Seine. But there was a resource,
       unhappily for Bœhmer, unhappily for all concerned, most so for
       the poor Queen. Madame de Lamotte, in keeping up her
       acquaintance with Prince Louis de Rohan, began to hint darkly
       that there might be ways of winning the royal favour. She
       threw out cunning words about the degree of importance and
       trust to which she had attained in the highest quarters at
       Versailles; about the emptiness of the Queen's exchequer, with
       consequent difficulties in the discharge of her charities;
       about the secret royal desire for the famous necklace, which
       the King would not enable Marie Antoinette to obtain. The
       blinded and besotted Cardinal drank in these insinuations. The
       black art was called in to deepen his convictions. In an age
       when many men, especially many churchmen, believed in nothing,
       in spite of their professions, naturally they were given over
       to believe a lie. Cagliostro, astrologer and modern magician,
       was flourishing in Paris, and by circles and signs he promised
       the priest, De Rohan, progress in the only suit he had at
       heart. Still the dupe was not so infatuated as to require no
       proof of the validity of these momentous implications, and
       proof was not wanting; notes were handed to him, to be
       afterwards shown to Bœhmer, graciously acknowledging his
       devotion, and authorising him to buy for the Queen the diamond
       necklace. These notes were apparently written in the Queen's
       hand (that school-girl's scrawl of which Maria Theresa was
       wont to complain); but they were signed 'Marie Antoinette de
       France,' a signature which so great a man as the Cardinal
       ought to have known was never employed by the Queen, for the
       very good reason that the termination 'de France' belonged to
       the children and not to the wife of the sovereign. Even a
       further assurance that all was right was granted. The
       Cardinal, trembling in a fever of hope and expectation, was
       told that a private interview with the Queen would be
       vouchsafed to him at midnight in the Park of Versailles. At
       the appointed hour, on the night of the 28th of July, 1784, De
       Rohan, in a blue greatcoat and slouched hat, was stationed,
       amidst shrouding, sultry darkness, in the neighbourhood of the
       palace. Madame de Lamotte, in a black domino, hovered near to
       give the signal of the Queen's approach. The whisper was
       given, 'In the Hornbeam Arbour,' and the Cardinal hurried to
       the spot, where he could dimly descry a tall lady in white,
       with chestnut hair, blue eyes, and a commanding air, if he
       could really have seen all these well-known attributes. He
       knelt, but before he could do more than mutter a word of
       homage and gratitude, the black domino was at his side again
       with another vehement whisper, 'On vient' (They come).
    {1255}
       The lady in white dropped a rose, with the significant words,
       'Vous savez ce que cela veut dire' (You know what that means),
       and vanished before the 'Vite, vite' ('Quick, quick ') of the
       black domino, for the sound of approaching footsteps was
       supposed to indicate the approach of Madame and the Comtesse
       d'Artois, and the Cardinal, in his turn, had to flee from
       detection. What more could be required to convince a man of
       the good faith of the lady. ... Bœhmer received a hint that he
       might sell his necklace, through the Prince Cardinal Louis de
       Rohan, to one of the great ones of the earth, who was to
       remain in obscurity. The jeweller drew out his terms--sixteen
       hundred thousand livres, to be paid in five equal instalments
       over a year and a-half--to which he and Prince Louis affixed
       their signatures. This paper Madame de Lamotte carried to
       Versailles, and brought it back with the words written on the
       margin, 'Bon Marie Antoinette de France.' In the meantime,
       Bœhmer, the better to keep the secret, gave out that he had
       sold the necklace to the Grand Turk for his favourite Sultana.
       The necklace was, in fact, delivered to Prince Louis and by
       him entrusted to Madame Lamotte, from whose hands it passed
       --not into the Queen's. Having been taken to pieces, it was
       sent in all haste out of the kingdom, while the Cardinal,
       according to his own account, was still played with. ... It
       goes without saying that no payment, except a small offer of
       interest on the thirty thousand, was forthcoming. The Cardinal
       and Bœhmer were betrayed into wrath, dismay, and despair.
       Bœhmer took it upon him to apply, in respectful terms, to her
       Majesty for payment; and when she said the whole thing was a
       mistake, the man must be mad, and caused her words to be
       written to him, he sought an interview with Madame Campan, the
       first woman of the bedchamber, at her house at Crespy, where
       he had been dining, and in the gardens there, in the middle of
       a thunder-shower, astounded her with his version of the story.
       ... The Cardinal was taken to the Bastille. More arrests
       followed, including those of Madame de Lamotte, staying
       quietly in her house at Bar-sur-Aube, and the girl Gay
       d'Oliva, an unhappy girl, tall and fair haired, taken from the
       streets of Paris, and brought to the park of Versailles to
       personate the Queen. It was said the Queen wept passionately
       over the scandal--well she might. The court in which the case
       was tried might prove the forgery, as in fact it did, though
       not in the way she expected; but every Court in Europe would
       ring with the story, and she had made deadly enemies, if not
       of the Church itself, of the great houses of De Rohan, De
       Soubise, De Guéménée, De Marsan, and their multitude of
       allies. The process lasted nine months, and every exertion was
       made for the deliverance of the princely culprit. ... The
       result of the trial was that, though the Queen's signature was
       declared false, Madame de Lamotte was sentenced to be whipped,
       branded, and imprisoned for life, her husband was condemned to
       the galleys, and a man called Villette de Retaux, who was the
       actual fabricator of the Queen's handwriting, was sentenced to
       be banished for life. The Cardinal Prince Louis de Rohan was
       fully acquitted, with permission to publish what defence he
       chose to write of his conduct. When he left the court, he was
       escorted by great crowds, hurrahing over his acquittal,
       because it was supposed to cover the Court with
       mortification."

          Sarah Tytler,
          Marie Antoinette,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carlyle,
          The Diamond Necklace
          (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 5).

          H. Vizetelly,
          The Story of the Diamond Necklace.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.
       Struggle of the Crown with the Parliament of Paris.
       The demand for a meeting of the States-General yielded to.
       Double representation of the Third Estate conceded.
       The make-up of the States-General as elected by the three
       Estates.

       Banished to Troyes (August, 1787), in consequence of its
       refusal to register two edicts relating to the stamp-duty and
       the land-tax, the Parliament of Paris "grew weary of exile,
       and the minister recalled it on condition that the two edicts
       should be passed. But this was only a suspension of
       hostilities; the necessities of the crown soon rendered the
       struggle more obstinate and violent. The minister had to make
       fresh applications for money; his existence depended on the
       issue of several successive loans to the amount of
       440,000,000. It was necessary to obtain the enrolment of them.
       Brienne, expecting opposition from the parliament, procured
       the enrolment of this edict, by a 'bed of justice,' and to
       conciliate the magistracy and public opinion, the protestants
       were restored to their rights in the same sitting, and Louis
       XVI. promised an annual publication of the state of finances,
       and the convocation of the states-general before the end of
       five years. But these concessions were no longer sufficient:
       parliament refused the enrolment, and rose against the
       ministerial tyranny. Some of its members, among others the
       duke of Orleans, were banished. Parliament protested by a
       decree against 'lettres de cachet,' and required the recall of
       its members. This decree was annulled by the king, and
       confirmed by parliament. The warfare increased. The magistracy
       of Paris was supported by all the magistracy of France, and
       encouraged by public opinion. It proclaimed the rights of the
       nation, and its own incompetence in matters of taxation; and,
       become liberal from interest, and rendered generous by
       oppression, it exclaimed against arbitrary imprisonment, and
       demanded regularly convoked states-general. After this act of
       courage, it decreed the irremovability of its members, and the
       incompetence of any who might usurp their functions. This bold
       manifesto was followed by the arrest of two members,
       d'Eprémenil and Goislard, by the reform of the body, and the
       establishment of a plenary court. Brienne understood that the
       opposition of the parliament was systematic, that it would be
       renewed on every fresh demand for subsidies, or on the
       authorization of every loan. Exile was but a momentary remedy,
       which suspended opposition, without destroying it. He then
       projected the reduction of this body to judicial functions.
       ... All the magistracy of France was exiled on the same day,
       in order that the new judicial organization might take place.
       The keeper of the seals deprived the Parliament of Paris of
       its political attributes, to invest with them a plenary court,
       ministerially composed, and reduced its judicial competence in
       favour of bailiwicks, the jurisdiction of which he extended.
       Public opinion was indignant; the Châtelet protested, the
       provinces rose, and the plenary court could neither be formed
       nor act. Disturbances broke out in Dauphiné, Brittany,
       Provence, Flanders, Languédoc, and Béarn; the ministry,
       instead of the regular opposition of parliament, had to
       encounter one much more animated and factious.
    {1256}
       The nobility, the third estate, the provincial states, and
       even the clergy, took part in it. Brienne, pressed for money,
       had called together an extraordinary assembly of the clergy,
       who immediately made an address to the king, demanding the
       abolition of his plenary court, and the recall of the
       states-general: they alone could thenceforth repair the
       disordered state of the finances, secure the national debt,
       and terminate these disputes for power. ... Obtaining neither
       taxes nor loans, unable to make use of the plenary court, and
       not wishing to recall the parliaments, Brienne, as a last
       resource, promised the convocation of the states-general. By
       this means he hastened his ruin. ... He succumbed on the 25th
       August, 1788. The cause of his fall was a suspension of the
       payment of the interest on the debt, which was the
       commencement of bankruptcy. This minister has been the most
       blamed because he came last. Inheriting the faults, the
       embarrassments of past times, he had to struggle with the
       difficulties of his position with inefficient means. He tried
       intrigue and oppression; he banished, suspended, disorganized
       parliament; everything was an obstacle to him, nothing aided
       him. After a long struggle, he sank under lassitude and
       weakness; I dare not say from incapacity, for had he been far
       stronger and more skilful, had he been a Richelieu or a Sully,
       he would still have fallen. It no longer appertained to anyone
       arbitrarily to raise money or to oppress the people. ... The
       states-general had become the only means of government, and
       the last resource of the throne. They had been eagerly
       demanded by parliament and the peers of the kingdom, on the
       13th of July, 1787; by the states of Dauphiné, in the assembly
       of Vizille; by the clergy in its assembly at Paris. The
       provincial states had prepared the public mind for them; and
       the notables were their precursors. The king after having, on
       the 18th of December, 1787, promised their convocation in five
       years, on the 8th of August, 1788, fixed the opening for the
       1st of May, 1789. Necker was recalled, parliament
       re-established, the plenary court abolished, the bailiwicks
       destroyed, and the provinces satisfied; and the new minister
       prepared everything for the election of deputies and the
       holding of the states. At this epoch a great change took place
       in the opposition, which till then had been unanimous. Under
       Brienne, the ministry had encountered opposition from all the
       various bodies of the state, because it had sought to oppress
       them. Under Necker, it met with resistance from the same
       bodies, which desired power for themselves and oppression for
       the people. From being despotic, it had become national, and
       it still had them all equally against it. Parliament had
       maintained a struggle for authority, and not for the public
       welfare; and the nobility had united with the third estate,
       rather against the government than in favour of the people.
       Each of these bodies had demanded the states-general: the
       parliament, in the hope of ruling them as it had done in 1614;
       and the nobility, in the hope of regaining its lost influence.
       Accordingly, the magistracy proposed as a model for the
       states-general of 1789, the form of that of 1614, and public
       opinion abandoned it; the nobility refused its consent to the
       double representation of the third estate, and a division
       broke out between these two orders. This double representation
       was required by the intellect of the age, the necessity of
       reform, and by the importance which the third estate had
       acquired. It had already been admitted into the the provincial
       assemblies. ... Opinion became daily more decided, and Necker
       wishing, yet fearing, to satisfy it, and desirous of
       conciliating all orders, of obtaining general approbation,
       convoked a second assembly of notables on the 6th of November,
       1788, to deliberate on the composition of the states-general,
       and the election of its members. ... Necker, having been
       unable to make the notables adopt the [double] representation
       of the third estate, caused it to be adopted by the council.
       The royal declaration of the 27th of November decreed, that
       the deputies in the states-general should amount to at least a
       thousand, and that the deputies of the third estate should be
       equal in number to the deputies of the nobility and clergy
       together. Necker moreover obtained the admission of the curés
       into the order of the clergy, and of protestants into that of
       the third estate. The district assemblies were convoked for
       the elections; every one exerted himself to secure the
       nomination of members of his own party, and to draw up
       manifestoes setting forth his views. Parliament had but little
       influence in the elections, and the court none at all. The
       nobility selected a few popular deputies, but for the most
       part devoted to the interests of their order, and as much
       opposed to the third estate as to the oligarchy of the great
       families of the court. The clergy nominated bishops and abbés
       attached to privilege, and cures favourable to the popular
       cause, which was their own; lastly, the third estate selected
       men enlightened, firm and unanimous in their wishes. The
       deputation of the nobility was comprised of 242 gentlemen, and
       28 members of the parliament; that of the clergy, of 48
       archbishops or bishops, 35 abbés or deans, and 208 curés; and
       that of the communes, of two ecclesiastics, 12 noblemen, 18
       magistrates of towns, 200 county members, 212 barristers, 16
       physicians, and 216 merchants and agriculturists. The opening
       of the states-general was fixed for the 5th of May, 1789."

          F. A. Mignet,
          History of the French Revolution,
          introd.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Smyth,
          Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
          lecture 6 (volume 1).

          J. Necker,
          On the French Revolution,
          part 1, section 1.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1789.
       The condition of the people on the eve of the great
       Revolution.
       The sources and causes of its destructive fury.

       "In 1789 three classes of persons, the Clergy, the Nobles, and
       the King occupied the most prominent position in the State,
       with all the advantages which it comports; namely, authority,
       property, honors, or, at the very least, privileges,
       immunities, favors, pensions, preferences, and the like. ...
       The privileged classes number about 270,000 persons,
       comprising of the nobility 140,000 and of the clergy 130,000.
       This makes from 25,000 to 30,000 noble families; 23,000 monks
       in 2,500 monasteries, and 37,000 nuns in 1,500 convents, and
       60,000 curates and vicars in as many churches and chapels.
       Should the reader desire a more distinct impression of them,
       he may imagine on each square league of territory, and to each
       thousand of inhabitants, one noble family in its weathercock
       mansion, in each village a curate and his church, and, every
       six or seven leagues, a conventual body of men or of women. ...
    {1257}
       A fifth of the soil belongs to the crown and the communes, a
       fifth to the third estate, a fifth to the rural population, a
       fifth to the nobles and a fifth to the clergy. Accordingly, if
       we deduct the public lands, the privileged classes own one
       half of the kingdom. This large portion, moreover, is at the
       same time the richest, for it comprises almost all the large
       and handsome buildings, the palaces, castles, convents, and
       cathedrals, and almost all the valuable movable property. ...
       Such is the total or partial exemption from taxation. The
       tax-collectors halt in their presence, because the king well
       knows that feudal property has the same origin as his own; if
       royalty is one privilege seigniory is another; the king
       himself is simply the most privileged among the privileged.
       ... After the assaults of 450 years, taxation, the, first of
       fiscal instrumentalities, the most burdensome of all, leaves
       feudal property almost intact. ... The privileged person
       avoids or repels taxation, not merely because it despoils him,
       but because it belittles him; it is a mark of plebeian
       condition, that is to say, of former servitude, and he resists
       the fisc as much through pride as through interest. ... La
       Bruyère wrote, just a century before 1789, 'Certain
       savage-looking beings, male and female, are seen in the
       country, black, livid and sunburnt, and belonging to the soil
       which they dig and grub with invincible stubbornness. They
       seem capable of articulation, and, when they stand erect they
       display human lineaments. They are, in fact, men. They retire
       at night into their dens, where they live on black bread,
       water and roots. They spare other human beings the trouble of
       sowing, ploughing and harvesting, and thus should not be in
       want of the bread they have planted.' They continue in want of
       it during 25 years after this, and die in herds. I estimate
       that in 1715 more than one-third of the population, six
       millions, perish with hunger and of destitution. The picture,
       accordingly, for the first quarter of the century preceding
       the Revolution, far from being overdrawn, is the reverse; we
       shall see that, during more than half a century, up to the
       death of Louis XV., it is exact; perhaps, instead of weakening
       any of its points, they should be strengthened. . . .
       Undoubtedly the government under Louis XVI. is milder; the
       intendants are more humane, the administration is less rigid,
       the 'taille' becomes less unequal, and the 'corvée' is less
       onerous through its transformation, in short, misery has
       diminished, and yet this is greater than human nature can
       bear. Examine administrative correspondence for the last
       thirty years preceding the Revolution. Countless statements
       reveal excessive suffering, even when not terminating in fury.
       Life to a man of the lower class, to an artisan, or workman,
       subsisting on the labor of his own hands, is evidently
       precarious; he obtains simply enough to keep him from
       starvation and he does not always get that. Here, in four
       districts, 'the inhabitants live only on buckwheat,' and for
       five years, the apple crop having failed, they drink only
       water. There, in a country of vineyards, 'the vine-dressers
       each year are reduced, for the most part, to begging their
       bread during the dull season.' ... In a remote canton the
       peasants cut the grain still green and dry it in the oven,
       because they are too hungry to wait. ... Between 1750 and
       1760, the idlers who eat suppers begin to regard with
       compassion and alarm the laborers who go without dinners. Why
       are the latter so impoverished, and by what chance, on a soil
       as rich as that of France, do those lack bread who grow the
       grain? In the first place, many farms remain uncultivated,
       and, what is worse, many are deserted. According to the best
       observers 'one-quarter of the soil is absolutely lying waste.
       ... Hundreds and hundreds of arpents of heath and moor form
       extensive deserts.' ... This is not sterility but decadence.
       The régime invented by Louis XIV. has produced its effect; the
       soil for a century past is reverting back to a wild state. ... In
       the second place, cultivation, when it does take place, is
       carried on according to mediæval modes. Arthur Young, in 1789,
       considers that French agriculture has not progressed beyond
       that of the 10th century. Except in Flanders and on the plains
       of Alsace, the fields lie fallow one year out of three and
       oftentimes one year out of two. The implements are poor; there
       are no ploughs made of iron; in many places the plough of
       Virgil's time is still in use. ... Arthur Young shows that in
       France those who lived on field labor, and they constituted
       the great majority, are 76 per cent. less comfortable than the
       same laborers in England, while they are 76 per cent. less
       well fed and well clothed, besides being worse treated in
       sickness and in health. The result is that, in seven-eighths
       of the kingdom, there are no farmers but simply métayers.
       ['The poor people,' says Arthur Young, 'who cultivate the soil
       here are métayers, that is, men who hire the land without ability
       to stock it; the proprietor is forced to provide cattle and
       seed, and he and his tenants divide the product.'] ... Misery
       begets bitterness in a man; but ownership coupled with misery
       renders him still more bitter"; and, strange as it appears,
       the acquisition of land by the French peasants, in small
       holdings, went on steadily during the 18th century, despite
       the want and suffering which were so universal. "The fact is
       almost incredible, but it is nevertheless true. We can only
       explain it by the character of the French peasant, by his
       sobriety, his tenacity, his rigor with himself, his
       dissimulation, his hereditary passion for property and
       especially for that of the soil. He had lived on privations
       and economized sou after sou. ... Towards 1760, one-quarter of
       the soil is said to have already passed into the hands of
       agriculturists. ... The small cultivator, however, in becoming
       a possessor of the soil assumed its charges. Simply as
       day-laborer, and with his arms alone, he was only partially
       affected by the taxes; 'where there is nothing the king loses
       his dues.' But now, vainly is he poor and declaring himself
       still poorer; the fisc has a hold on him and on every portion
       of his new possessions. ... In 1715, the 'taille' [see TAILLE
       AND GABELLE] and the poll-tax, which he alone pays, or nearly
       alone, amounts to 66,000,000 livres, the amount is 93,000,000
       in 1759 and 110,000,000 in 1789. ... 'I am miserable because
       too much is taken from me. Too much is taken from me because
       not enough is taken from the privileged. Not only do the
       privileged force me to pay in their place, but, again, they
       previously deduct from my earnings their ecclesiastical and
       feudal dues. When, out of my income of 100 francs, I have
       parted with 53 francs, and more, to the collector, I am
       obliged again to give 14 francs to the seignior, also more
       than 14 for tithes, and, out of the remaining 18 or 19 francs,
       I have additionally to satisfy the excise-men.
    {1258}
       I alone, a poor man, pay two governments, one, the old
       government [the seigniorial government of the feudal regime],
       local and now absent, useless, inconvenient and humiliating,
       and active only through annoyances, exemptions and taxes; and
       the other [the royal government], recent, centralized,
       everywhere present, which, taking upon itself all functions,
       has vast needs and makes my meagre shoulders support its
       enormous weight.' These, in precise terms, are the vague ideas
       beginning to ferment in the popular brain and encountered on
       every page of the records of the States-General. ... The
       privileged wrought their own destruction. ... At their head,
       the king, creating France by devoting himself to her as if his
       own property, ended by sacrificing her as if his own property;
       the public purse is his private purse, while passions, vanities,
       personal weaknesses, luxurious habits, family solicitudes, the
       intrigues of a mistress and the caprices of a wife, govern a
       state of 26,000,000 men with an arbitrariness, a heedlessness,
       a prodigality, an unskilfulness, an absence of consistency,
       that would scarcely be overlooked in the management of a
       private domain. The king and the privileged excel in one
       direction, in good-breeding, in good taste, in fashion, in the
       talent for self-display and in entertaining, in the gift of
       graceful conversation, in finesse and in gayety, in the art of
       converting life into a brilliant and ingenious festivity. ...
       Through the habit, perfection and sway of polished intercourse
       they stamped on the French intellect a classic form, which,
       combined with recent scientific acquisitions, produced the
       philosophy of the 18th century, the ill-repute of tradition,
       the ambition of recasting all human institutions according to
       the sole dictates of reason, the appliance of mathematical
       methods to politics and morals, the catechism of the rights of
       man, and other dogmas of anarchical and despotic character in
       the 'Contrat Social.'--Once this chimera is born they welcome
       it as a drawing-room fancy; they use the little monster as a
       plaything, as yet innocent and decked with ribbons like a
       pastoral lambkin; they never dream of it becoming a raging,
       formidable brute; they nourish it, and caress it, and then,
       opening their doors, they let it descend into the
       streets.--Here, amongst a middle class which the government
       has rendered ill-disposed by compromising its fortunes, which
       the privileged have offended by restricting its ambition,
       which is wounded by inequality through injured self-esteem,
       the revolutionary theory gains rapid accessions, a sudden
       asperity, and, in a few years, it finds itself undisputed
       master of public opinion.--At this moment, and at its summons,
       another colossal monster rises up, a monster with millions of
       heads, a blind, startled animal, an entire people pressed
       down, exasperated and suddenly loosed against the government
       whose exactions have despoiled it, against the privileged
       whose rights have reduced it to starvation."

          H. A. Taine,
          The Ancient Régime,
          book 1, chapters 1, 2,
          and book 5, chapters 1, 2, 5.

       "When the facts of history are fully and impartially set
       forth, the wonder is rather that sane men put up with the
       chaotic imbecility, the hideous injustices, the shameless
       scandals, of the 'Ancien Regime,' in the earlier half of the
       century, many years before the political 'Philosophes' wrote a
       line,--why the Revolution did not break out in 1754 or 1757,
       as it was on the brink of doing, instead of being delayed, by
       the patient endurance of the people, for another generation.
       It can hardly be doubted that the Revolution of '89 owed many
       of its worst features to the violence of a populace degraded
       to the level of the beasts by the effect of the institutions
       under which they herded together and starved; and that the
       work of reconstruction which it attempted was to carry into
       practice the speculations of Mably and of Rousseau. But, just
       as little, does it seem open to question that, neither the
       writhings of the dregs of the populace in their misery, nor
       the speculative demonstrations of the Philosophers, would have
       come to much, except for the revolutionary movement which had
       been going on ever since the beginning of the century. The
       deeper source of this lay in the just and profound griefs of
       at least 95 per cent. of the population, comprising all its
       most valuable elements, from the agricultural peasants to the
       merchants and the men of letters and science, against the
       system by which they were crushed, or annoyed, whichever way
       they turned. But the surface current was impelled by the
       official defenders of the 'Ancien Régime' themselves. It was
       the Court, the Church, the Parliaments, and, above all, the
       Jesuits, acting in the interests of the despotism of the
       Papacy, who, in the first half of the 18th century,
       effectually undermined all respect for authority, whether
       civil or religious, and justified the worst that was or could
       be said by the 'Philosophes' later on."

          See
          PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715;
          and JESUITS: A.D. 1761-1767.

          Prof. T. H. Huxley,
          Introduction to F. Rocquain's
          "The Revolutionary Spirit preceding
          the French Revolution"

       "I took part in the opening of the States-General, and, in
       spite of the pomp with which the royal power was still
       surrounded, I there saw the passing away of the old regime.
       The regime which preceded '89, should, it seems to me, be
       considered from a two-fold aspect: the one, the general
       condition of the country, and the other, the relations
       existing between the government and the country. With regard
       to the former, I firmly believe that, from the earliest days
       of the monarchy, France had at no period been happier than she
       was then. She had not felt the effects of any great misfortune
       since the crash which followed Law's system. The long lasting
       ministry of Cardinal de Fleury, doubtless inglorious, but wise
       and circumspect, had made good the losses and lightened the
       burdens imposed at the end of the reign of Louis XV. If, since
       that time, several wars undertaken with little skill, and
       waged with still less, had compromised the honor of her arms
       and the reputation of her government; if they had even thrown
       her finances into a somewhat alarming state of disorder, it is
       but fair to say that the confusion resulting therefrom had
       merely affected the fortune of a few creditors, and had not
       tapped the sources of public prosperity; on the contrary, what
       is styled the public administration had made constant
       progress. If, on the one hand, the state had not been able to
       boast of any great ministers, on the other, the provinces
       could show many highly enlightened and clever intendants.
       Roads had been opened connecting numerous points, and had been
       greatly improved in all directions. It should not be forgotten
       that these benefits are principally due to the reign of Louis
       XV. Their most important result had been a progressive
       improvement in the condition of agriculture.
    {1259}
       The reign of Louis XVI. had continued favoring this wise
       policy, which had not been interrupted by the, maritime war
       undertaken on behalf of American independence. Many
       cotton-mills had sprung, up, while considerable progress had
       been made in the manufacture of printed cotton fabrics, and of
       steel, and in the preparing of skins. ... I saw the splendors
       of the Empire. Since the Restoration I see daily new fortunes
       spring up and consolidate themselves; still nothing so far
       has, in my eyes, equalled the splendor of Paris during the
       years which elapsed between 1783 and 1789. ... Far be it from
       me to shut my eyes to the reality of the public prosperity
       which we are now [1822] enjoying. I am cognizant of the
       improvement in the condition of the country districts, and I
       am aware of the fact that all that rests on this solid
       foundation, even though its appearance may be somewhat more
       humble, is much to be preferred to a grander exterior that
       might hide a less assured solidity. I do not seek to disparage
       the present time--far from it. I am ready to admit the
       advantages which have accrued, in many respects, as the
       results of the Revolution; as, for instance, the partition of
       landed property, so often assailed, and which, so long as it
       does not go beyond certain limits, tends to increase wealth,
       by introducing into many families a well-being hitherto
       unknown to them. But, nevertheless, when I question my reason
       and my conscience as to the possible future of the France of
       1789, if the Revolution had not burst, if the ten years of
       destruction to which it gave birth had not weighed heavily
       upon that beautiful country ... I am convinced that France, at
       the time I am writing, would be richer and stronger than she
       is to-day."

          Chancellor Pasquier,
          Memoirs,
          pages 44-47.

       "In the spring of 1789 who could have foreseen the bloody
       catastrophe? Everything was tinged with hopefulness; the world
       was dreaming of the Golden Age. ... Despite the previous
       disorders, and seeds of discord contained in certain cahiers,
       the prevailing sentiment was confidence. ... The people
       everywhere hailed with enthusiasm the new era which was
       dawning. With a firm king, with a statesman who knew what he
       wished, and was determined to accomplish it, this confidence
       would have been an incomparable force. With a feeble prince
       like Louis XVI., with an irresolute minister like Necker, it
       was an appalling danger. The public, inflamed by the anarchy
       that had preceded the convocation of the States, disposed,
       through its inexperience, to accept all Utopias, and impelled
       by its peculiar character to desire their immediate
       realization, naturally grew more exacting in proportion as
       they were promised more, and more impatient and irritable as
       their hopes became livelier and appeared better founded. In
       the midst of this general satisfaction there was but one dark
       spot,--the queen. The cheers which greeted the king were
       silent before his wife. Calumny had done its work; and all the
       nobles from the provinces, the country curates, the citizens
       of the small towns, came from the confines of France imbued
       with the most contemptible prejudices against this unfortunate
       princess. Pamphlets, poured out against her by malicious
       enemies; vague and mysterious rumours, circulated everywhere,
       repeated in whispers, without giving any clew to their
       source,--the more dangerous because indefinite, and the more
       readily believed because infamous and absurd,--had so often
       reiterated that the queen was author of all the evil, that the
       world had come to regard her as the cause of the deficit, and
       the only serious obstacle to certain efficacious reforms. 'The
       queen pillages on all sides; she even sends money, it is said,
       to her brother, the emperor,' wrote a priest of Maine, in his
       parochial register, in 1781; and he attributed the motive of
       the reunion of the Notables to these supposed depredations.
       If, in 1781, such reports had penetrated to the remotest parts
       of the country, and found credence with such enlightened men
       as the Curé Boucher, one can judge what it must have been two
       years later, when the convocation of the States-General had
       inflamed the minds of the people. If the States should
       encounter any inevitable obstacle in their path; if certain
       imprudent promises should be unfulfilled; if promised reforms
       should fail,--public resentment and ill-will, always on the
       alert, would be sure to blame Marie Antoinette; they would
       impute to her all the evil done, and all the good left undone.
       The symptoms of this distrust were manifest at the outset.
       'The deputies of the Third Estate,' Madame Campan observes,
       'arrived at Versailles with the strongest prejudice against
       the court. The evil sayings in Paris never failed to be spread
       through the provinces: they believed that the king indulged in
       the pleasures of the table to a most shameful excess; they
       were persuaded that the queen exhausted the State treasury to
       gratify her inordinate love of luxury; almost all wished to
       visit Little Trianon. As the extreme simplicity of this
       pleasure-house did not correspond with their ideas, they
       insisted on being shown even the smallest closets, saying that
       richly furnished apartments were being concealed from them.
       Finally they designated one, which according to their account
       was ornamented with diamonds, and twisted columns studded with
       sapphires and rubies. The queen was amused at these mad
       fancies, and told the king of them.'"

          M. de la Rocheterie,
          Life of Marie Antoinette,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          A. de Tocqueville,
          On the State of Society
          in France before the Revolution.

          A. Young,
          Travels in France, 1787-89.

          R. H. Dabney,
          Causes of the French Revolution.

          E. J. Lowell,
          The Eve of the French Revolution.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (May).
       Meeting of the States-General.
       Conflict between the three Estates.
       The question of three Houses or one.

       "The opening of the States-general was fixed for the 5th of
       May, 1789, and Versailles was chosen as the place of their
       meetings. On the 4th, half Paris poured into that town to see
       the court and the deputies marching in procession to the
       solemn religious ceremony, which was to inaugurate the
       important epoch. ... On the following day, the States-general,
       to the number of 1,200 persons, assembled in the spacious and
       richly decorated 'salle des menus plaisirs.' The King
       appeared, surrounded by his family, with all the magnificence
       of the ancient court, and was greeted by the enthusiastic
       applause of the deputies and spectators." The king made a
       speech, followed by Barentin, the keeper of the great seal,
       and by Necker. The latter "could not prevail upon himself to
       avow to the Assembly the real state of affairs. He announced
       an annual deficit of 56,000,000 francs, and thereby confused
       the mind of the public, which, since the meeting of the
       Notables, had always been discussing a deficit of from
       120,000,000 to 140,000,000.
    {1260}
       He was quite right in assuming that those 56,000,000 might be
       covered by economy in the expenditure; but it was both
       irritating and untrue, when he, on this ground, denied the
       necessity of summoning the States-general, and called their
       convocation a free act of royal favour. ... The balance of
       income and expenditure might, indeed, easily be restored in
       the future, but the deficit of former years had been
       heedlessly allowed to accumulate, and by no one more than by
       Necker himself. A floating debt of 550,000,000 had to be
       faced--in other words, therefore, more than a whole year's
       income had been expended in advance. ... The real deficit of
       the year, therefore, at the lowest calculation, amounted to
       more than 200,000,000, or nearly half the annual income. ...
       These facts, then, were concealed, and thus the ministry was
       necessarily placed in a false position towards the
       States-general; the continuance of the former abuses was
       perpetuated, or a violent catastrophe made inevitable. ... For
       the moment the matter was not discussed. Everything yielded to
       the importance of the constitutional question--whether the
       three orders should deliberate in common or apart--whether
       there should be one single representative body, or independent
       corporations. This point was mooted at once in its full extent
       on the question, whether the validity of the elections should
       be scrutinised by each order separately, or by the whole
       Assembly. We need not here enter into the question of right;
       but of this there can be no doubt, that the government, which
       virtually created the States-general afresh [since there had
       been no national meeting of the Estates since the
       States-general of 1614-see above: A. D. 1610-1619], had the
       formal right to convoke them either in one way or the other,
       as it thought fit. ... They [the government] infinitely
       lowered their own influence and dignity by leaving a most
       important constitutional question to the decision and the
       wrangling of the three orders; and they frustrated their own
       practical objects, by not decidedly declaring for the union of
       the orders in one assembly. Every important measure of reform,
       which had in view the improvement of the material and
       financial condition of the country, would have been mutilated
       by the clergy and rejected by the nobles. This was
       sufficiently proved by the 'cahiers' of the electors ['written
       instructions given by the electors to the deputies']. The
       States themselves had to undertake what the government had
       neglected. That which the government might have freely and
       legally commanded, now led to violent revolution. But there
       was no choice left; the commons would not tolerate the
       continuance of the privileged orders; and the state could not
       tolerate them if it did not wish to perish. The commons, who
       on this point were unanimous, considered the system of a
       single Assembly as a matter of course. They took care not to
       constitute themselves as 'tiers état,' but remained passive,
       and declared that they would wait until the Assembly should be
       constituted as a whole. Thus slowly and cautiously did they
       enter on their career. ... Indisputably the most important and
       influential among them was Count Mirabeau, the representative
       of the town of Aix in Provence, a violent opponent of
       feudalism, and a restless participator in all the recent
       popular commotions. He would have been better able than any
       man to stimulate the Assembly to vigorous action; but even he
       hesitated, and kept back his associates from taking any
       violent steps, because he feared that the inconsistency and
       inexperience of the majority would bring ruin on the state.
       ... It was only very gradually that the 'tiers état' began to
       negotiate with the other orders. The nobles shewed themselves
       haughty, dogmatical, and aggressive; and the clergy cautious,
       unctuous, and tenacious. They tried the efficacy of general
       conferences; but as no progress was found to have been made
       after three weeks, they gave up their consultations on the
       25th of May. The impatience of the public, and the necessities
       of the treasury, continually increased; the government,
       therefore, once more intervened, and Necker was called upon to
       propose a compromise," which was coldly rejected by the
       nobles, who "declared that they had long ago finished their
       scrutiny, and constituted themselves as a separate order. They
       thus spared the commons the dreaded honour of being the first
       to break with the crown. The conferences were again closed on
       the 9th of June. The leaders of the commons now saw that they
       must either succumb to the nobility, or force the other orders
       to submission."

          H. von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution.,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Smyth,
          Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
          lecture 8 (volume 1).

          Prince de Talleyrand,
          Memoirs,
          part 1 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (June).
       The Third Estate seizes the reins, proclaims itself the
       National Assembly, and assumes sovereign powers.
       The passionate excitement of Paris.
       Dismissal of Necker.
       Rising of the mob.

       "At last ... on the proposal of Sieyès [the Abbé, deputy for
       Paris] and amid a storm of frantic excitement, the Third
       Estate alone voted themselves 'the National Assembly,' invited
       the other two orders to join them, and pushing their
       pretensions to sovereignty to the highest point, declared that
       the existing taxes, not having been consented to by the
       nation, were all illegal. The National Assembly, however,
       allowed them to be levied till its separation, after which
       they were to cease if not formally regranted. This great
       revolution was effected on June 17, and it at once placed the
       Third Order in a totally new relation both to the other orders
       and to the Crown. There were speedy signs of yielding among
       some members of the privileged orders, and a fierce wave of
       excitement supported the change. Malouet strongly urged that
       the proper course was to dissolve the Assembly and to appeal
       to the constituencies, but Necker declined, and a feeble and
       ineffectual effort of the King to accomplish a reunion, and at
       the same time to overawe the Third Order, precipitated the
       Revolution. The King announced his intention of holding a
       royal session on June 22, and he summoned the three orders to
       meet him. It was his design to direct them to unite in order
       to deliberate in common on matters of common interest, and to
       regain the royal initiative by laying down the lines of a new
       constitution. ... On Saturday, the 20th, however, the course
       of events was interrupted by the famous scene in the tennis
       court. Troops had lately been pouring to an alarming extent
       into Paris, and exciting much suspicion in the popular party,
       and the Government very injudiciously selected for the royal
       session on the following Monday the hall in which the Third
       Order assembled. The hall was being prepared for the occasion,
       and therefore no meeting could be held.
    {1261}
       The members, ignorant of the fact, went to their chamber and
       were repelled by soldiers. Furious at the insult, they
       adjourned to the neighbouring tennis court [Jeu-de-Paume]. A
       suspicion that the King meant to dissolve them was abroad, and
       they resolved to resist such an attempt. With lifted hands and
       in a transport of genuine, if somewhat theatrical enthusiasm,
       they swore that they would never separate 'till the
       constitution of the kingdom and the regeneration of public
       order were established on a solid basis.' ... One single
       member, Martin d'Auche, refused his assent. The Third Estate
       had thus virtually assumed the sole legislative authority in
       France, and like the Long Parliament in England had denied the
       King's power to dissolve them. ... Owing to the dissension
       that had arisen, the royal session was postponed till the
       23rd, but on the preceding day the National Assembly met in a
       church, and its session was a very important one, for on this
       occasion a great body of the clergy formally joined it. One
       hundred and forty-eight members of the clergy, of whom 134
       were curés, had now given their adhesion. Two of the nobles,
       separating from their colleagues, took the same course. Next
       day the royal session was held. The project adopted in the
       council differed so much from that of Necker that this
       minister refused to give it the sanction of his presence.
       Instead of commanding the three orders to deliberate together
       in the common interest, it was determined in the revised
       project that the King should merely invite them to do so. ...
       It was ... determined to withdraw altogether from the common
       deliberation 'the form of the constitution to be given to the
       coming States-General,' and to recognise fully the essential
       distinction of the three orders as political bodies, though
       they might, with the approval of the Sovereign, deliberate in
       common. Necker had proposed ... that the King should
       decisively, and of his own authority, abolish all privileges
       of taxation, but in the amended article the King only
       undertook to give his sanction to this measure on condition of
       the two orders renouncing their privileges. On the other hand,
       the King announced to the Assembly a long series of articles
       of reform which would have made France a thoroughly
       constitutional country, and have swept away nearly all the
       great abuses in its government. ... He annulled the
       proceedings of June 17, by which the Third Estate alone
       declared itself the Legislature of France. He reminded the
       Assembly that none of its proceedings could acquire the force
       of law without his assent, and he asserted his sole right as
       French Sovereign to the command of the army and police. He
       concluded by directing the three orders to withdraw and to
       meet next day to consider his proposals. The King, with the
       nobles and the majority of the clergy, at once withdrew, but
       the Third Order defiantly remained. It was evident that the
       attempt to conciliate, and the attempt to assert the royal
       authority, had both failed. The Assembly proclaimed itself
       inviolable. It confirmed the decrees which the King had
       annulled. Sieyès declared, in words which excited a transport
       of enthusiasm, that what the Assembly was yesterday it still
       was to-day; and two days later, the triumph of the Assembly
       became still more evident by the adhesion of 47 of the
       nobility. After this defection the King saw the hopelessness
       of resistance, and on the 27th he ordered the remainder of the
       nobles to take the same course. ... In the mean time the real
       rulers of the country were coming rapidly to the surface. ...
       Groups of local agitators and of the scum of the Paris mob
       began to overawe the representatives of the nation, and to
       direct the course of its policy. Troops were poured into
       Paris, but their presence was an excitement without being a
       protection, for day after day it became more evident that
       their discipline was gone, and that they shared the sympathies
       and the passions of the mob. ... At the same time famine grew
       daily more intense, and the mobs more passionate and more
       formidable. The dismissal of Necker on the evening of July 11
       was the spark which produced the conflagration that had long
       been preparing. Next day Paris flew to arms. The troops with
       few exceptions abandoned the King."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 20 (volume 5).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Dumont,
          Recollections of Mirabeau,
          chapters 4-5.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July).
       The mob in arms.
       Anarchy in Paris.
       The taking of the Bastille.

       "On the 12th of July, near noon, on the news of the dismissal
       of Necker, a cry of rage arises in the Palais-Royal; Camille
       Desmoulins, mounted on a table, announces that the Court
       meditates 'a St. Bartholomew of patriots.' The crowd embrace
       him, adopt the green cockade which he has proposed, and oblige
       the dancing-saloons and theatres to close in sign of mourning:
       they hurry off to the residence of Curtius [a plaster-cast
       master], and take the busts of the Duke of Orleans and of
       Necker and carry them about in triumph. Meanwhile, the
       dragoons of the Prince de Lambesc, drawn up on the Place
       Louis-Quinze, find a barricade of chairs at the entrance of
       the Tuilleries, and are greeted with a shower of stones and
       bottles. Elsewhere, on the Boulevard, before the Hôtel
       Montmorency, some of the French Guards, escaped from their
       barracks, fired on a loyal detachment of the 'Royal Allemand.'
       The tocsin is sounding on all sides, the shops where arms are
       sold are pillaged, and the Hôtel-de-Ville is invaded; 15 or 16
       well-disposed electors, who meet there, order the districts to
       be assembled and armed.--The new sovereign, the people in arms
       and in the street, has declared himself. The dregs of society
       at once come to the surface. During the night between the 12th
       and 13th of July, 'all the barriers, from the Faubourg
       Saint-Antoine to the Faubourg Saint-Honoré, besides those of
       the Faubourgs Saint-Marcel and Saint-Jacques, are forced and
       set on fire.' There is no longer an 'octroi'; the city is
       without a revenue just at the moment when it is obliged to
       make the heaviest expenditures. ... 'During this fearful
       night, the bourgeoisie kept themselves shut up, each trembling
       at home for himself and those belonging to him.' On the following
       day, the 13th, the capital appears to be given up to bandits
       and the lowest of the low. ... During these two days and
       nights, says Bailly, 'Paris ran the risk of being pillaged,
       and was only saved from the marauders by the national guard.'
       ... Fortunately the militia organized itself, and the
       principal inhabitants and gentlemen enrol themselves; 48,000
       men are formed into battalions and companies; the bourgeoisie
       buy guns of the vagabonds for three livres apiece, and sabres
       or pistols for twelve sous. At last, some of the offenders are
       hung on the spot, and others disarmed, and the insurrection again
       becomes political.
    {1262}
       But, whatever its object, it remains always wild, because it
       is in the hands of the populace. ... There is no leader, no
       management. The electors who have converted themselves into
       the representatives of Paris seem to command the crowd, but it
       is the crowd which commands them. One of them, Legrand, to
       save the Hôtel-de-Ville, has no other resource but to send for
       six barrels of gun-powder, and to declare to the assailants
       that he is about to blow everything into the air. The
       commandant whom they themselves have chosen, M. de Salles, has
       twenty bayonets at his breast during a quarter of an hour,
       and, more than once, the whole committee is near being
       massacred. Let the reader imagine, on the premises where the
       discussions are going on, and petitions are being made, 'a
       concourse of 1,500 men pressed by 100,000 others who are
       forcing an entrance,' the wainscoting cracking, the benches
       upset one over another ... a tumult such as to bring to mind
       'the day of judgment,' the death-shrieks, songs, yells, and
       'people beside themselves, for the most part not knowing where
       they are nor what they want.' Each district is also a petty
       centre, while the Palais-Royal is the main centre. ... One
       wave gathers here and another there, their strategy consists
       in pushing and in being pushed. Yet, their entrance is
       effected only because they are let in. If they get into the
       Invalides it is owing to the connivance of the soldiers.--At
       the Bastille, firearms are discharged from ten in the morning
       to five in the evening against walls 40 feet high and 30 feet
       thick, and it is by chance that one of their shots reaches an
       'invalide' on the towers. They are treated the same as
       children whom one wishes to hurt as little as possible. The
       governor, on the first summons to surrender, orders the cannon
       to be withdrawn from the embrasures; he makes the garrison swear
       not to fire if it is not attacked; he invites the first of the
       deputations to lunch; he allows the messenger dispatched from
       the Hôtel-de-Ville to inspect the fortress; he receives
       several discharges without returning them, and lets the first
       bridge be carried without firing a shot. When, at length, he
       does fire, it is at the last extremity, to defend the second
       bridge, and after having notified the assailants that he is
       going to do so. ... The people, in turn, are infatuated with
       the novel sensations of attack and resistance, with the smell
       of gunpowder, with the excitement of the contest; all they can
       think of doing is to rush against the mass of stone, their
       expedients being on a level with their tactics: A brewer
       fancies that he can set fire to this block of masonry by
       pumping over it spikenard and poppy-seed oil mixed with
       phosphorus. A young carpenter, who has some archæological
       notions, proposes to construct a catapult. Some of them think
       that they have seized the governor's daughter, and want to
       burn her in order to make the father surrender. Others set
       fire to a projecting mass of buildings filled with straw, and
       thus close up the passage. 'The Bastille was not taken by main
       force,' says the brave Elie, one of the combatants; 'it was
       surrendered before even it was attacked,' by capitulation, on
       the promise that no harm should be done to anybody. The
       garrison, being perfectly secure, had no longer the heart to
       fire on human beings while themselves risking nothing, and, on
       the other hand, they were unnerved by the sight of the immense
       crowd. Eight or nine hundred men only were concerned in the
       attack, most of them workmen or shopkeepers belonging to the
       faubourg, tailors, wheelwrights, mercers, and wine-dealers,
       mixed with the French Guards. The Place de la Bastille,
       however, and all the streets in the vicinity, were crowded
       with the curious who came to witness the sight; 'among them,'
       says a witness, 'were a number of fashionable women of very
       good appearance, who had left their carriages at some
       distance.' To the 120 men of the garrison, looking down from
       their parapets, it seemed as though all Paris had come out
       against them. It is they, also, who lower the drawbridge and
       introduce the enemy; everybody has lost his head, the besieged
       as well as the besiegers, the latter more completely because
       they are intoxicated with the sense of victory. Scarcely have
       they entered when they begin the work of destruction, and the
       latest arrivals shoot at random those that come earlier; 'each
       one fires without heeding where or on whom his shot tells.'
       Sudden omnipotence and the liberty to kill are a wine too
       strong for human nature. ... Elie, who is the first to enter
       the fortress, Cholat, Hulin, the brave fellows who are in
       advance, the French Guards who are cognizant of the laws of
       war, try to keep their word of honour; but the crowd pressing
       on behind them know not whom to strike, and they strike at
       random. They spare the Swiss soldiers who have fired on them,
       and who, in their blue smocks, seem to them to be prisoners;
       on the other hand, by way of compensation, they fall furiously
       on the 'invalides' who opened the gates to them; the man who
       prevented the governor from blowing up the fortress has his
       wrist severed by the blow of a sabre, is twice pierced with a
       sword and is hung, and the hand which had saved one of the
       districts of Paris is promenaded through the streets in
       triumph. The officers are dragged along and five of them are
       killed, with three soldiers, on the spot, or on the way." M.
       de Launay, the governor, after receiving many wounds, while
       being dragged to the Hotel-de-Ville, was finally killed by
       bayonet thrusts, and his head, cut from his body, was
       placarded and borne through the streets upon a pitchfork.

          H. A. Taine,
          The French Revolution,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

       "I was present at the taking of the Bastille. What has been
       styled the fight was not serious, for there was absolutely no
       resistance shown. Within the hold's walls were neither
       provisions nor ammunition. It was not even necessary to invest
       it. The regiment of gardes françaises which had led the
       attack, presented itself under the walls on the rue Saint
       Antoine side, opposite the main entrance, which was barred by
       a drawbridge. There was a discharge of a few musket shots, to
       which no reply was made, and then four or five discharges from
       the cannon. It has been claimed that the latter broke the
       chains of the drawbridge. I did not notice this, and yet I was
       standing close to the point of attack. What I did see plainly
       was the action of the soldiers, invalides, or others, grouped
       on the platform of the high tower, holding their muskets stock
       in the air, and expressing by all means employed under similar
       circumstances their desire of surrendering. The result of this
       so-called victory, which brought down so many favors on the
       heads of the so-called victors, is well-known. The truth is,
       that this great fight did not for a moment frighten the
       numerous spectators who had flocked to witness its result.
       Among them were many women of fashion, who, in order to be
       closer to the scene, had left their carriages some distance
       away."

          Chancellor Pasquier,
          Memoirs,
          pages 55-56.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Bingham,
          The Bastille,
          volume 2, chapters 9-12.

          R. A. Davenport,
          History of the Bastile,
          chapter 12.

          J. Claretie,
          Camille Desmoulins and his Wife,
          chapter 1, section 4.

    {1263}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July).
       Practical surrender of authority by the king.
       Organization of the National Guard with Lafayette in command.
       Disorder and riot in the provinces.
       Hunger in the capital.
       The murder of Foulon and Berthier.

       "The next morning the taking of the Bastille bore its intended
       fruit. Marshal de Broglie, who had found, instead of a loyal
       army, only disaffected regiments which had joined or were
       preparing to join the mob, sent in his resignation. ... The
       king, deserted by his army, his authority now quite gone, had
       no means of restoring order except through the Assembly. He
       begged that body to undertake the work, promising to recall
       the dismissed ministers. ... The power of the king had now
       passed from him to the National Assembly. But that numerous
       body of men, absorbed in interminable discussions on abstract
       ideas, was totally incapable of applying its power to the
       government of the country. The electors at the Hotel de Ville,
       on the 15th of July, resolved that there must be a mayor to
       direct the affairs of Paris, and a National Guard to preserve
       order. Dangers threatened from every quarter. When the
       question arose as to who should fill these offices, Moreau de
       Saint Méry, the president of the electors, pointed to the bust
       of Lafayette, which had been sent as a gift to the city of
       Paris by the State of Virginia, in 1784. The gesture was
       immediately understood, and Lafayette was chosen by
       acclamation. Not less unanimous was the choice of Bailly for
       mayor. Lafayette was now taken from the Assembly to assume the
       more active employment of commanding the National Guard. While
       the Assembly pursued the destruction of the old order and the
       erection of a new, Lafayette, at the age of 82, became the
       chief depositary of executive power. ... Throughout France,
       the deepest interest was exhibited in passing events. ... The
       victory of the Assembly over the king and aristocracy led the
       people of the provinces to believe that their cause was
       already won. A general demoralization ensued." After the
       taking of the Bastille, "the example of rebellion thus set was
       speedily followed. Rioting and lawlessness soon prevailed
       everywhere, increased and imbittered by the scarcity of food.
       In the towns, bread riots became continual, and the
       custom-houses, the means of collecting the exorbitant taxes,
       were destroyed. In the rural districts, châteaux were to be
       seen burning on all sides. The towers in which were preserved
       the titles and documents which gave to the nobleman his
       oppressive rights were carried by storm and their contents
       scattered. Law and authority were fast becoming synonymous
       with tyranny; the word 'liberty,' now in every mouth, had no
       other signification than license. Into Paris slunk hordes of
       gaunt foot-pads from all over France; attracted by the
       prospect of disorder and pillage. ... From such circumstances
       naturally arose the National Guard. "The king had been asked,
       on the 13th, by a deputation from the Assembly, "to confide
       the care of the city to a militia," and had declined. The
       military organization of citizens was then undertaken by the
       electors at the Hotel de Ville, without his consent, and its
       commander designated without his appointment. "The king was
       obliged to confirm this choice, and he was thus deprived even
       of the merit of naming the chief officer of the guard whose
       existence had been forced upon him." On the 17th the king was
       persuaded to visit the city, for the effect which his personal
       presence would have, it was thought, upon the anxious and
       excited public mind. Lafayette had worked with energy to
       prepare his National Guard for the difficult duty of
       preserving order and protecting the royal visitor on the
       occasion. "So intense was the excitement and the
       insurrectionary spirit of the time, so uncertain were the
       boundaries between rascality and revolutionary zeal, that it
       was difficult to establish the fact that the new guard was
       created to preserve order and not to fight the king and
       pillage the aristocracy. The great armed mob, now in process
       of organization, had to be treated with great tact, lest it
       should refuse to submit to authority in any shape." But short
       as the time was, Lafayette succeeded in giving to the
       powerless monarch a safe and orderly reception. "The king made
       his will and took the sacraments before leaving Versailles,
       for ... doubts were entertained that he would live to return."
       He was met at the gates of Paris by the new mayor, Bailly, and
       escorted through a double line of National Guards to the Hotel
       de Ville. There he was obliged to fix on his hat the national
       cockade, just brought into use, and to confirm the
       appointments of Lafayette and Bailly. "Louis XVI. then
       returned to Versailles, on the whole pleased, as the day had
       been less unpleasant than had been expected. But the
       compulsory acceptation of the cockade and the nominations
       meant nothing less than the extinction of his authority. ...
       Lafayette recruited his army from the bourgeois class, for the
       good reason that, in the fever then raging for uncontrolled
       freedom, that class was the only one from which the proper
       material could be taken. The importance of order was impressed
       on the bourgeois by the fact that they had, shops and houses
       which they did not wish to see pillaged. ... The necessity for
       strict police measures was soon to be terribly illustrated.
       For a week past a large crowd composed of starving workmen,
       country beggars, and army deserters, had thronged the streets,
       angrily demanding food. The city was extremely short of
       provisions, and it was impossible to satisfy the demands made
       upon it. ... On July 22, an old man named Foulon, It member of
       the late ministry, who had long been the object of public
       dislike, and was now detested because it was rumored that he
       said that 'the people might eat' grass,' was arrested in the
       country, and brought to the Hotel de Ville, followed by a mob
       who demanded his immediate judgment." Lafayette exerted vainly
       his whole influence and his whole authority to protect the
       wretched old man until he could be lodged in prison. The mob
       tore its victim from his very hands and destroyed him on the
       spot. The next day, Foulon's son-in-law, Berthier, the
       Intendant of Paris, was arrested in the country, and the
       tragedy was re-enacted. "Shocked by these murders and
       disgusted by his own inability to prevent them, Lafayette sent
       his resignation to the electors, and for some time persisted
       in his refusal to resume his office. But no other man could be
       found in Paris equally fitted for the place; so that on the
       personal solicitation of the electors and a deputation from
       the 60 districts of the city, he again took command."

          B. Tuckerman,
          Life of General Lafayette,
          volume 1, chapters 9-10.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Michelet,
          Historical View of the French
          Revolution, book 2, chapters 1-2.

    {1264}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (July-August).
       Cause and character of the "Emigration."

       "Everything, or nearly everything, was done by the party
       opposed to the Revolution in the excitement of the moment;
       nothing was the result of reasoning. Who, for instance,
       reasoned out the emigration? It has oftentimes been asked how
       so extraordinary a resolution came to be taken; how it had
       entered the minds of men gifted with a certain amount of sense
       that there was any advantage to be derived from abandoning all
       the posts where they could still exercise power; of giving
       over to the enemy the regiments they commanded, the localities
       over which they had control; of delivering up completely to
       the teachings of the opposite party the peasantry, over whom,
       in a goodly number of provinces, a valuable influence might be
       exerted, and among whom they still had many friends; and all
       this, to return for the purpose of conquering, at the sword's
       point, positions, a number of which at least could be held
       without a fight. No doubt it has been offered as an objection,
       that the peasantry set fire to châteaux, that soldiers
       mutinied against their officers. This was not the case at the
       time of what has been called the first emigration, and, at any
       rate, such doings were not general; but does danger constitute
       sufficient cause for abandoning an important post? ... What is
       the answer to all this? Merely what follows. The voluntary
       going into exile of nearly the whole nobility of France, of
       many magistrates who were never to unsheath a sword, and
       lastly, of a large number of women and children,--this
       resolve, without a precedent in history, was not conceived and
       determined upon as a State measure; chance brought it about. A
       few, in the first instance, followed the princes who had been
       obliged, on the 14th of July, to seek safety out of France,
       and others followed them. At first, it was merely in the
       nature of a pleasant excursion. Outside of France, they might
       freely enjoy saying and believing anything and everything. ...
       The wealthiest were the first to incur the expense of this
       trip, and a few brilliant and amiable women of the Court
       circle did their share to render most attractive the sojourn
       in a number of foreign towns close to the frontier. Gradually
       the number of these small gatherings increased, and it was
       then that the idea arose of deriving advantage from them. It
       occurred to the minds of a few men in the entourage of the
       Comte d'Artois, and whose moving spirit was M. de Calonne,
       that it would be an easy matter for them to create a kingdom
       for their sovereign outside of France, and that if they could
       not in this fashion succeed in giving him provinces to reign
       over, he would at least reign over subjects, and that this
       would serve to give him a standing in the eyes of foreign
       powers, and determine them to espouse his cause. ... Thus in
       '89, '90, and '91, there were a few who were compelled to fly
       from actual danger; a small number were led away by a genuine
       feeling of enthusiasm; many felt themselves bound to leave,
       owing to a point of honor which they obeyed without reasoning
       it out; the mass thought it was the fashion, and that it
       looked well; all, or almost all, were carried away by
       expectations encouraged by the wildest of letters, and by the
       plotting of a few ambitious folk, who were under the
       impression that they were building up their fortunes."

          Chancellor Pasquier,
          Memoirs,
          pages 64-66.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (August).
       The Night of Sacrifices.
       The sweeping out of Feudalism.

       "What was the Assembly doing at this period, when Paris was
       waiting in expectation, and the capture of the Bastille was
       being imitated all over France; when châteaux were burning,
       and nobles flying into exile; when there was positive civil
       war in many a district, and anarchy in every province? Why,
       the Assembly was discussing whether or not the new
       constitution of France should be prefaced by a Declaration of
       the Rights of Man. In the discussion of this extremely
       important question were wasted the precious days which
       followed July 17. ... The complacency of these theorists was
       rudely shaken on August 4, when Salomon read to the Assembly
       the report of the Comité des Recherches, or Committee of
       Researches, on the state of France. A terrible report it was.
       Châteaux burning here and there; millers hung; tax-gatherers
       drowned; the warehouses and depots of the gabelle burnt;
       everywhere rioting, and nowhere peace. ... Among those who
       listened to the clear and forcible report of Salomon were
       certain of the young liberal noblesse who had just been dining
       with the Duc de la Roehefoucauld-Liancourt, a wise and
       enlightened nobleman. At their head was the Vicomte de
       Noailles, a young man of thirty-three, who had distinguished
       himself at the head of his regiment under his cousin,
       Lafayette, in America. ... The Vicomte de Noailles was the
       first to rush to the tribune. 'What is the cause of the evil
       which is agitating the provinces?' he cried; and then he
       showed that it arose from the uncertainty under which the
       people dwelt, as to whether or not the old feudal bonds under
       which they had so long lived and laboured were to be
       perpetuated or abolished, and concluded an impassioned speech
       by proposing to abolish them at once. One after another the
       young liberal noblemen, and then certain deputies of the tiers
       état, followed him with fresh sacrifices. First the old feudal
       rights were abolished; then the rights of the dovecote and the
       game laws; then the old copyhold services; then the tithes
       paid to the Church, in spite of a protest from Siéyès; then
       the rights of certain cities over their immediate suburbs and
       rural districts were sacrificed; and the contention during
       that feverish night was rather to remember something or other
       to sacrifice than to suggest the expediency of maintaining
       anything which was established. In its generosity the Assembly
       even gave away what did not belong to it. The old dues paid to
       the pope were abolished, and it was even declared that the
       territory of Avignon, which had belonged to the pope since the
       Middle Ages, should be united to France if it liked; and the
       sitting closed with a unanimous decree that a statue should be
       erected to Louis XVI., 'the restorer of French liberty.' Well
       might Mirabeau define the night of August 4 as a mere 'orgie.'
       ... Noble indeed were the intentions of the deputies. ...
    {1265}
       Yet the results of this night of sacrifices were bad rather
       than good. As Mirabeau pointed out, the people of France were
       told that all the feudal rights, dues, and tithes had been
       abolished that evening, but they were not told at the same
       time that there must be taxes and other burdens to take their
       place. It was of no use to issue a provisional order that all
       rights, dues, and taxes remained in force for the present,
       because the poor peasant would refuse to pay what was illegal,
       and would not understand the political necessity of supporting
       the revenue. ... This ill-considered mass of resolutions was
       what was thrown in the face of France in a state of anarchy to
       restore it to a state of order."

          H. M. Stephens,
          History of the French Revolution,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thiers, History of the French Revolution,
          (American edition), volume 1, pages 81-84.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (August-October).
       Constitution-making and the Rights of Man.
       The first emigration of nobles.
       Famine in Paris.
       Rumors of an intended flight of the King.

       "One may look upon the peculiarity of the Assembly as being a
       singular faith in the power of ideas. That was its greatness.
       It firmly believed that truth shaped into laws would be
       invincible. Two months--such was the calculation--would
       suffice to construct the constitution. That constitution by
       its omnipotent virtue would convince all men and bend them to
       its authority, and the revolution would be completed. Such was
       the faith of the National Assembly. The attitude of the people
       was so menacing that many of the courtiers fled. Thus
       commenced the first emigration. ... As if the minds of men
       were not sufficiently agitated, there now were heard cries of
       a great conspiracy of the aristocrats. The papers announced
       that a plot had been discovered which was to have delivered
       Brest to the English. Brest, the naval arsenal, wherein France
       for whole centuries had expended her millions and her labours:
       this given up to England! England would once more overrun France!
       ... It was amidst these cries of alarm--with on one hand the
       emigration of the nobility, on the other the hunger of a
       maddened people; with here an irresolute aristocracy, startled
       at the audacity of the 'canaille,' and there a resolute
       Assembly, prepared, at the hazard of their lives, to work out
       the liberty of France; amidst reports of famine, of
       insurrections, and wild disorders of all sorts, that we find
       the National Assembly debating upon the rights of man,
       discussing every article with metaphysical quibbling and
       wearisome fluency, and, having finally settled each article,
       making their famous Declaration. This Declaration, which was
       solemnly adopted by the Assembly, on the 18th of August, was
       the product of a whole century of philosophical speculation,
       fixed and reduced to formulas, and bearing unmistakeable
       traces of Rousseau. It declared the original equality of
       mankind, and that the ends of social union are liberty,
       property, security, and resistance to oppression. It declared
       that sovereignty resides in the nation, from whence all power
       emanates; that freedom consists in doing everything which does
       not injure another; that law is the expression of the general
       will; that public burdens should be borne by all the members
       of the state in proportion to their fortunes; that the
       elective franchise should be extended to all; that the
       exercise of natural rights has no other limit than their
       interference with the rights of others; that no man should be
       persecuted for his religious opinions, provided he conform to
       the laws and do not disturb the religion of the state; that
       all men have the right of quitting the state in which they
       were born, and of choosing another country, by renouncing
       their rights of citizenship; that the liberty of the press is
       the foremost support of public liberty, and the law should
       maintain it, at the same time punishing those who abuse it by
       distributing seditious discourses, or calumnies against
       individuals." Having adopted its Declaration of the rights of
       man, the Assembly proceeded to the drawing up of a
       constitution which should embody the principles of the
       Declaration, and soon found itself in passionate debate upon
       the relations to be established between the national
       legislature and the king. Should the king retain a veto upon
       legislation? Should he have any voice in the making of laws?
       "The lovers of England and the English constitution all voted
       in favour of the veto. Even Mirabeau was for it." Robespierre,
       just coming into notice, bore a prominent part in the
       opposition. "The majority of the Assembly shared Robespierre's
       views; and the King's counselors were at length forced to
       propose a compromise in the shape of a suspensive veto;
       namely, that the King should not have the absolute right of
       preventing any law, but only the right of suspending it for
       two, four, or six years. ... It was carried by a large
       majority." Meantime, in Paris, "vast and incalculable was the
       misery: crowds of peruke-makers, tailors, and shoemakers, were
       wont to assemble at the Louvre and in the Champs Elysées,
       demanding things impossible to be granted; demanding that the
       old regulations should be maintained, and that new ones should
       be made; demanding that the rate of daily wages should be
       fixed; demanding ... that all the Savoyards in the country
       should be sent away, and only Frenchmen employed. The bakers'
       shops were besieged, as early as five o'clock in the morning,
       by hungry crowds who had to stand 'en queue'; happy when they
       had money to purchase miserable bread, even in this
       uncomfortable manner. ... Paris was living at the mercy of
       chance: its subsistence dependent on some arrival or other:
       dependent on a convoy from Beauce, or a boat from Corbeuil.
       The city, at immense sacrifices, was obliged to lower the
       price of bread: the consequence was that the population for
       more than ten leagues round came to procure provisions at
       Paris. The uncertainty of the morrow augmented the
       difficulties. Everybody stored up, and concealed provisions.
       The administration sent in every direction, and bought up
       flour, by fair means, or by foul. It often happened that at
       midnight there was but half the flour necessary for the
       morning market. Provisioning Paris was a kind of war. The
       National Guard was sent to protect each arrival; or to secure
       certain purchases by force of arms. Speculators were afraid;
       farmers would not thrash any longer; neither would the miller
       grind. 'I used to see,' says Bailly, 'good tradesmen, mercers
       and goldsmiths, praying to be admitted among the beggars
       employed at Montmartre, in digging the ground.' Then came
       fearful whispers of the King's intention to fly to Metz. What
       will become of us if the King should fly? He must not fly; we
       will have him here; here amongst us in Paris! This produced
       the famous insurrection of women ... on the 5th October."

          G. H. Lewes,
          Life of Robespierre,
          chapter 9.

          H. von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 1, chapters 3-4 (volume 1).

    {1266}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (October).
       The Insurrection of Women.
       Their march to Versailles.

       "A thought, or dim raw-material of a thought, was fermenting
       all night [October 4-5], universally in the female head, and
       might explode. In squalid garret, on Monday morning Maternity
       awakes, to hear children weeping for bread. Maternity must
       forth to the streets, to the herb-markets and Bakers'-queues;
       meets there with hunger-stricken Maternity, sympathetic,
       exasperative. O we unhappy women! But, instead of
       Bakers'-queues, why not to Aristocrats' palaces, the root of
       the matter? Allons! Let us assemble. To the Hôtel-de-Ville; to
       Versailles; to the Lanterne! In one of the Guard houses of the
       Quartier Saint-Eustache, 'a young woman' seizes a drum,--for
       how shall National Guards give fire on women, on a young
       woman? The young woman seizes the drum; sets forth, beating
       it, 'uttering cries relative to the dearth of grains.'
       Descend, O mothers; descend, ye Judiths, to food and
       revenge!--All women gather and go; crowds storm all stairs,
       force out all women: the female Insurrectionary Force,
       according to Camille, resembles the English Naval one; there
       is a universal 'Press of women.' Robust Dames of the Halle,
       slim Mantua-makers, assiduous, risen with the dawn; ancient
       Virginity tripping to matins; the Housemaid, with early broom;
       all must go. Rouse ye, O, women; the laggard men will not act;
       they say, we ourselves may act! And so, like snowbreak from
       the mountains, for every staircase is a melted brook, it
       storms; tumultuous, wild-shrilling, towards the
       Hôtel-de-Ville. Tumultuous; with or without drum-music: for
       the Faubourg Saint-Antoine also has tucked-up its gown; and
       with besom-staves, fire-irons, and even rusty pistols (void of
       ammunition), is flowing on. Sound of it flies, with a velocity
       of sound, to the utmost Barriers. By seven o'clock, on this
       raw October morning, fifth of the month, the Townhall will see
       wonders. ... Grand it was, says Camille, to see so many
       Judiths, from eight to ten thousand of them in all, rushing
       out to search into the root of the matter! Not unfrightful it
       must have been; ludicro-terrific, and most unmanageable. At
       such hour the overwatched Three Hundred are not yet stirring:
       none but some Clerks, a company of National Guards; and M. de
       Gouvion, the Major-general. Gouvion has fought in America for
       the cause of civil Liberty; a man of no inconsiderable heart,
       but deficient in head. He is, for the moment, in his back
       apartment; assuaging Usher Maillard, the Bastille-sergeant,
       who has come, as too many do, with 'representations.' The
       assuagement is still incomplete when our Judiths arrive. The
       National Guards form on the outer stairs, with levelled
       bayonets; the ten thousand Judiths press up, resistless; with
       obtestations, with outspread hands,--merely to speak to the
       Mayor. The rear forces them; nay from male hands in the rear,
       stones already fly: the National Guard must do one of two
       things; sweep the Place de Greve with cannon, or else open to
       right and left. They open: the living deluge rushes in.
       Through all rooms and cabinets, upwards to the topmost belfry:
       ravenous; seeking arms, seeking Mayors, seeking justice;--
       while, again, the better-dressed speak kindly to the Clerks;
       point out the misery of these poor women; also their ailments,
       some even of an interesting sort. Poor M. de Gouvion is
       shiftless in this extremity;--a man shiftless, perturbed: who
       will one day commit suicide. How happy for him that Usher
       Maillard the shifty was there, at the moment, though making
       representations! Fly back, thou shifty Maillard: seek the
       Bastille Company; and O return fast with it; above all, with
       thy own shifty head! For, behold, the Judiths can find no
       Mayor or Municipal; scarcely, in the topmost belfry, can they
       find poor Abbé Lefèvre the Powder-distributor. Him, for want
       of a better, they suspend there: in the pale morning light;
       over the top of all Paris, which swims in one's failing
       eyes:--a horrible end? Nay the rope broke, as French ropes
       often did; or else an Amazon cut it. Abbe Lefèvre falls, some
       twenty feet, rattling among the leads; and lives long years
       after, though always with 'a tremblement in the limbs.' And
       now doors fly under hatchets; the Judiths have broken the
       Armory; have seized guns and cannons, three money-bags,
       paper-heaps; torches flare: in few minutes, our brave
       Hôtel-de-Ville, which dates from the Fourth Henry, will, with
       all that it holds, be in flames! In flames, truly,--were it
       not that Usher Maillard, swift of foot, shifty of head, has
       returned! Maillard, of his own motion,--for Gouvion or the
       rest would not even sanction him,--snatches a drum: descends
       the Porch-stairs, ran-tan, beating sharp, with loud rolls, his
       Rogues'-march: To Versailles! Allons; à Versailles! As men
       beat on kettle or warming-pan, when angry she-bees, or say,
       flying desperate wasps, are to be hived; and the desperate
       insects hear it, and cluster round it,--simply as round a
       guidance, where there was none: so now these Menads round
       shifty Maillard, Riding-Usher of the Châtelet. The axe pauses
       uplifted; Abbé Lefèvre is left half-hanged: from the belfry
       downwards all vomits itself. What rub-a-dub is that? Stanislas
       Maillard, Bastille hero, will lead us to Versailles? Joy to
       thee, Maillard; blessed art thou above Riding-Ushers! Away,
       then, away! The seized cannon are yoked with seized
       cart-horses: brown-locked Demoiselle Théroigne, with pike and
       helmet, sits there as gunneress. ... Maillard (for his drum
       still rolls) is, by heaven-rending acclamation, admitted
       General. Maillard hastens the languid march. ... And now
       Maillard has his Menads in the Champs Elysées (Fields
       Tartarean rather); and the Hôtel-de-Ville has suffered
       comparatively nothing. ... Great Maillard! A small nucleus of
       Order is round his drum; but his outskirts fluctuate like the
       mad Ocean: for Rascality male and female is flowing in on him,
       from the four winds: guidance there is none but in his single
       head and two drum-sticks. ... On the Elysian Fields there is
       pause and fluctuation; but, for Maillard, no return. He
       persuades his Menads, clamorous for arms and the Arsenal, that
       no arms are in the Arsenal; that an unarmed attitude, and
       petition to a National Assembly, will be the best: he hastily
       nominates or sanctions generalesses, captains of tens and
       fifties;--and so, in loosest-flowing order, to the rhythm of
       some 'eight drums' (having laid aside his own), with the
       Bastille Volunteers bringing up his rear, once more takes the
       road. Chaillot, which will promptly yield baked loaves, is not
       plundered; nor are the Sèvres Potteries broken. ... The press of
       women still continues, for it is the cause of all Eve's
       Daughters, mothers that are, or that ought to be. No
       carriage-lady, were it with never such hysterics, but must
       dismount, in the mud roads, in her silk shoes, and walk. In
       this manner, amid wild October weather, they, a wild unwinged
       stork-flight, through the astonished country wend their way."

          T. Carlyle,
          The French Revolution,
          volume 1, book 7, chapters 4-5.

    {1267}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (October).
       The mob of men at Versailles, with Lafayette
       and the National Guard.
       The king and royal family brought to Paris.

       Before the memorable 5th day of October closed, the movement
       of the women upon Versailles was followed by an outpouring, in
       the same direction, of the masculine mob of Paris, headed by
       the National Guard. "The commander, Lafayette, opposed their
       departure a long time, but in vain; neither his efforts nor
       his popularity could overcome the obstinacy of the people. For
       seven hours he harangued and retained them. At length,
       impatient at this delay, rejecting his advice, they prepared
       to set forward without him; when, feeling that it was now his
       duty to conduct as it had previously been to restrain them, he
       obtained his authorisation from the corporation, and gave the
       word for departure about seven in the evening. "Meantime the
       army of the amazons had arrived at Versailles, and excited the
       terrors of the court. "The troops of Versailles flew to arms
       and surrounded the château, but the intentions of the women
       were not hostile. Maillard, their leader, had recommended them
       to appear as suppliants, and in that attitude they presented
       their complaints successively to the assembly and to the king.
       Accordingly, the first hours of this turbulent evening were
       sufficiently calm. Yet it was impossible but that causes of
       hostility should arise between an excited mob and the
       household troops, the objects of so much irritation. The
       latter were stationed in the court of the château opposite the
       national guard and the Flanders regiment. The space between
       was filled by women and volunteers of the Bastille. In the
       midst of the confusion, necessarily arising from such a
       juxtaposition, a scuffle arose; this was the signal for
       disorder and conflict. An officer of the guards struck a
       Parisian soldier with his sabre, and was in turn shot in the
       arm. The national guards sided against the household troops;
       the conflict became warm, and would have been sanguinary, but
       for the darkness, the bad weather, and the orders given to the
       household troops, first to cease firing and then to retire.
       ... During this tumult, the court was in consternation; the
       flight of the king was suggested, and carriages prepared; a
       piquet of the national guard saw them at the gate of the
       orangery, and having made them go back, closed the gate:
       moreover, the king, either ignorant of the designs of the
       court, or conceiving them impracticable, refused to escape.
       Fears were mingled with his pacific intentions, when he
       hesitated to repel the aggression or to take flight.
       Conquered, he apprehended the fate of Charles I. of England;
       absent, he feared that the duke of Orleans would obtain the
       lieutenancy of the kingdom. But, in the meantime, the rain,
       fatigue, and the inaction of the household troops, lessened
       the fury of the multitude, and Lafayette arrived at the head
       of the Parisian army. His presence restored security to the
       court, and the replies of the king to the deputation from
       Paris satisfied the multitude and the army. In a short time,
       Lafayette's activity, the good sense and discipline of the
       Parisian guard, restored order everywhere. Tranquillity
       returned. The crowd of women and volunteers, overcome by
       fatigue, gradually dispersed, and some of the national guard
       were entrusted with the defence of the château, while others
       were lodged with their companions in arms at Versailles. The
       royal family, re-assured after the anxiety and fear of this
       painful night, retired to rest about two o'clock in the
       morning. Towards five, Lafayette, having visited the outposts
       which had been confided to his care, and finding the watch
       well kept, the town calm, and the crowds dispersed or
       sleeping, also took a few moments repose. About six, however,
       some men of the lower class, more enthusiastic than the rest,
       and awake sooner than they, prowled round the château. Finding
       a gate open, they informed their companions, and entered.
       Unfortunately, the interior posts had been entrusted to the
       household guards, and refused to the Parisian army. This fatal
       refusal caused all the misfortunes of the night. The interior
       guard had not even been increased; the gates scarcely visited,
       and the watch kept as negligently as on ordinary occasions. These
       men, excited by all the passions that had brought them to
       Versailles, perceiving one of the household troops at a
       window, began to insult him. He fired, and wounded one of
       them. They then rushed on the household troops, who defended
       the château breast to breast, and sacrificed themselves
       heroically. One of them had time to warn the queen, whom the
       assailants particularly threatened; and, half dressed, she ran
       for refuge to the king. The tumult and danger were extreme in
       the château. Lafayette, apprised of the invasion of the royal
       residence, mounted his horse, and rode hastily to the scene of
       danger. On the square he met some of the household troops
       surrounded by an infuriated mob, who were on the point of
       killing them. He threw himself among them, called some French
       guards who were near, and, having rescued the household troops
       and dispersed their assailants, he hurried to the château. He
       found it already secured by the grenadiers of the French
       guard, who, at the first noise of the tumult, had hastened and
       protected the household troops from the fury of the Parisians.
       But the scene was not over; the crowd assembled again in the
       marble court under the king's balcony, loudly called for him,
       and he appeared. They required his departure for Paris; he
       promised to repair thither with his family, and this promise
       was received with general applause. The queen was resolved, to
       accompany him; but the prejudice against her was so strong
       that the journey was not without danger; it was necessary to
       reconcile her with the multitude. Lafayette proposed to her to
       accompany him to the balcony; after some hesitation, she
       consented. They appeared on it together, and to communicate by
       a sign with the tumultuous crowd, to conquer its animosity, and
       awaken its enthusiasm, Lafayette respectfully kissed the
       queen's hand; the crowd responded with acclamations. It now
       remained to make peace between them and the household troops.
       Lafayette advanced with one of these, placed his own
       tricoloured cockade on his hat, and embraced him before the
       people, who shouted 'Vivent les gardes-du-corps!' Thus
       terminated this scene; the royal family set out for Paris,
       escorted by the army and its guards mixed with it."

          F. A. Mignet,
          History of the French Revolution,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          B. Tuckerman,
          Life of Lafayette,
          volume 1, chapter 11.

    {1268}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791.
       The new constitution.
       Appropriation and sale of Church property.
       Issue of Assignats.
       Abolition of titles of honor.
       Civil constitution of the clergy.
       The Feast of the Federation.
       The Émigrés on the border and their conduct.

       "The king was henceforth at the mercy of the mob. Deprived of
       his guards, and at a distance from his army, he was in the
       centre of the revolution; and surrounded by an excited and
       hungry populace. He was followed to Paris by the Assembly;
       and, for the present, was protected from further outrages by
       Lafayette and the national guards. Mirabeau, who was now in
       secret communication with the court, warned the king of his
       danger, in the midst of the revolutionary capital. 'The mob of
       Paris,' he said, 'will scourge the corpses of the king and
       queen.' He saw no hope of safety for them, or for the State,
       but in their withdrawal from this pressing danger, to
       Fontainebleau or Rouen, and in a strong government, supported
       by the Assembly, pursuing liberal measures, and quelling
       anarchy. His counsels were frustrated by events; and the
       revolution had advanced too far to be controlled by this
       secret and suspected adviser of the king. Meanwhile, the
       Assembly was busy with further schemes of revolution and
       desperate finance. France was divided into departments: the
       property of the Church was appropriated to meet the urgent
       necessities of the State; the disastrous assignats were
       issued: the subjection of the clergy to the civil power was
       decreed: the Parliaments were superseded, and the judicature
       of the country was reconstituted, upon a popular basis: titles
       of honour, orders of knighthood, armorial bearings--even
       liveries--were abolished: the army was reorganised, and the
       privileges of birth were made to yield to service and
       seniority. All Frenchmen were henceforth equal, as 'citoyens':
       and their new privileges were wildly celebrated by the
       planting of trees of liberty. The monarchy was still
       recognised, but it stood alone, in the midst of revolution."

          Sir T. E. May,
          Democracy in Europe,
          chapter 13 (volume 2).

       "The monarchy was continued and liberally endowed; but it was
       shorn of most of its ancient prerogatives, and reduced to a
       very feeble Executive; and while it obtained a perilous veto
       on the resolutions and acts of the Legislature, it was
       separated from that power, and placed in opposition to it, by
       the exclusion of the Ministers of the Crown from seats and
       votes in the National Assembly. The Legislature was composed
       of a Legislative Assembly, formed of a single Chamber alone,
       in theory supreme, and almost absolute; but, as we have seen,
       it was liable to come in conflict with the Crown, and it had
       less authority than might be supposed, for it was elected by a
       vote not truly popular, and subordinate powers were allowed to
       possess a very large part of the rights of Sovereignty which
       it ought to have divided with the King. This last portion of
       the scheme was very striking, and was the one, too, that most
       caused alarm among distant political observers. Too great
       centralization having been one of the chief complaints against
       the ancient Monarchy, this evil was met with a radical reform.
       ... The towns received extraordinary powers; their
       municipalities had complete control over the National Guards
       to be elected in them, and possessed many other functions of
       Government; and Paris, by these means, became almost a
       separate Commonwealth, independent of the State, and directing
       a vast military force. The same system was applied to the
       country; every Department was formed into petty divisions,
       each with its National Guards, and a considerable share of
       what is usually the power of the government. ... Burke's
       saying was strictly correct, 'that France was split into
       thousands of Republics, with Paris predominating and queen of
       all.' With respect to other institutions of the State, the
       appointment of nearly all civil functionaries, judicial and
       otherwise, was taken from the Crown, and abandoned to a like
       popular election; and the same principle was also applied to
       the great and venerable institution of the Church, already
       deprived of its vast estates, though the election of bishops
       and priests by their flocks interfered directly with Roman
       Catholic discipline, and probably, too, with religious dogma.
       ... Notwithstanding the opposition of Necker, who, though
       hardly a statesman, understood finance, it was resolved to
       sell the lands of the Church to procure funds for the
       necessities of the State; and the deficit, which was
       increasing rapidly, was met by an inconvertible currency of
       paper, secured on the lands to be sold. This expedient ... was
       carried out with injudicious recklessness. The Assignats, as
       the new notes were called, seemed a mine of inexhaustible
       wealth, and they were issued in quantities which, from the
       first moment, disturbed the relations of life and commerce,
       though they created a show of brisk trade for a time. In
       matters of taxation the Assembly, too, exceeded the bounds of
       reason and justice; exemptions previously enjoyed by the rich
       were now indirectly extended to the poor; wealthy owners of
       land were too heavily burdened, while the populace of the
       towns went scot free. ... Very large sums, also, belonging to
       the State, were advanced to the Commune of Paris, now rising
       into formidable power. ... The funds so obtained were lavishly
       squandered in giving relief to the poor of the capital in the
       most improvident ways--in buying bread dear and reselling it
       cheap, and in finding fanciful employment for artizans out of
       work. The result, of course, was to attract to Paris many
       thousands of the lowest class of rabble, and to add them to
       the scum of the city. ... On the first anniversary [July 14,
       1790] of the fall of the Bastille, and before the Constitution
       had been finished ... a great national holiday [called the Feast
       of the Federation] was kept; and, amidst multitudes of
       applauding spectators, deputations from every Department in
       France, headed by the authorities of the thronging capital,
       defiled in procession to the broad space known as the Field of
       Mars, along the banks of the Seine. An immense amphitheatre
       had been constructed [converting the plain into a valley, by
       the labor of many thousands, in a single week], and decorated
       with extraordinary pomp; and here, in the presence of a
       splendid Court, of the National Assembly, and of the
       municipalities of the realm, and in the sight of a great
       assemblage surging to and fro with throbbing excitement, the
       King took an oath that he would faithfully respect the order
       of things that was being established, while incense streamed
       from high-raised altars, and the ranks of 70,000 National
       Guards burst into loud cheers and triumphant music; and even
       the Queen, sharing in the passion of the hour, and radiant
       with beauty, lifted up in her arms the young child who was to
       be the future chief of a disenthralled and regenerate people.
       ...
    {1269}
       The following week was gay with those brilliant displays which
       Paris knows how to arrange so well; flowery arches covered the
       site of the Bastille, fountains ran wine, and the night blazed
       with fire; and the far-extending influence of France was
       attested by enthusiastic deputations of 'friends of liberty'
       from many parts of Europe, hailing the dawn of an era of
       freedom and peace. The work, however, of the National Assembly
       developed some of its effects ere long. The abolition of
       titles of honor filled up the measure of the anger of the
       Nobles; the confiscation of the property of the Church, above
       all, the law as to the election of priests, known as the Civil
       Constitution of the Clergy, shocked all religious or
       superstitious minds. ... The emigration of the Nobles, which
       had become very general from the 5th and 6th of October, went
       on in daily augmenting numbers; and, in a short time, the
       frontiers were edged with bands of exiles breathing vengeance
       and hatred. In many districts the priests denounced as
       sacrilege, what had been done to the Church, divided the
       peasantry, and preached a crusade against what they called the
       atheist towns; and angry mutinies broke out in the Army, which
       left behind savage and relentless feelings. The relations
       between the King and the Assembly, too, became strained, if
       not hostile, at every turn of affairs, to the detriment of
       anything like good government; and while Louis sunk into a
       mere puppet, the Assembly, controlled in a great measure by
       demagogues and the pampered mobs of Paris, felt authority
       gradually slipping from it." To all the many destructive and
       revolutionary influences at work was now added "the pitiful
       conduct of those best known by the still dishonorable name of
       'Émigrés.' In a few months the great majority of the
       aristocracy of France had fled the kingdom, abandoned the
       throne around which they had stood, breathing maledictions
       against a contemptuous Nation, as arrogant as ever in the
       impotence of want, and thinking only of a counter-revolution
       that would cover the natal soil with blood. ... Their utter
       want of patriotism and of sound feeling made thousands believe
       that the state of society which had bred such creatures ought
       to be swept away."

          W. O'C. Morris,
          The French Revolution and First Empire,
          chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Van Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 1, chapter 5, and book 2, chapters 3-5.

          M'me de Stael,
          Considerations on the French Revolution,
          part 2, chapters 12-19 (volume l).

          E. Burke,
          Reflections on the Revolution in France.

          A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
          Annals of the French Revolution,
          part 1, chapters 22-35 (volumes 2-3).

          Duchess de Tourzell,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapters 3-11.

          W. H. Jervis,
          The Gallican Church and the Revolution.,
          chapters 1-4.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1790.
       The rise of the Clubs.
       Jacobins, Cordeliers, Feuillants, Club Monarchique, and Club
       of '89.

       "Every party sought to gain the people; it was courted as
       sovereign. After attempting to influence it by religion,
       another means was employed, that of the clubs. At that period,
       clubs were private assemblies, in which the measures of
       government, the business of the state, and the decrees of the
       assembly, were discussed; their deliberations had no
       authority, but they exercised a certain influence. The first
       club owed its origin to the Breton deputies, who already met
       together at Versailles to consider the course of proceeding
       they should take. When the national representatives were
       transferred from Versailles to Paris, the Breton deputies and
       those of the assembly who were of their views held their
       sittings in the old convent of the Jacobins, which
       subsequently gave its name to their meetings. It did not at
       first cease to be a preparatory assembly, but as all things
       increase in time, the Jacobin Club did not confine itself to
       influencing the assembly; it sought also to influence the
       municipality and the people, and received as associates
       members of the municipality and common citizens. Its
       organization became more regular, its action more powerful;
       its sittings were regularly reported in the papers; it created
       branch clubs in the provinces, and raised by the side of legal
       power another power which first counselled and then conducted
       it. The Jacobin Club, as it lost its primitive character and
       became a popular assembly, had been forsaken by part of its
       founders. The latter established another society on the plan
       of the old one, under the name of the Club of '89. Siéyes,
       Chapelier, Lafayette, La Rochefoucauld, directed it, as Lameth
       and Barnave directed that of the Jacobins. Mirabeau belonged
       to both, and by both was equally courted. These clubs, of
       which the one prevailed in the assembly, and the other amongst
       the people, were attached to the new order of things, though
       in different degrees. The aristocracy sought to attack the
       revolution with its own arms; it opened royalist clubs to
       oppose the popular clubs. That first established, under the
       name of the Club des Impartiaux, could not last because it
       addressed itself to no class opinion. Reappearing under the
       name of the Club Monarchique, it included among its members
       all those whose views it represented. It sought to render
       itself popular with the lower classes, and distributed bread;
       but, far from accepting its overtures, the people considered
       such establishments as a counter-revolutionary movement. It
       disturbed their sittings, and obliged them several times to
       change their place of meeting. At length, the municipal
       authority found itself obliged, in January, 1791, to close
       this club, which had been the cause of several riots."

          F. A. Mignet,
          History of the French Revolution,
          chapter 3.

       "At the end of 1790 the number of Jacobin Clubs was 200, many
       of which--like the one in Marseilles--contained more than a
       thousand members. Their organization extended through the
       whole kingdom, and every impulse given at the centre in Paris
       was felt at the extremities. ... It was far indeed from
       embracing the majority of adult Frenchmen, but even at that
       time it had undoubtedly become--by means of its strict
       unity--the greatest power in the kingdom."

          H. von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

       "This Jacobin Club soon divided itself into three other clubs:
       first, that party which looked upon the Jacobins as lukewarm
       patriots left it, and constituted themselves into the Club of
       the Cordeliers, where Danton's voice of thunder made the halls
       ring; and Camille Desmoulins' light, glancing wit played with
       momentous subjects. The other party, which looked upon the
       Jacobins as too fierce, constituted itself into the 'Club of
       1789; friends of the monarchic constitution;' and afterwards
       named Feuillant's Club, because it met in the Feuillant
       Convent. Lafayette was their chief; supported by the
       'respectable' patriots. These clubs generated many others, and
       the provinces imitated them."

          G. H. Lewes,
          Life of Robespierre,
          chapter 10.

    {1270}

       "The Cordeliers were a Parisian club; the Jacobins an immense
       association extending throughout France. But Paris would stir
       and rise at the fury of the Cordeliers; and Paris being once
       in motion, the political revolutionists were absolutely
       obliged to follow. Individuality was very powerful among the
       Cordeliers. Their journalists, Marat, Desmoulins, Fréron,
       Robert, Hébert and Fabre d'Églantine, wrote each for himself.
       Danton, the omnipotent orator, would never write; but, by way
       of compensation, Marat and Desmoulins, who stammered or
       lisped, used principally to write, and seldom spoke. ... The
       Cordeliers formed a sort of tribe, all living in the
       neighbourhood of the club."

          J. Michelet,
          Historical View of the French Revolution,
          book 4, chapters 7 and 5.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carlyle,
          The French Revolution,
          volume 2, book 1, chapter 5.

          H. A. Taine,
          The French Revolution,
          book 4 (volume 2).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
       Revolution at Avignon.
       Reunion of the old Papal province with France decreed.

       "The old residence of the Popes [Avignon] remained until the
       year 1789 under the papal government, which, from its
       distance, exercised its authority with great mildness, and
       left the towns and villages of the country in the enjoyment of
       a great degree of independence. The general condition of the
       population was, however, much the same as in the neighbouring
       districts of France--agitation in the towns and misery in the
       country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the commotion
       of August 4th should extend itself among the subjects of the
       Holy see. Here, too, castles were burned, black mail levied on
       the monasteries, tithes and feudal rights abolished. The city
       of Avignon soon became the centre of a political agitation,
       whose first object was to throw off the papal yoke, and then
       to unite the country with France. ... In June, 1790, the
       people of Avignon tore down the papal arms, and the Town
       Council sent a message to Paris, that Avignon wished to be
       united to France." Some French regiments were sent to the city
       to maintain order; but "the greater part of them deserted, and
       marched out with the Democrats of the town to take and sack
       the little town of Cavaillon, which remained faithful to the
       Pope. From this time forward civil war raged without
       intermission. ... The Constituent Assembly, on the 14th of
       September, 1791, decreed the reunion of the country with
       France. Before the new government could assert its authority,
       fresh and more dreadful atrocities had taken place," ending
       with the fiendish massacre of 110 prisoners, held by a band of
       ruffians who had taken possession of the papal castle.

          H. von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
       The oath of the clergy.
       First movements toward the European coalition
       against French democracy.
       Death of Mirabeau.
       The King's flight and arrest at Varennes.
       Rise of a Republican Party.

       "By a decree of November 27th, 1790, the Assembly required the
       clergy to take an oath of fidelity to the nation, the law and
       the king, and to maintain the constitution. This oath they
       were to take within a week, on pain of deprivation. The King,
       before assenting to this measure, wished to procure the
       consent of the Pope, but was persuaded not to wait for it, and
       gave his sanction, December 3rd. ... Of 300 prelates and
       priests, who had seats in the Assembly, those who sat on the
       right unanimously refused to take the oath, while those who
       sat on the left anticipated the day appointed for that
       purpose. Out of 138 archbishops and bishops, only four
       consented to swear, Talleyrand, Loménie de Brienne (now
       Archbishop of Sens), the Bishop of Orleans, and the Bishop of
       Viviers. The oath was also refused by the great majority of
       the curés and vicars, amounting, it is said, to 50,000. Hence
       arose the distinction of 'prêtres sermentés' and
       'insermentés,' or sworn and non-juring priests. The brief of
       Pius VI., forbidding the oath, was burnt at the Palais Royal,
       as well as a mannikin representing the Pope himself in his
       pontificals. Many of the deprived ecclesiastics refused to
       vacate their functions, declared their successors intruders
       and the sacraments they administered null, and excommunicated
       all who recognised and obeyed them. Louis XVI., whose
       religious feelings were very strong, was perhaps more hurt by
       these attacks upon the Church than even by those directed
       against his own prerogative. The death of Mirabeau, April 2nd
       1791, was a great loss to the King, though it may well be
       doubted whether his exertions could have saved the monarchy.
       He fell a victim to his profligate habits, assisted probably
       by the violent exertions he had recently made in the Assembly.
       ... He was honoured with a sumptuous funeral at the public
       expense, to which, says a contemporary historian, nothing but
       grief was wanting. In fact, to most of the members of the
       Assembly, eclipsed by his splendid talents and overawed by his
       reckless audacity, his death was a relief. ... After
       Mirabeau's death, Duport, Barnave, and Lameth reigned supreme
       in the Assembly, and Robespierre became more prominent. The
       King had now begun to fix his hopes on foreign intervention.
       The injuries inflicted by the decrees of the Assembly on
       August 4th 1789, on several princes of the Empire, through
       their possessions in Alsace, Franche Comté, and Lorraine,
       might afford a pretext for a rupture between the German
       Confederation and France. ... The German prelates, injured by
       the Civil Constitution of the clergy, were among the first to
       complain. By this act the Elector of Mentz was deprived of his
       metropolitan rights over the bishoprics of Strasburg and
       Spires; the Elector of Trèves of those over Metz, Toul,
       Verdun, Nanci and St. Diez. The Bishops of Strasburg and Bale
       lost their diocesan rights in Alsace. Some of these princes
       and nobles had called upon the Emperor and the German body in
       January 1790, for protection against the arbitrary acts of the
       National Assembly. This appeal had been favourably
       entertained, both by the Emperor Joseph II. and by the King of
       Prussia; and though the Assembly offered suitable indemnities,
       they were haughtily refused. ... The Spanish and Italian
       Bourbons were naturally inclined to support their relative,
       Louis XVI. ... The King of Sardinia, connected by
       intermarriages with the French Bourbons, had also family
       interests to maintain. Catherine II. of Russia had witnessed,
       with humiliation and alarm, the fruits of the philosophy which
       she had patronised, and was opposed to the new order of things
       in France. ...
    {1271}
       All the materials existed for an extensive coalition against
       French democracy. In this posture of affairs the Count
       d'Artois, accompanied by Calonne, who served him as a sort of
       minister, and by the Count de Durfort, who had been despatched
       from the French Court, had a conference with the Emperor, now
       Leopold II., at Mantua, in May 1791, in which it was agreed
       that, towards the following July, Austria should march 35,000
       men towards the frontiers of Flanders; the German Circles
       15,000 towards Alsace; the Swiss 15,000 towards the Lyonnais;
       the King of Sardinia 15,000 towards Dauphiné; while Spain was
       to hold 20,000 in readiness in Catalonia. This agreement, for
       there was not, as some writers have supposed, any formal
       treaty, was drawn up by Calonne, and amended with the
       Emperor's own hand. But the large force to be thus assembled
       was intended only as a threatening demonstration, and
       hostilities were not to be actually commenced without the
       sanction of a congress. ... The King's situation had now
       become intolerably irksome. He was, to all intents and
       purposes, a prisoner at Paris. A trip, which he wished to make
       to St. Cloud during the Easter of 1791, was denounced at the
       Jacobin Club as a pretext for flight; and when he attempted to
       leave the Tuileries, April 18th, the tocsin was rung, his
       carriage was surrounded by the mob, and he was compelled to
       return to the palace. ... A few days after ... the leaders of
       the Revolution, who appear to have suspected his negociations
       abroad, exacted that he should address a circular to his
       ambassadors at foreign courts, in which he entirely approved
       the Revolution, assumed the title of 'Restorer of French
       liberty,' and utterly repudiated the notion that he was not
       free and master of his actions." But the King immediately
       nullified the circular by despatching secret agents with
       letters "in which he notified that any sanction he might give
       to the decrees of the Assembly was to be reputed null; that
       his pretended approval of the constitution was to be
       interpreted in an opposite sense, and that the more strongly
       he should seem to adhere to it, the more he should desire to
       be liberated from the captivity in which he was held. Louis
       soon after resolved on his unfortunate flight to the army of
       the Marquis de Bouillé at Montmédy. ... Having, after some
       hair-breadth escapes, succeeded in quitting Paris in a
       travelling berlin, June 20th, they [the King, Queen, and
       family] reached St. Menehould in safety. But here the King was
       recognised by Drouet, the son of the postmaster, who, mounting
       his horse, pursued the royal fugitives to Varennes, raised an
       alarm, and caused them to be captured when they already
       thought themselves out of danger. In consequence of their
       being rather later than was expected, the military
       preparations that had been made for their protection entirely
       failed. The news of the King's flight filled Paris with
       consternation. The Assembly assumed all the executive power of
       the Government, and when the news of the King's arrest
       arrived, they despatched Barnave, Latour, Maubourg and Pétion
       to conduct him and his family back to Paris. ... Notices had
       been posted up in Paris, that those who applauded the King
       should be horsewhipped, and that those who insulted him should
       be hanged; hence he was received on entering the capital with
       a dead silence. The streets, however, were traversed without
       accident to the Tuileries, but as the royal party were
       alighting, a rush was made upon them by some ruffians, and
       they were with difficulty saved from injury. The King's
       brother, the count of Provence, who had fled at the same time
       by a different route, escaped safely to Brussels. This time
       the King's intention to fly could not be denied; he had,
       indeed, himself proclaimed it, by sending to the Assembly a
       manifest, in which he explained his reasons for it, declared
       that he did not intend to quit the kingdom, expressed his
       desire to restore liberty and establish a constitution, but
       annulled all that he had done during the last two years. ...
       The King, after his return, was provisionally suspended from
       his functions by a decree of the Assembly, June 25th. Guards
       were placed over him and the Queen; the gardens of the
       Tuileries assumed the appearance of a camp; sentinels were
       stationed on the roof of the Palace, and even in the Queen's
       bedchamber. ... From the period of the King's flight to
       Varennes must be dated the first decided appearance of a
       republican party in France. During his absence the Assembly
       had been virtually sovereign, and hence men took occasion to
       say, 'You see the public peace has been maintained, affairs
       have gone on, in the usual way in the King's absence.' The
       chief advocates of a republic were Brissot, Condorcet, and the
       recently-established club of the Cordeliers. ... The
       arch-democrat, Thomas Payne, who was now at Paris, also
       endeavoured to excite the populace against the King. The
       Jacobin Club had not yet gone this length; they were for
       bringing Louis XVI. to trial and deposing him, but for
       maintaining the monarchy."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 7, chapters 2-3 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          J. Michelet,
          Historical View of the French Revolution,
          book 4, chapters 8-14.

          M'me Campan,
          Memoirs of Marie Antoinette,
          volume 2, chapters 5-7.

          Marquis de Bouillé,
          Memoirs,
          chapters 8-11.

          Duchess de Tourzel,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapter 12.

          A. B. Cochrane,
          Francis I., and other Historical Studies,
          volume 2 (The Flight of Varennes).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (July-September).
       Attitude of Foreign Powers.
       Coolness of Austria towards the Émigrés.
       The Declaration of Pilnitz.
       Completion of the Constitution.
       Restoration of the King.
       Tumult in the Champs de Mars.
       Dissolution of the Constituent National Assembly.

       "On the 27th of July, Prince Reuss presented a memorial [from
       the Court of Austria] to the Court of Berlin, in which the
       Emperor explained at length his views of a European Concert.
       It was drawn up, throughout, in Leopold's usual cautious and
       circumspect manner. ... In case an armed intervention should
       appear necessary--they would take into consideration the
       future constitution of France; but in doing so they were to
       renounce, in honour of the great cause in which they were
       engaged, all views of selfish aggrandizement. We see what a
       small part the desire for war played in the drawing up of this
       far-seeing plan. The document repeatedly urged that no step
       ought to be taken without the concurrence of all the Powers,
       and especially of England; and as England's decided aversion
       to every kind of interference was well known, this stipulation
       alone was sufficient to stamp upon the whole scheme, the
       character of a harmless demonstration."
    {1272}
       At the same time Catharine II. of Russia, released from war
       with the Turks, and bent upon the destruction of Poland,
       desired "to implicate the Emperor as inextricably as possible
       in the French quarrel, in order to deprive Poland of its most
       powerful protector; she therefore entered with the greatest
       zeal into the negociations for the support of Louis XVI. Her
       old opponent, the brilliant King Gustavus of Sweden, declared
       his readiness--on receipt of a large subsidy from Russia--to
       conduct a Swedish army by sea to the coast of Flanders, and
       thence, under the guidance of Bouillé, against Paris. ... But,
       of course, every word he uttered was only an additional
       warning to Leopold to keep the peace. ... Under these
       circumstances he [the Emperor] was most disagreeably surprised
       on the 20th of August, a few days before his departure for
       Pillnitz, by the sudden and entirely unannounced and
       unexpected arrival in Vienna of the Count d'Artois. It was not
       possible to refuse to see him, but Leopold made no secret to
       him of the real position of affairs. ... He asked permission
       to accompany the Emperor to Pillnitz, which the latter, with
       cool politeness, said that he had no scruple in granting, but
       that even there no change of policy would take place. ...
       Filled with such sentiments, the Emperor Leopold set out for
       the conference with his new ally; and the King of Prussia came
       to meet him with entirely accordant views. ... The
       representations of d'Artois, therefore, made just as little
       impression at Pillnitz, as they had done, a week before, at
       Vienna. ... On the 27th, d'Artois received the joint answer of
       the two Sovereigns, the tone and purport of which clearly
       testified to the sentiments of its authors. ... The Emperor
       and King gave their sanction to the peaceable residence of
       individual Émigrés in their States, but declared that no armed
       preparations would be allowed before the conclusion of an
       agreement between the European Powers. To this rejection the
       two Monarchs added a proposal of their own--contained in a
       joint declaration--in which they spoke of the restoration of
       order and monarchy in France as a question of the greatest
       importance to the whole of Europe. They signified their
       intention of inviting the coöperation of all the European
       Powers. ... But as it was well ascertained that England would
       take no part, the expressions they chose were really
       equivalent to a declaration of non-intervention, and were
       evidently made use of by Leopold solely to intimidate the
       Parisian democrats. ... Thus ended the conference of Pillnitz,
       after the two Monarchs had agreed to protect the constitution
       of the Empire, to encourage the Elector of Saxony to accept
       the crown of Poland, and to afford each other friendly aid in
       every quarter. The statement, therefore, which has been a
       thousand times repeated, that the first coalition for an
       attack on the French Revolution was formed on this occasion,
       has been shown to be utterly without foundation. As soon as
       the faintest gleam of a reconciliation between Louis and the
       National Assembly appeared, the cause of the Emigrés was
       abandoned by the German Courts."

          H. Von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 2, chapter 6. (volume l).

       At Paris, meantime, "the commissioners charged to make their
       report on the affair of Varennes presented it on the 16th of
       July. In the journey, they said, there was nothing culpable;
       and even if there were, the King was inviolable. Dethronement
       could not result from it, since the King had not staid away
       long enough, and had not resisted the summons of the
       legislative body. Robespierre, Buzot, and Pétion repeated all
       the well known arguments against the inviolability. Duport,
       Barnave, and Salles answered them, and it was at length
       resolved that the King could not be brought to trial on
       account of his flight. ... No sooner was this resolution
       passed than Robespierre rose, and protested strongly against
       it, in the name of humanity. On the evening preceding this
       decision, a great tumult had taken place at the Jacobins. A
       petition to the Assembly was there drawn up, praying it to
       declare that the King was deposed as a perfidious traitor to
       his oaths, and that it would seek to supply his place by all
       the constitutional means. It was resolved that this petition
       should be carried on the following day to the Champ de Mars,
       where everyone might sign it on the altar of the country. Next
       day, it was accordingly carried to the place agreed upon, and
       the crowd of the seditious was reinforced by that of the
       curious, who wished to be spectators of the event. At this
       moment the decree was passed, so that it was now too late to
       petition. Lafayette arrived, broke down the barricades already
       erected, was threatened and even fired at, but ... at length
       prevailed on the populace to retire. ... But the tumult was
       soon renewed. Two invalids, who happened to be, nobody knows
       for what purpose, under the altar of the country, were
       murdered, and then the uproar became unbounded. The Assembly
       sent for the municipality, and charged it to preserve public
       order. Bailly repaired to the Champ de Mars, ordered the red
       flag to be unfurled, and, by virtue of martial law, summoned
       the seditious to retire. ... Lafayette at first ordered a few
       shots to be fired in the air: the crowd quitted the altar of
       the country, but soon rallied. Thus driven to extremity, he
       gave the word, 'Fire!' The first discharge killed some of the
       rioters. Their number has been exaggerated. Some have reduced
       it to 30, others have raised it to 400, and others to several
       thousand. The last statement was believed at the moment, and
       the consternation became general. ... Lafayette and Bailly
       were vehemently reproached for the proceedings in the Champ de
       Mars; but both of them, considering it their duty to observe
       the law, and to risk popularity and life in its execution,
       felt neither regret nor fear for what they had done. The
       factions were overawed by the energy which they displayed. ...
       About this time the Assembly came to a determination which has
       since been censured, but the result of which did not prove so
       mischievous as it has been supposed. It decreed that none of
       its members should be re-elected. Robespierre was the proposer
       of this resolution, and it was attributed to the envy which he
       felt against his colleagues, among whom he had not shone. ...
       The new Assembly was thus deprived of men whose enthusiasm was
       somewhat abated, and whose legislative science was matured by
       an experience of three years. ... The constitution was ...
       completed with some haste, and submitted to the King for his
       acceptance. From that moment his freedom was restored to him;
       or, if that expression be objected to, the strict watch kept
       over the palace ceased. ... After a certain number of days he
       declared that he accepted the constitution. ... He repaired to
       the Assembly, where he was received as in the most brilliant
       times. Lafayette, who never forgot to repair the inevitable
       evils of political troubles, proposed a general amnesty for
       all acts connected with the Revolution, which was proclaimed
       amidst shouts of joy, and the prisons were instantly thrown
       open. At length, on the 30th of September [1791], Thouret, the
       last president, declared that the Constituent Assembly had
       terminated its sittings."

          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 1, pages 186-193.

          ALSO IN:
          M'me de Stael,
          Considerations on the French Revolution,
          part 2, chapters 22-23, and part 3, chapters 1-2.

          H. C. Lockwood,
          Constitutional History of France,
          chapter 1., and appendix 1.

    {1273}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (August).
       Insurrection of slaves in San Domingo.

          See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (September).
       Removal of all disabilities from the Jews.

          See JEWS: A. D. 1791.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (October).
       The meeting of the Legislative Assembly.
       Its party divisions.
       The Girondists and their leaders.
       The Mountain.

       "The most glorious destiny was predicted for the Constitution,
       yet it did not live a twelve month; the Assembly that was to
       apply it was but a transition between the Constitutional
       Monarchy and the Republic. It was because the Revolution
       partook much more of a social than of a political overthrow.
       The Constitution had done all it could for the political part,
       but the social fabric remained to be reformed; the ancient
       privileged classes had been scotched, but not killed. ... The
       new Legislative Assembly [which met October 1, its members
       having been elected before the dissolution of the Constituent
       Assembly] was composed of 745 deputies, mostly chosen from the
       middle classes and devoted to the Revolution; those of the
       Right and Extreme Right going by the name of Feuillants, those
       of the Left and Extreme Left by the name of Jacobins. The
       Right was composed of Constitutionalists, who counted on the
       support of the National Guard and departmental authorities.
       Their ideas of the Revolution were embodied in the
       Constitution. ... They kept up some relations with the Court
       by means of Barnave and the Lameths, but their pillar outside
       the Assembly, their trusty counsellor, seems to have been
       Lafayette. ... The Left was composed of men resolved at all
       risks to further the Revolution, even at the expense of the
       Constitution. They intended to go as far as a Republic, only
       they lacked common unity of views, and did not form a compact
       body. ... They reckoned among their numbers Vergniaud, Guadet,
       and Gensonné, deputies of the Gironde [the Bordeaux region, on
       the Garonne], powerful and vehement orators, and from whom
       their party afterwards took the name of 'Girondins'; also
       Brissot [de Warville] (born 1754), a talented journalist, who
       had drawn up the petition for the King's deposition; and
       Condorcet (born 1743), an ultra-liberal, but a brilliant
       philosopher. Their leader outside the Assembly was Pétion
       (born 1753), a cold, calculating, and dissembling Republican,
       enjoying great popularity with the masses. The Extreme Left,
       occupying in small numbers the raised seats in the Assembly,
       from which circumstance they afterwards took the name of 'the
       Mountain,' were auxiliaries of the 'Girondins' in their
       attempts to further a Revolution which should be entirely in
       the interest of the people. Their inspirers outside the
       Assembly were Robespierre (born 1759), who controlled the club
       of the Jacobins by his dogmatic rigorism and fame for
       integrity; and Danton (born 1759), surnamed the Mirabeau of
       the 'Breechless' (Sansculottes), a bold and daring spirit, who
       swayed the new club of the Cordeliers. The Centre was composed
       of nonentities, their moderation was inspired by fear, hence
       they nearly always voted with the Left."

          H. Van Laun,
          The French Revolutionary Epoch,
          book 1, chapter 2, section 3 (volume 1).

       "The department of the Gironde had given birth to a new
       political party in the twelve citizens who formed its
       deputies. ... The names (obscure and unknown up to this
       period), of Ducos, Guadet, Lafond-Ladebat, Grangeneuve,
       Gensonné, Vergniaud, were about to rise into notice and renown
       with the storms and disasters of their country; they were the
       men who were destined to give that impulse to the Revolution
       that had hitherto remained in doubt and indecision, before
       which it still trembled with apprehension, and which was to
       precipitate it into a republic. Why was this impulse fated to
       have birth in the department of the Gironde and not in Paris?
       Nought but conjectures can be offered on this subject. ...
       Bordeaux was a commercial city, and commerce, which requires
       liberty through interest, at last desires it through a love of
       freedom. Bordeaux was the great commercial link between
       America and France, and their constant intercourse with
       America had communicated to the Gironde their love for free
       institutions. Moreover Bordeaux ... was the birthplace of
       Montaigne and Montesquieu, those two great republicans of the
       French school."

          A. de Lamartine,
          History of the Girondists,
          book 4, section 1 (volume 1).

       "In the new National Assembly there was only one powerful and
       active party--that of the Gironde. ... When we use the term
       'parties' in reference to this Assembly, nothing more is meant
       by it than small groups of from 12 to 20 persons, who bore the
       sway in the rostra and in the Committees, and who alternately
       carried with them the aimless crowd of Deputies. It is true,
       indeed, that at the commencement of their session, 130
       Deputies entered their names among the Jacobins, and about 200
       among the Feuillants, but this had no lasting influence on the
       divisions, and the majority wavered under the influence of
       temporary motives. The party which was regarded as the 'Right'
       had no opportunity for action, but saw themselves, from the
       very first, obliged to assume an attitude of defence. ...
       Outside the Chamber the beau ideal of this party,--General
       Lafayette,--declared himself in favour of an American Senate,
       but without any of the energy of real conviction. As he had
       defended the Monarchy solely from a sense of duty, while all
       the feelings of his heart were inclined towards a Republic, so
       now, though he acknowledged the necessity of an upper Chamber,
       the existing Constitution appeared to him to possess a more
       ideal beauty. He never attained, on this point, either to
       clear ideas or decided actions; and it was at this period that
       he resigned his command of the National guard in Paris, and
       retired for a while to his estate in Auvergne. ... The
       Girondist Deputies ... were distinguished among the new
       members of the Assembly by personal dignity, regular
       education, and natural ability; and were, moreover, as ardent
       in their radicalism as any Parisian demagogue. They
       consequently soon became the darlings of all those zealous
       patriots for whom the Cordeliers were too dirty and the
       Feuillants too luke warm.
    {1274}
       External advantages are not without their weight, even in the
       most terrible political crises, and the Girondists owe to the
       magic of their eloquence, and especially to that of Vergniaud,
       an enduring fame, which neither their principles nor their
       deeds would have earned for them. ... The representatives of
       Bordeaux had never occupied a leading position in the
       Girondist party, to which they had given its name. The real
       leadership of the Gironde fell singularly enough into the
       hands of an obscure writer, a political lady, and a priest who
       carried on his operations behind the scenes. It was their
       hands that overthrew the throne of the Capets, and spread
       revolution over Europe. ... The writer in this trio was
       Brissot, who on the 16th of July had wished to proclaim the
       Republic, and who now represented the capital in the National
       Assembly, as a constitutional member. ... While Brissot shaped
       the foreign policy of the Girondist party, its home affairs
       were directed by Marie Jeanne Roland, wife of the quondam
       Inspector of Factories at Lyons, with whom she had come the
       year before to Paris, and immediately thrown herself into the
       whirlpool of political life. As early as the year 1789, she
       had written to a friend, that the National Assembly must
       demand two illustrious heads, or all would be lost. ... She
       was ... 36 years old, not beautiful, but interesting,
       enthusiastic and indefatigable; with noble aims, but incapable
       of discerning the narrow line which separates right from
       wrong. ... When warned by a friend of the unruly nature of the
       Parisian mob, she replied, that bloodhounds were after all
       indispensable for starting the game. ... A less conspicuous,
       but not less important, part in this association, was played
       by the Abbé Sieyès. He did what neither Brissot nor Mad.
       Roland could have done by furnishing his party with a
       comprehensive and prospective plan of operations. ... Their
       only clearly defined objects were to possess themselves of the
       reins of government, to carry on the Revolution, and to
       destroy the Monarchy by every weapon within their reach."

          H. von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          H. A. Taine,
          The French Revolution,
          book 4, (volume 2).

          See, also, below.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1791-1792.
       Growth and spread of anarchy and civil war.
       Activity of the Emigrés and the ejected priests.
       Decrees against them vetoed by the King.
       The Girondists in control of the government.
       War with the German powers forced on by them.

       "It was an ominous proof of the little confidence felt by
       serious men in the permanence of the new Constitution, that
       the funds fell when the King signed it. All the chief
       municipal posts in Paris were passing into the hands of
       Republicans, and when Bailly, in November, ceased to be Mayor
       of Paris, he was succeeded in that great office by Pétion, a
       vehement and intolerant Jacobin. Lafayette had resigned the
       command of the National Guard, which was then divided under
       six commanders, and it could no longer be counted on to
       support the cause of order. Over a great part of France there
       was a total insecurity of life and property, such as had
       perhaps never before existed in a civilised country, except in
       times of foreign invasion or successful rebellion. Almost all
       the towns in the south--Marseilles, Toulon, Nîmes, Arles,
       Avignon, Montpellier, Carpentras, Aix, Montauban--were centres
       of Republicanism, brigandage, or anarchy. The massacres of
       Jourdain at Avignon, in October, are conspicuous even among
       the horrors of the Revolution. Caen in the following month was
       convulsed by a savage and bloody civil war. The civil
       constitution of the clergy having been condemned by the Pope,
       produced an open schism, and crowds of ejected priests were
       exciting the religious fanaticism of the peasantry. In some
       districts in the south, the war between Catholic and
       Protestant was raging as fiercely as in the 17th century,
       while in Brittany, and especially in La Vendée, there were all
       the signs of a great popular insurrection against the new
       Government. Society seemed almost in dissolution, and there
       was scarcely a department in which law was observed and
       property secure. The price of corn, at the same time, was
       rising fast under the influence of a bad harvest in the south,
       aggravated by the want of specie, the depreciation of paper
       money, and the enormously increased difficulties of transport.
       The peasantry were combining to refuse the paper money. It was
       falling rapidly in value. ... In the mean time the stream of
       emigrants continued unabated, and it included the great body
       of the officers of the army who had been driven from the
       regiments by their own soldiers. ... At Brussels, Worms, and
       Coblentz, emigrants were forming armed organisations."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th century,
          chapter 21 (volume 5).

       "The revolution was threatened by two dangerous enemies, the
       emigrants, who were urging on a foreign invasion, and the
       non-juring bishops and priests who were doing all in their
       power to excite domestic rebellion. The latter were really the
       more dangerous. ... The Girondists clamoured for repressive
       measures. On the 30th of October it was decreed that the count
       of Provence, unless he returned within two months, should
       forfeit all rights to the regency. On the 9th of November an
       edict threatened the emigrants with confiscation and death
       unless they returned to their allegiance before the end of the
       year. On the 29th of November came the attack upon the
       non-jurors. They were called upon to take the oath within
       eight days, when lists were to be drawn up of those who
       refused; these were then to forfeit their pensions, and if any
       disturbance took place in their district they were to be
       removed from it, or if their complicity were proved they were
       to be imprisoned for two years. The king accepted the decree
       against his brother, but he opposed his veto to the other two.
       The Girondists and Jacobins eagerly seized the opportunity for
       a new attack upon the monarchy. ... Throughout the winter
       attention was devoted almost exclusively to foreign affairs.
       It has been seen that the emperor was really eager for peace,
       and that as long as he remained in that mood there was little
       risk of any other prince taking the initiative. At the same
       time it must be acknowledged that Leopold's tone towards the
       French government was often too haughty and menacing to be
       conciliatory, and also that the open preparations of the
       emigrants in neighbouring states constituted an insult if not
       a danger to France. The Girondists, the most susceptible of
       men, only expressed the national sentiment in dwelling upon
       this with bitterness, and in calling for vengeance. At the
       same time they had conceived the definite idea that their own
       supremacy could best be obtained and secured by forcing on a
       foreign war.
    {1275}
       This was expressly avowed by Brissot, who took the lead of the
       party in this matter. Robespierre, on the other hand, partly
       through temperament and partly through jealousy of his
       brilliant rivals, was inclined to the maintenance of peace.
       But on this point the Feuillants were agreed with the Gironde,
       and so a vast majority was formed to force the unwilling king
       and ministers into war. The first great step was taken when
       Duportail, who had charge of military affairs, was replaced by
       Narbonne, a Feuillant. Louis XVI. was compelled to issue a
       note (14 December, 1791) to the emperor and to the archbishop
       of Trier to the effect that if the military force of the
       emigrants were not disbanded by the 15th of January
       hostilities would be commenced against the elector. The latter
       at once ordered the cessation of the military preparations,
       but the emigrants not only refused to obey but actually
       insulted the French envoy. Leopold expressed his desire for
       peace, but at the same time declared that any attack on the
       electorate of Trier would be regarded as an act of hostility
       to the empire. These answers were unsatisfactory, and Narbonne
       collected three armies on the frontiers, under the command of
       Rochambeau, Lafayette, and Luckner, and amounting together to
       about 150,000 men. On the 25th of January an explicit
       declaration was demanded from the emperor, with a threat that
       war would be declared unless a satisfactory answer was
       received by the 4th of March. Leopold II. saw all his hopes of
       maintaining peace in western Europe gradually disappearing,
       and was compelled to bestir himself. ... On the 7th of
       February he finally concluded a treaty with the king of
       Prussia. ... On the 1st of March, while still hoping to avoid
       a quarrel, Leopold II. died of a sudden illness, and with him
       perished the last possibility of peace. His son and successor,
       Francis II., who was now 24, had neither his father's ability
       nor his experience, and he was naturally more easily swayed by
       the anti-revolutionary spirit. ... The Girondists combined all
       their efforts for an attack upon the minister of foreign
       affairs, Delessart, whom they accused of truckling to the
       enemies of the nation. Delessart was committed to prison, and
       his colleagues at once resigned. The Gironde now came into
       office. The ministry of home affairs was given to Roland; of
       war to Servan; of finance to Clavière. Dumouriez obtained the
       foreign department, Duranthon that of justice, and Lacoste the
       marine. Its enemies called it 'the ministry of the
       Sansculottes.' ... On the 20th of April [1792] Louis XVI.
       appeared in the assembly and read with trembling voice a
       declaration of war against the king of Hungary and Bohemia."

          R. Lodge,
          History of Modern Europe,
          chapter 22, section 20-21.

       The sincere desire of the Emperor Leopold II. to avoid war
       with France, and the restraining influence over the King of
       Prussia which he exercised up to the time when Catherine II.
       of Russia overcame it by the Polish temptation, are set forth
       by H. von Sybel in passages quoted elsewhere.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.

          ALSO IN:
          A. de Lamartine,
          History of the Girondists,
          books 6-14 (volume l).

          A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
          Annals of the French Revolution,
          part 2. chapters 1-14 (volume 5-6).

          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the Eighteenth Century,
          5th period, 2d division, chapter 1 (volume 6).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (April).
       Fête to the Soldiers of Chateauvieux.

          See LIBERTY CAP.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (April-July).
       Opening of the war with Austria and Prussia.
       French reverses.

       "Hostilities followed close upon the declaration of war. At
       this time the forces destined to come into collision were
       posted as follows: Austria had 40,000 men in Belgium, and
       25,000 on the Rhine. These numbers might easily have been
       increased to 80,000, but the Emperor of Austria did no more
       than collect 7,000 or 8,000 around Brisgau, and some 20,000
       more around Rastadt. The Prussians, now bound into a close
       alliance with Austria, had still a great distance to traverse
       from their base to the theatre of war, and could not hope to
       undertake active operations for a long time to come. France,
       on the other hand, had already three strong armies in the
       field. The Army of the North, under General Rochambeau, nearly
       50,000 strong, held the frontier from Philippeville to
       Dunkirk; General Lafayette commanded a second army of about
       the same strength in observation from Philippeville to the
       Lauter; and a third army of 40,000 men, under Marshal Luckner,
       watched the course of the Rhine from Lauterbourg to the
       confines of Switzerland. The French forces were strong,
       however, on paper only. The French army had been mined, as it
       seemed, by the Revolution, and had fallen almost to pieces.
       The wholesale emigration of the aristocrats had robbed it of
       its commissioned officers, the old experienced leaders whom
       the men were accustomed to follow and obey. Again, the passion
       for political discussion, and the new notions of universal
       equality had fostered a dangerous spirit of license in the
       ranks. ... While the regular regiments of the old
       establishment were thus demoralised, the new levies were still
       but imperfectly organised, and the whole army was unfit to
       take the field. It was badly equipped, without transport, and
       without those useful administrative services which are
       indispensable for mobility and efficiency. Moreover, the
       prestige of the French arms was at its lowest ebb. A long and
       enervating peace had followed since the last great war, in
       which the French armies had endured only failure and
       ignominious defeat. It is not strange, then, that the foes
       whom France had so confidently challenged, counted upon an
       easy triumph over the revolutionary troops. The earliest
       operations fully confirmed these anticipations. ... France
       after the declaration of war had at once assumed the
       initiative, and proceeded to invade Belgium. Here the Duke
       Albert of Saxe-Teschen, who commanded the Imperialist forces,
       held his forces concentrated in three principal corps: one
       covered the line from the sea to Tournay; the second was at
       Leuze; the third and weakest at Mons. The total of these
       troops rose to barely 40,000, and Mons, the most important
       point in the general line of defence, was the least strongly
       held. All able strategist gathering together 30,000 men from
       each of the French armies of the Centre and North, would have
       struck at Mons with all his strength, cut Duke Albert's
       communications with the Rhine, turned his inner flank, and
       rolled him up into the sea. But no great genius as yet
       directed the military energies of France. ... By Dumouriez's
       advice, the French armies were ordered to advance against the
       Austrians by several lines. Four columns of invasion were to
       enter Belgium; one was to follow the sea coast, the second to
       march on Tournay, the third to move from Valenciennes on Mons,
       and the fourth, under Lafayette, on Givet or Namur.
    {1276}
       Each, according to the success it might achieve, was to
       reinforce the next nearest to it, and all, finally, were to
       converge on Brussels. At the very outset, however, the French
       encountered the most ludicrous reverses. Their columns fled in
       disorder directly they came within sight of the enemy.
       Lafayette alone continued his march boldly towards Namur; but
       he was soon compelled to retire by the news of the hasty
       flight of the columns north of him. The French troops had
       proved as worthless as their leaders were incapable; whole
       brigades turned tail, crying that they were betrayed, casting
       away their weapons as they ran, and displaying the most abject
       cowardice and terror. Not strangely, after this pitiful
       exhibition, the Austrians--all Europe, indeed--held the
       military power of France in the utmost contempt. ... But now
       the national danger stirred France to its inmost depths.
       French spirit was thoroughly roused. The country rose as one
       man, determined to offer a steadfast, stubborn front to its
       foes. Stout-hearted leaders, full of boundless energy and
       enthusiasm, summoned all the resources of the nation to stem
       and roll back the tide of invasion. Immediate steps were taken
       to put the defeated and disgraced armies of the frontier upon
       a new footing. Lafayette replaced Rochambeau, with charge from
       Longwy to the sea, his main body about Sedan; Luckner took the
       line from the Moselle to the Swiss mountains, with
       head-quarters at Metz. A third general, destined to come
       speedily to the front, also joined the army as Lafayette's
       lieutenant. This was Dumouriez, who, wearied and baffled by
       Parisian politics, sought the freedom of the field."

          A. Griffiths,
          French Revolutionary Generals,
          chapter 1.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (June-August).
       The King's dismissal of Girondist ministers.
       Mob demonstration of June 20.
       Lafayette in Paris.
       His failure.
       The Country declared to be in Danger.
       Gathering of volunteers in Paris.
       Brunswick's manifesto.
       Mob attack on the Tuileries, August 10.
       Massacre of the Swiss.

       "Servan, the minister of war, proposed the formation of an
       armed camp for the protection of Paris. Much opposition was,
       however, raised to the project, and the Assembly decreed (June
       6) that 20,000 volunteers, recruited in the departments,
       should meet at Paris to take part in the celebration of a
       federal festival on July 14, the third anniversary of the fall
       of the Bastille. The real object of those who supported the
       decree was to have a force at Paris with which to maintain
       mastery over the city should the Allies penetrate into the
       interior. Louis left the decree unsanctioned, as he had the
       one directed against nonjurors. The agitators of the sections
       sought to get up an armed demonstration against this exercise
       of the King's constitutional prerogative. Though armed
       demonstrations were illegal, the municipality offered but a
       perfunctory and half-hearted resistance. ... Louis, irritated
       at the pressure put on him by Roland, Clavière, and Servan, to
       sanction the two decrees, dismissed the three ministers from
       office (June 13). Dumouriez, who had quarreled with his
       colleagues, supported the King in taking this step, but in
       face of the hostility of the Assembly himself resigned office
       (June 15). Three days later a letter from Lafayette was read
       in the Assembly. The general denounced the Jacobins as the
       authors of all disorders, called on the Assembly to maintain
       the prerogatives of the crown, and intimated that his army
       would not submit to see the constitution violated (June 18).
       Possibly the dismissal of the ministers and the writing of
       this letter were measures concerted between the King and
       Lafayette. In any case the King's motive was to excite
       division between the constitutionalists and the Girondists, so
       as to weaken the national defence. The dismissal of the ministers
       was, however, regarded by the Girondists as a proof of the
       truth of their worst suspicions, and no measures were taken to
       prevent an execution of the project of making an armed, and
       therefore illegal, demonstration against the royal policy. On
       June 20, thousands of persons, carrying pikes or whatever
       weapon came to hand, and accompanied by several battalions of
       the national guard, marched from St. Antoine to the hall of
       the Assembly. A deputation read an address demanding the
       recall of the ministers. Afterwards the whole of the
       procession, men, women and children, dancing, singing, and
       carrying emblems, defiled through the chamber. Instigated by
       their leaders they broke into the Tuileries. The King, who
       took his stand on a window seat, was mobbed for four hours. To
       please his unwelcome visitors, he put on his head a red cap,
       such as was now commonly worn at the Jacobins as an emblem of
       liberty, in imitation of that which was once worn by the
       emancipated Roman slave. He declared his intention to observe
       the constitution, but neither insult nor menace could prevail
       on him to promise his sanction to the two decrees. The Queen,
       separated from the King, sat behind a table on which she
       placed the Dauphin, exposed to the gaze and taunts of the
       crowds which slowly traversed the palace apartments. At last,
       but not before night, the mob left the Tuileries without doing
       further harm, and order was again restored. This insurrection
       and the slackness, if not connivance, of the municipal
       authorities, excited a widespread feeling of indignation
       amongst constitutionalists. Lafayette came to Paris, and at
       the bar of the Assembly demanded in person what he had before
       demanded by letter (June 28). With him, as with other former
       members of the constituent Assembly, it was a point of honour
       to shield the persons of the King and Queen from harm. Various
       projects for their removal from Paris were formed, but policy
       and sentiment alike forbade Marie Antoinette to take advantage
       of them. ... The one gleam of light on the horizon of this
       unhappy Queen was the advance of the Allies. 'Better die,' she
       one day bitterly exclaimed, 'than be saved by Lafayette and
       the constitutionalists.' There was, no doubt, a possibility of
       the Allies reaching Paris that summer, but this enormously
       increased the danger of the internal situation. ... To rouse
       the nation to a sense of peril the Assembly [July 11] caused
       public proclamation to be made in every municipality that the
       country was in danger. The appeal was responded to with
       enthusiasm, and within six weeks more than 60,000 volunteers
       enlisted. The Duke of Brunswick, the commander-in-chief of the
       allied forces, published a manifesto, drawn up by the
       emigrants. If the authors of this astounding proclamation had
       deliberately intended to serve the purpose of those Frenchmen
       who were bent on kindling zeal for the war, they could not
       have done anything more likely to serve their purpose.
    {1277}
       The powers required the country to submit unconditionally to
       Louis's mercy. All who offered resistance were to be treated
       as rebels to their King, and Paris was to suffer military
       execution if any harm befell the royal family. ... Meanwhile,
       a second insurrection, which had for its object the King's
       deposition, was in preparation. The Assembly, after declaring
       the country in danger, had authorised the sections of Paris,
       as well as the administrative authorities throughout France,
       to meet at any moment. The sections had, in consequence, been
       able to render themselves entirely independent of the
       municipality. In each of the sectional or primary assemblies
       from 700 to 3,000 active citizens had the right to vote, but
       few cared to attend, and thus it constantly happened that a
       small active minority spoke and acted in the name of an
       apathetic constitutional majority. Thousands of volunteers
       passed through Paris on their way to the frontier, some of
       whom were purposely retained to take part in the insurrection.
       The municipality of Marseilles, at the request of Barbaroux, a
       young friend of the Rolands, sent up a band of 500 men, who
       first sung in Paris the verses celebrated as the
       'Marseillaise' [see MARSEILLAISE]. The danger was the greater
       since every section had its own cannon and a special body of
       cannoneers, who nearly to a man were on the side of the
       revolutionists. The terrified and oscillating Assembly made no
       attempt to suppress agitation, but acquitted (August 8)
       Lafayette, by 406 against 280 votes, of a charge of treason
       made against him by the left, on the ground that he had sought
       to intimidate the Legislature. This vote was regarded as
       tantamount to a refusal to pass sentence of deposition on
       Louis. On the following night the insurrection began. Its
       centre was in the Faubourg of St. Antoine, and it was
       organised by but a small number of men. Mandat, the
       commander-in-chief of the national guard, was an energetic
       constitutionalist, who had taken well-concerted measures for
       the defence of the Tuileries. But the unscrupulousness of the
       conspirators was more than a match for his zeal. Soon after
       midnight commissioners from 28 sections met together at the
       Hotel de Ville, and forced the Council-General of the
       Municipality to summon Mandat before it, and to send out
       orders to the officers of the guard in contradiction to those
       previously given. Mandat, unaware of what was passing, obeyed
       the summons, and on his arrival was arrested and murdered.
       After this the commissioners dispersed the lawful council and
       usurped its place. At the Tuileries were about 950 Swiss and
       more than 4,000 national guards. Early in the morning the
       first bands of insurgents appeared. On the fidelity of the
       national guards it was impossible to rely; and the royal
       family, attended by a small escort, left the palace, and
       sought refuge with the Assembly [which held its sessions in
       the old Riding-School of the Tuileries, not far from the
       palace, at one side of the gardens]. Before their departure
       orders had been given to the Swiss to repel force by force,
       and soon the sound of firing spread alarm through Paris. The
       King sent the Swiss instructions to retire, which they
       punctually obeyed. One column, passing through the Tuileries
       gardens, was shot down almost to a man. The rest reached the
       Assembly in safety, but several were afterwards massacred on
       their way to prison. For 24 hours the most frightful anarchy
       prevailed. Numerous murders were committed in the streets. The
       assailants, some hundreds of whom had perished, sacked the
       palace, and killed all the men whom they found there."

          B. M. Gardiner,
          The French Revolution,
          chapter 5.

       "Terror and fury ruled the hour. The Swiss, pressed on from
       without, paralysed from within, have ceased to shoot; but not
       to be shot. What shall they do? Desperate is the moment.
       Shelter or instant death: yet How, Where? One party flies out
       by the Rue de l'Echelle; is destroyed utterly, 'en entier.' A
       second, by the other side, throws itself into the Garden;
       'hurrying across a keen fusillade'; rushes suppliant into the
       National Assembly; finds pity and refuge in the back benches
       there. The third, and largest, darts out in column, 300
       strong, towards the Champs Elysées: 'Ah, could we but reach
       Courbevoye, where other Swiss are!' Wo! see, in such fusillade
       the column 'soon breaks itself by diversity of opinion,' into
       distracted segments, this way and that;--to escape in holes,
       to die fighting from street to street. The firing and
       murdering will not cease: not yet for long. The red Porters of
       Hotels are shot at, be they 'Suisse' by nature, or Suisse only
       in name. The very Firemen, who pump and labour on that smoking
       Carrousel [which the mob had fired]; are shot at; why should
       the Carrousel not burn? Some Swiss take refuge in private
       houses; find that mercy too does still dwell in the heart of
       man. The brave Marseillese are merciful, late so wroth; and
       labour to save. ... But the most are butchered, and even
       mangled. Fifty (some say Fourscore) were marched as prisoners,
       by National Guards, to the Hôtel-de-Ville: the ferocious
       people bursts through on them, in the Place-de-Greve;
       massacres them to the last man. 'O Peuple, envy of the
       universe!' Peuple, in mad Gaelic effervescence! Surely few
       things in the history of carnage are painfuler. What
       ineffaceable red streak, flickering so sad in the memory, is
       that, of this poor column of red Swiss, 'breaking itself in
       the confusion of opinions'; dispersing, into blackness and
       death! Honour to you, brave men; honourable pity, through long
       times! Not martyrs were ye; and yet almost more. He was no
       King of yours, this Louis; and he forsook you like a King of
       shreds and patches: ye were but sold to him for some poor
       sixpence a-day; yet would ye work for your wages, keep your
       plighted word: The work now was to die; and ye did it. Honour
       to you, O Kinsmen; and may the old Deutsch 'Biederkeit' and'
       Tapferkeit,' and Valour which is Worth and Truth, be they
       Swiss, be they Saxon, fail in no age!"

          T. Carlyle,
          The French Revolution,
          volume 2, book 6, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 1, pages 266-330.

          Madame Campan,
          Memoirs of Marie Antoinette,
          volume 2, chapters 9-10.

          J. Claretie,
          Camille Desmoulins and his Wife,
          chapter 3, sections 4-5.

          A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
          Annals of the French Revolution,
          part 2, chapters 18-28 (volumes 6-7).

          Duchess de Tourzel,
          Memoirs,
          volume 2, chapters 8-10.

          Count M. Dumas,
          Memoirs,
          chapter 4 (volume 1).

    {1278}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August).
       Power seized by the insurrectionary Commune of Paris.
       Dethronement and imprisonment of the King.
       Conflict between the Girondins of the Assembly and the
       Jacobins of the Commune.
       Alarm at the advance of the Prussians.
       The searching of the city for suspects.
       Arrest of 3,000.

       "While the Swiss were being murdered, the Legislative Assembly
       were informed that a deputation wished to enter. At the head
       of this deputation appeared Huguenin, who announced that a new
       municipality for Paris had been formed, and that the old one
       had resigned. This was, indeed, the fact. On the departure of
       Santerre the commissioners of the sections had given orders to
       the legitimate council-general of the municipality to resign,
       and the council-general, startled by the events which were
       passing, consented. The commissioners then called themselves
       the new municipality, and proceeded, as municipal officers, to
       send a deputation to the Assembly. The deputation almost
       ordered that the Assembly should immediately declare the
       king's dethronement, and, in the presence of the unfortunate
       monarch himself, Vergniaud mounted the tribune, and proposed,
       on behalf of the Committee of Twenty-one, that the French
       people should be invited to elect a National Convention to
       draw up a new Constitution, and that the chief of the
       executive power, as he called the king, should be
       provisionally suspended from his functions until the new
       Convention had pronounced what measures should be adopted to
       establish a new government and the reign of liberty and
       equality. The motion was carried, and was countersigned by one
       of the king's ministers, De Joly; and thus the old monarchy of
       the Bourbons in France came to an end. But the Assembly had
       not yet completed its work. The ministry was dismissed, as not
       having the confidence of the people, and the Minister of War,
       d'Abancourt, was ordered to be tried by the court at Orleans
       for treason, in having brought the Swiss Guards to Paris. The
       Assembly then prepared to elect new ministers. Roland,
       Clavière, and Servan were recalled by acclamation to their
       former posts. ... Danton was elected Minister of Justice by
       222 votes against 60; Gaspard Monge, the great mathematician,
       was elected Minister of Marine, on the nomination of
       Condorcet; and Lebrun-Tondu, a friend of Brissot and
       Dumouriez, and a former abbé, to the department of Foreign
       Affairs. At the bidding of the self-elected municipality of
       Paris the king had been suspended, and a new ministry
       inaugurated, and this new municipality, which, it must be
       remembered, only represented 28 sections of Paris, next
       proceeded to send its decrees all over France. It was joined
       on this very day by some of the extreme men who hoped through
       its means to force a republic on France--notably by Camille
       Desmoulins and Dubois-Dubais; and on the 11th it was still
       further reinforced by the presence of Robespierre,
       Billaud-Varenne, and Marat. The Legislative Assembly had
       become a mere instrument in the hands of the Committee of
       Twenty-one [a committee specially charged with watchfulness
       over the safety of the public, and which foreshadowed the
       later famous Committee of Public Safety]. The majority of the
       deputies either left Paris, or, if they belonged to the right,
       hid themselves, while those of the left had to obey every
       order of their leaders, and left the transaction of temporary
       business to the Committee of Twenty-one. This committee
       practically ruled France for forty days, until the meeting of
       the Convention; the Assembly always accepted its propositions
       and sent the deputies it nominated on important missions; its
       only rival was the insurrectionary commune, and the
       internecine warfare between the Jacobins and the Girondins was
       foreshadowed in the struggle between this Commune and the
       Committee of Twenty-one. For, while the extreme Jacobins
       filled the new Commune of Paris, the Committee of Twenty-one
       consisted of Girondins and Feuillants, Brissot was its
       president, Vergniaud its reporter, and Gensonné, Condorcet,
       Lasource, Guadet, Lacépède, Lacuèe, Pastoret, Muraire, Delmas,
       and Guyton-Morveau were amongst its members. On the evening of
       August 10 the Assembly decreed that the difference between
       active and passive citizens should be abolished, and that
       every Frenchman of the age of 25 should have a vote for the
       Convention. ... The last sight the king might have seen on the
       night of August 10 was his palace of the Tuileries in flames,
       where, for mischief, fire had been set to the stables. It
       spread from building to building, and the Assembly only took
       steps to check it when it threatened to spread to the houses
       of the Rue Saint Honoré. ... On the day after this terrible
       night the king was informed that rooms had been found for him
       in the Convent of the Feuillants; and to four monastic cells,
       which had not been inhabited since the dissolution of the
       monastery two years before, the royal family was led, and
       round them was placed a strong guard. Yet they were no more
       prisoners in the Convent of the Feuillants than they had been
       in the splendid palace of the Tuileries. ... The king's
       nominal authority was annihilated; but though the course of
       events left him a prisoner, it cannot be said that his
       influence was diminished, for he had none left to diminish. It
       was to the Girondins, rather than to the king, that the
       results of August 10 brought unpleasant surprises. ... The
       real power had gone to the Commune of Paris, and this was very
       clearly perceived by Robespierre and by Marat. ... Though
       Marat was received with the loudest cheers by the
       insurrectionary commune, Robespierre was the man who really
       became its leader. He had long expected the shock which had
       just taken place, and had prepared himself for the crisis. The
       first requisition was, of course, for a Convention. This had
       been granted on the very first day. The second demand of the
       Commune was the safe custody of the king, so that he should
       not be able to escape to the army. This was conceded by the
       Assembly on August 12, when they ordered that the king and
       royal family should be taken to the old tower of the Temple,
       and there strictly guarded under the superintendence of the
       insurrectionary commune. Lafayette's sudden flight greatly
       strengthened the position of the Commune of Paris. ...
       Relieved from the fear of Lafayette's turning against them,
       both the Girondins in the Legislative Assembly and the
       Jacobins in the insurrectionary commune turned to the pursuit
       of their own special plans, and naturally soon came into
       violent collision. ... The Girondins were, above all things,
       men of ideas; the Jacobins, above all things, practical men:
       and of the issue of a struggle between them there could be
       little doubt, though, at this period the Girondins had the
       advantage of the best position. On August 15 the final blow
       was struck at the unfortunate Feuillants, or
       Constitutionalists. The last ministers of the king, as well
       Duport du Tertre, Bertrand de Moleville, and Duportail, were
       all ordered to be arrested, with Barnave and Charles de
       Lameth. The Assembly followed up this action by establishing
       the special tribunal of August 17, which held its first
       sitting on the same evening at the Hotel de Ville.
    {1279}
       Robespierre was elected president, and refused the office. ...
       The new tribunal was too slow to satisfy the leaders of the
       Commune of Paris, for its first prisoner, Laporte, the old
       intendant of the civil list, was not judged until August 21,
       and then acquitted. This news made the Commune lose all
       patience, and they determined to urge the Assembly to more
       energetic measures. Under the pressure of the Commune the
       Assembly took vigorous measures indeed. All the leaders of the
       émigrés were sequestrated; all ecclesiastics who would not
       take the oath were to be transported to French Guiana, and it
       was decreed that the National Guard should enlist every man,
       whether an active or a passive citizen. Much of this vigour on
       the part of the Assembly was due, not only to the pressure of
       the Commune, but to the rapid advance of the Prussians. ...
       The Assembly ... decreed that an army of 30,000 men should be
       raised in Paris, and that every man who had a musket issued to
       him should be punished with death if he did not march at once.
       ... On August 28, on the motion of Danton, now Minister of
       Justice, a general search for arms and suspects was ordered.
       The gates of the city were closed on August 30; every street
       was ordered to be illuminated; bodies of national guards
       entered each house and searched it from top to bottom. Barely
       1,000 muskets were seized, but more than 8,000 prisoners were
       taken and shut up, not only in the prisons, but in all the
       largest convents of Paris, which were turned into houses of
       detention. Who should be arrested as a suspect depended
       entirely on the municipal officer who happened to examine the
       house, and these men acted under the orders of a special
       committee established by the Commune, at the head of which sat
       Marat. ... The residents in Paris at the time of the
       Revolution seem to have been more struck by this
       house-to-house visitation than by many other events which were
       far more horrible."

          H. M. Stephens,
          History of the French Revolution,
          volume 2, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          Grace D. Elliot,
          Journal of My Life during the French Revolution,
          chapter 4.

          Gouverneur Morris,
          Life and Correspondence.,
          edited by Sparks, volume 2, pages 203-217.

          G. Long,
          France and its Revolutions,
          chapter 29.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August).
       Lafayette's unsuccessful resistance to the Jacobins.
       His withdrawal from France.

       "The news of the 10th of August was carried to Lafayette by
       one of his own officers who happened to be in Paris on
       business. He learned that the throne was overturned and the
       Assembly in subjection, but he could not believe that the
       cause of the constitutional monarchy was abandoned without a
       struggle. He announced to the army the events that had taken
       place, and conjured the men to remain true to the king and
       constitution. The commissioners despatched by the Commune of
       Paris to announce to the different armies the change of
       government and to exact oaths of fidelity to it soon arrived
       at Sedan within Lafayette's command. The general had them
       brought before the municipality of Sedan and interrogated
       regarding their mission. Convinced, from their own account,
       that they were the agents of a faction which had unlawfully
       seized upon power, he ordered their arrest and had them
       imprisoned. Lafayette's moral influence in the army and the
       country was still so great that the Jacobins knew that they
       must either destroy him or win him over to their side. The
       latter course was preferred. ... The imprisoned commissioners,
       therefore, requested a private conference with Lafayette, and
       offered him, on the part of their superiors in Paris, whatever
       executive power he desired in the new government. It is
       needless to say that Lafayette, whose sole aim was to
       establish liberty in his country, refused to entertain the
       idea of associating himself with the despotism of the mob. He
       caused his own soldiers to renew their oath of fidelity to the
       king, and communicated with Luckner on the situation. ...
       Meanwhile, emissaries from the Commune were sent to Sedan to
       influence the soldiers by bribes and threats to renounce their
       loyalty to their commander. All the other armies and provinces
       to which commissioners had been sent had received them and
       taken the new oaths. Lafayette found himself alone in his
       resistance. His attitude acquired, every day, more the
       appearance of rebellion against authorities recognized by the
       rest of France. New commissioners arrived, bringing with them
       his dismissal from command. The army was wavering between
       attachment to their general and obedience to government. On
       the 19th of August, the Jacobins, seeing that they could not
       win him over, caused the Assembly to declare him a traitor.
       Lafayette had now to take an immediate resolution. France had
       declared for the Paris Commune. The constitutional monarchy
       was irretrievably destroyed. For the general to dispute with
       his appointed successor the command of the army was to provoke
       further disorders in a cause that had ceased to be that of the
       nation and become only his own. Three possible courses
       remained open to him,--to accept the Jacobin overtures and
       become a part of their bloody despotism; to continue his
       resistance and give his head to the guillotine; to leave the
       country. He resolved to seek an asylum in a neutral territory
       with the hope, as he himself somewhat naively expressed it,
       'some day to be again of service to liberty and to France.'
       Lafayette made every preparation for the safety of his troops,
       placing them under the orders of Luckner until the arrival of
       Dumouriez, the new general in command. He publicly
       acknowledged responsibility for the arrest of the
       commissioners and the defiance of Sedan to the Commune, in
       order that the municipal officers who had supported him might
       escape punishment. He included in his party his
       staff-officers, whose association with him would have
       subjected them to the fury of the Commune, and some others who
       had also been declared traitors on account of obedience to his
       orders. He then made his way to Bouillon, on the extreme
       frontier. There, dismissing the escort, and sending back final
       orders for the security of the army, he rode with his
       companions into a foreign land."

          B. Tuckerman,
          Life of Lafayette,
          volume 2, chapter 3.

    {1280}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (August-September).
       The September Massacres in the Paris prisons.

       The house-to-house search for suspects was carried on during
       the night of August 29 and the following day. "The next
       morning, at daybreak, the Mairie, the sections, the ancient
       prisons of Paris, and the convents that had been converted
       into prisons, were crowded with prisoners. They were summarily
       interrogated, and half of them, the victims of error or
       precipitation, were set at liberty, or claimed by their
       sections. The remainder were distributed in the prisons of the
       Abbaye Saint Germain, the Conciergerie, the Châtelet, La
       Force, the Luxembourg, and the ancient monasteries of the
       Bernardins, Saint Firmin, and the Carmes; Bicêtre and the
       Salpêtrière also opened their gates to receive fresh inmates.
       The three days that followed this night were employed by the
       commissaries in making a selection of the prisoners. Already
       their death was projected. ... "We must purge the prisons, and
       leave no traitors behind us when we hasten to the frontiers.'
       Such was the cry put into the mouth of the people by Marat and
       Danton. Such was the attitude of Danton on the brink of these
       crimes. As for the part of Robespierre, it was the same as in
       all these crises--on the debate concerning war, on the 20th of
       June, and on the 10th of August. He did not act, he blamed;
       but he left the event to itself, and when once accomplished he
       accepted it as a progressive step of the Revolution. ... On
       Sunday, the 2d of September, at three o'clock in the
       afternoon, the signal for the massacre was given by one of
       those accidents that seem so perfectly the effect of chance.
       Five coaches, each containing six priests, started from the
       Hôtel-de-Ville to the prison of the Abbaye ... escorted by
       weak detachments of Avignonnais and Marseillais, armed with
       pikes and sabers. ... Groups of men, women and children
       insulted them as they passed, and their escort joined in the
       invective threats and outrages of the populace. ... The
       émeute, increasing in number at every step across the Rue
       Dauphine, was met by another mob, that blocked up the
       Carrefour Bussy, where municipal officers received enrolments
       in the open air. The carriages stopped; and a man, forcing his
       way through the escort, sprung on the step of the first
       carriage, plunged his saber twice into the body of one of the
       priests, and displayed it reeking with blood: the people
       uttered a cry of horror. 'This frightens you, cowards!' said
       the assassin, with a smile of disdain; 'You must accustom
       yourselves to look on death.' With these [words] he again
       plunged his saber into the carriage and continued to strike.
       ... The coaches slowly moved on, and the assassin, passing
       from one to the other, and clinging with one hand to the door,
       stabbed at random at all he could reach; while the assassins
       of Avignon, who formed part of their escort, plunged their
       bayonets into the interior; and the pikes, pointed against the
       windows, prevented any of the priests from leaping into the
       street. The long line of carriages moving slowly on, and
       leaving a bloody trace behind them, the despairing cries and
       gestures of the priests, the ferocious shouts of their
       butchers, the yells of applause of the populace, announced
       from a distance their arrival to the prisoners of the Abbaye.
       The cortège stopped at the door of the prison, and the
       soldiers of the escort dragged out by the feet eight dead
       bodies. The priests who had escaped, or who were only wounded,
       precipitated themselves into the prison; four of them were
       seized and massacred on the threshold. ... The prisoners ...
       cooped up in the Abbaye heard this prelude to murder at their
       gates. ... The internal wickets were closed on them, and they
       received orders to return to their chambers, as if to answer
       the muster-roll. A fearful spectacle was visible in the outer
       court: the last wicket opening into it had been transformed
       into a tribunal; and around a large table--covered with
       papers, writing materials, the registers of the prisons,
       glasses, bottles, pistols, sabers, and pipes--were seated
       twelve judges, whose gloomy features and athletic proportions
       stamped them men of toil, debauch or blood. Their attire was
       that of the laboring classes. ... Two or three of them
       attracted attention by the whiteness of their hands and the
       elegance of their shape; and that betrayed the presence of men
       of intellect, purposely mingled with these men of action to
       guide them. A man in a gray coat, a saber at his side, pen in
       his hand, and whose inflexible features seemed as though they
       were petrified, was seated at the center of the table, and
       presided over the tribunal. This was the Huissier Maillard,
       the idol of the mobs of the Faubourg Saint Marceau ... an
       actor in the days of October, the 20th of June, and the 10th
       of August. ... He had just returned from the Carmes, where he
       had organized the massacre. It was not chance that had brought
       him to the Abbaye at the precise moment of the arrival of the
       prisoners, and with the prison registers in his hand. He had
       received, the previous evening, the secret orders of Marat,
       through the members of the Comité de Surveillance. Danton had
       sent for the registers to the prison, and gone through them;
       and Maillard was shown those he was to acquit and condemn. If
       the prisoner was acquitted, Maillard said, 'Let this gentleman
       be set at liberty'; if condemned, a voice said, 'A la Force.'
       At these words the outer door opened, and the prisoner fell
       dead as he crossed the threshold. The massacre commenced with
       the Swiss, of whom there were 150 at the Abbaye, officers and
       soldiers. ... They fell, one after another, like sheep in a
       slaughter-house. The tumbrils were not sufficient to carry
       away the corpses, and they were piled up on each side of the
       court to make room for the rest to die: their commander, Major
       Reding, was the last to fall. ... After the Swiss, the king's
       guards, imprisoned in the Abbaye, were judged en masse. ...
       Their massacre lasted a long time, for the people, excited by
       what they had drank--brandy mingled with gun-powder-and
       intoxicated by the sight of blood, prolonged their tortures.
       ... The whole night was scarcely enough to slay and strip
       them."

          A. de Lamartine,
          History of the Girondists,
          book 25 (volume 2).

       "To moral intoxication is added physical intoxication, wine in
       profusion, bumpers at every pause, revelry over corpses. ...
       They dance ... and sing the 'carmagnole'; they arouse the
       people of the quarter 'to amuse them,' and that they may have
       their share of 'the fine fête.' Benches are arranged for
       'gentlemen' and others for 'ladies': the latter, with greater
       curiosity, are additionally anxious to contemplate at their
       ease 'the aristocrats' already slain; consequently, lights are
       required, and one is placed on the breast of each corpse.
       Meanwhile, slaughter continues, and is carried to perfection.
       A butcher at the Abbaye complains that 'the aristocrats die
       too quick, and that those only who strike first have the
       pleasure of it'; henceforth they are to be struck with the
       backs of the swords only, and made to run between two rows of
       their butchers, like soldiers formerly running a gauntlet. ...
    {1281}
       All the unfettered instincts that live in the lowest depths of
       the heart start from the human abyss at once, not alone the
       heinous instincts with their fangs, but likewise the foulest
       with their slaver, while both packs fall furiously on women
       whose noble or infamous repute brings them before the world;
       on Madame de Lamballe, the Queen's friend; on Madame Desrues,
       widow of the famous prisoner; on the flower-girl of the
       Palais-Royal, who, two years before, had mutilated her lover,
       a French guardsman, in a fit of jealousy. Ferocity here is
       associated with lubricity to add profanation to torture, while
       life is attacked through attacks on modesty. In Madame de
       Lamballe, killed too quickly, the libidinous butchers could
       only outrage a corpse, but for the widow, and especially the
       flower-girl, they imagine the same as a Nero the fire-circle
       of the Iroquois. ... At La Force, Madame de Lamballe is cut to
       pieces. I cannot transcribe what Charlot, the hair-dresser,
       did with her head. I merely state that another wretch, in the
       Rue Saint-Antoine, bore off her heart and 'ate it.' They kill
       and they drink, and drink and kill again. ... As the prisons
       are to be cleaned out, it is as well to clean them all out,
       and do it at once. After the Swiss, priests, the aristocrats,
       and the 'white-skin gentlemen,' there remain convicts and
       those confined through the ordinary channels of justice,
       robbers, assassins, and those sentenced to the galleys in the
       Conciergerie, in the Châtelet, and in the Tour St. Bernard,
       with branded women, vagabonds, old beggars and boys confined
       in Bicêtre and the Salpétrière. They are good for nothing,
       cost something to feed, and, probably, cherish evil designs.
       ... This time, as the job is more foul, the broom is wielded
       by fouler hands. ... At the Salpétrière, 'all the bullies of
       Paris, former spies, ... libertines, the rascals of France and
       all Europe, prepare beforehand for the operation,' and rape
       alternates with massacre. ... At Bicêtre, however, it is crude
       butchery, the carnivorous instinct alone satisfying itself.
       Among other prisoners are 43 youths of the lowest class, from
       17 to 19 years of age, placed there for correction by their
       parents, or by those to whom they are bound. ... These the
       band falls on, beating them to death with clubs. ... There are
       six days and five nights of uninterrupted butchery, 171
       murders at the Abbaye, 169 at La Force, 223 at the Châtelet,
       328 at the Conciergerie, 73 at the Tour-Saint-Bernard, 120 at
       the Carmelites, 79 at Saint-Firmin, 170 at Bicêtre, 35 at the
       Salpétrière; among the dead, 250 priests, 3 bishops or
       archbishops, general officers, magistrates, one former
       minister, one royal princess, belonging to the best names in
       France, and, on the other side, one negro, several low class
       women, young scape-graces, convicts, and poor old men. ...
       Fournier, Lazowski, and Bécard, the chiefs of robbers and
       assassins, return from Orleans with 1,500 cut-throats. On the
       way they kill M. de Brissac, M. de Lessart, and 42 others
       accused of 'lèse-nation,' whom they arrested from their
       judges' hands, and then, by way of surplus, 'following the
       example of Paris,' 21 prisoners taken from the Versailles
       prisons. At Paris the Minister of Justice thanks them, the
       Commune congratulates them, and the sections feast them and
       embrace them. ... All the journals approve, palliate, or keep
       silent; nobody dares offer resistance. Property as well as
       lives belong to whoever wants to take them. ... Like a man
       struck on the head with a mallet, Paris, felled to the ground,
       lets things go; the authors of the massacre have fully
       attained their ends. The faction has fast hold of power, and
       will maintain its hold. Neither in the Legislative Assembly
       nor in the Convention will the aims of the Girondists be
       successful against its tenacious usurpation. ... The Jacobins,
       through sudden terror, have maintained their illegal
       authority; through a prolongation of terror they are going to
       establish their legal authority. A forced suffrage is going to
       put them in office at the Hotel-de-Ville, in the tribunals, in
       the National Guard, in the sections, and in the various
       administrations."

          H. A. Taine,
          The French Revolution,
          book 4, chapter 9 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution,
          (American edition.), volume 1, pages 350-368.

          Sergent Marceau,
          Reminiscences of a Regicide,
          chapter 9.

          A. Dobson,
          The Princess de Lamballe
          ("Four Frenchwomen," chapter 3).

          The Reign of Terror: A collection of Authentic
          Narratives, volume 2.

          J. B. Cléry,
          Journal of Occurrences at the Temple.

          Despatches of Earl Gower,
          pages 225-229.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (September-November).
       Meeting of the National Convention.
       Abolition of royalty.
       Proclamation of the Republic.
       Adoption of the Era of the Republic.
       Establishment of absolute equality.
       The losing struggle of the Girondists with the Jacobins of the
       Mountain.

       "It was in the midst of these horrors [of the September
       massacres] that the Legislative Assembly approached its
       termination. ... The National Convention began [September 22]
       under darker auspices. ... The great and inert mass of the
       people were disposed, as in all commotions, to range
       themselves on the victorious side. The sections of Paris,
       under the influence of Robespierre and Marat, returned the
       most revolutionary deputies; those of most other towns
       followed their example. The Jacobins, with their affiliated
       clubs, on this occasion exercised an overwhelming influence
       over all France. ... At Paris, where the elections took place
       on the 2d September, amidst all the excitement and horrors of
       the massacres in the prisons, the violent leaders of the
       municipality, who had organized the revolt of August 10th,
       exercised an irresistible sway over the citizens. Robespierre
       and Danton were the first named, amidst unanimous shouts of
       applause; after them Camille Desmoulins, Tallien, Osselin,
       Freron, Anacharsis Clootz, Fabre d'Eglantine, David, the
       celebrated painter, Collot d'Herbois, Billaud Varennes,
       Legendre, Panis, Sergent, almost all implicated in the
       massacres in the prisons, were also chosen. To these was added
       the Duke of Orleans, who had abdicated his titles, and was
       called Philippe Égalité. ... The most conservative part of the
       new Assembly were the Girondists who had overturned the
       throne. From the first opening of the Convention, the
       Girondists occupied the right, and the Jacobins the seats on
       the summit of the left; whence their designation of 'The
       Mountain' was derived. The former had the majority of votes,
       the greater part of the departments having returned men of
       comparatively moderate principles. But the latter possessed a
       great advantage, in having on their side all the members of
       the city of Paris, who ruled the mob, ... and in being
       supported by the municipality, which had already grown into a
       ruling power in the state, and had become the great centre of
       the democratic party.
    {1282}
       A neutral body, composed of those members whose principles
       were not yet declared, was called the Plain, or, Marais; it
       ranged itself with the Girondists, until terror compelled its
       members to coalesce with the victorious side. ... The two
       rival parties mutually indulged in recriminations, in order to
       influence the public mind. The Jacobins incessantly reproached
       the Girondists with desiring to dissolve the Republic; to
       establish three-and-twenty separate democratic states, held
       together, like the American provinces, by a mere federal
       union. ... Nothing more was requisite to render them in the
       highest degree unpopular in Paris, the very existence of which
       depended on its remaining, through all the phases of government,
       the seat of the ruling power. The Girondists retorted upon
       their adversaries charges better founded, but not so likely to
       inflame the populace. They reproached them with endeavouring
       to establish in the municipality of Paris a power superior to
       the legislature of all France, with overawing the
       deliberations of the Convention by menacing petitions, or the
       open display of brute force; and secretly preparing for their
       favourite leaders, Danton, Robespierre, and Marat, a
       triumvirate of power, which would speedily extinguish all the
       freedom which had been acquired. The first part of the
       accusation was well-founded even then; of the last, time soon
       afforded an ample confirmation. The Convention met at first in
       one of the halls of the Tuileries, but immediately adjourned
       to the Salle du Ménage, where its subsequent sittings were
       held. Its first step was, on the motion of the Abbé Gregoire,
       and amidst unanimous transports, to declare Royalty abolished
       in France, and to proclaim a republic; and by another decree
       it was ordered, that the old calendar taken from the year of
       Christ's birth should be abandoned, and that all public acts
       should be dated from the first year of the French republic.
       This era began on the 22d September 1792. [See, also, below:
       A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).] ... A still more democratic
       constitution than that framed by the Constituent and
       Legislative Assemblies was at the same time established. All
       the requisites for election to any office whatever were, on
       the motion of the Duke of Orleans, abolished. It was no longer
       necessary to select judges from legal men, nor magistrates
       from the class of proprietors. All persons, in whatever rank,
       were declared eligible to every situation; and the right of
       voting in the primary assemblies was conferred on every man
       above the age of 21 years. Absolute equality, in its literal
       sense, was universally established. Universal suffrage was the
       basis on which government rested." The leaders of the
       Girondists soon opened attacks upon Robespierre and Marat,
       accusing the former of aspiring to a dictatorship, and also
       holding him responsible, with Marat and Danton, for the
       September massacres; but Louvet and others who made the attack
       were feebly supported by their party. Louvet "repeatedly
       appealed to Pétion, Vergniaud, and the other leaders, to
       support his statements; but they had not the firmness boldly
       to state the truth. Had they testified a fourth part of what
       they knew, the accusation must have been instantly voted, and
       the tyrant crushed at once. As it was, Robespierre, fearful of
       its effects, demanded eight days to prepare for his defence.
       In the interval, the whole machinery of terror was put in
       force. The Jacobins thundered out accusations against the
       intrepid accuser, and all the leaders of the Mountain were
       indefatigable in their efforts to strike fear into their
       opponents. ... By degrees the impression cooled, fear resumed
       its sway, and the accused mounted the tribune at the end of
       the week with the air of a victor. ... It was now evident that
       the Girondists were no match for their terrible adversaries.
       The men of action on their side, Louvet, Barbaroux, and
       Lanjuinais, in vain strove to rouse them to the necessity of
       vigorous measures in contending with such enemies. Their
       constant reply was, that they would not be the first to
       commence the shedding of blood. Their whole vigour manifested
       itself in declamation, their whole wisdom in abstract
       discussion. They had now become humane in intention, and
       moderate in counsel, though they were far from having been so
       in the earlier stages of the Revolution. ... They were too
       honourable to believe in the wickedness of their opponents,
       too scrupulous to adopt the measures requisite to disarm, too
       destitute of moral courage to be able to crush them. ... The
       Jacobins ... while they were daily strengthening and
       increasing the armed force of the sections at the command of
       the municipality, ... strenuously resisted the slightest
       approach towards the establishment of any guard or civic force
       for the defence of the Convention. ... Aware of their weakness
       from this cause, the Girondists brought forward a proposal for
       an armed guard for the Convention. The populace was
       immediately put in motion," and the overawed Convention
       abandoned the measure. "In the midst of these vehement
       passions, laws still more stringent and sanguinary were passed
       against the priests and emigrants. ... First, it was decreed
       that every Frenchman taken with arms in his hands against
       France should be punished with death; and soon after, that
       'the French emigrants are forever banished from the territory
       of France, and those who return shall be punished with death.'
       A third decree directed that all their property, movable and
       immovable, should be confiscated to the service of the state.
       These decrees were rigidly executed: and though almost
       unnoticed amidst the bloody deeds which at the same period
       stained the Revolution, ultimately produced the most lasting
       and irremediable effects. At length the prostration of the
       Assembly before the armed sections of Paris had become so
       excessive, that Buzot and Barbaroux, the most intrepid of the
       Girondists, brought forward two measures which, if they could
       have been carried, would have emancipated the legislature from
       this odious thraldom. Buzot proposed to establish a guard,
       specially for the protection of the Convention, drawn from
       young men chosen from the different departments. Barbaroux at
       the same time brought forward four decrees. ... By the first,
       the capital was to cease to be the seat of the legislature,
       when it lost its claim to their presence by failing to protect
       them from insult. By the second, the troops of the Fédérés and
       the national cavalry were to be charged, along with the armed
       sections, with the protection of the legislature. By the
       third, the Convention was to constitute itself into a court of
       justice, for the trial of all conspirators against its
       authority. By the fourth, the Convention suspended the
       municipality of Paris. ... The Jacobins skilfully availed
       themselves of these impotent manifestations of distrust, to
       give additional currency to the report that the Girondists
       intended to transport the seat of government to the southern
       provinces. This rumour rapidly gained ground with the
       populace, and augmented their dislike at the ministry. ... All
       these preliminary struggles were essays of strength by the two
       parties, prior to the grand question which was now destined to
       attract the eyes of Europe and the world. This was the trial
       of Louis XVI."

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe,
          chapter 8 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          G. H. Lewes,
          Life of Robespierre,
          chapter 16.

          A. de Lamartine,
          History of the Girondists,
          books 29-31.

          C. D. Yonge,
          History of France under the Bourbons,
          chapter 43 (volume 4).

          J. Moore,
          Journal in France, 1792,
          volume 2.

    {1283}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (September-December).
       The war on the northern frontier.
       Battle of Valmy.
       Retreat of the invading army.
       Custine in Germany and Dumouriez in the Netherlands.
       Annexation of Savoy and Nice.
       The Decree of December 15.
       Proclamation of a republican crusade.

       "The defence of France rested on General Dumouriez. ...
       Happily for France the slow advance of the Prussian general
       permitted Dumouriez to occupy the difficult country of the
       Argonnes, where, while waiting for his reinforcements, he was
       able for some time to hold the invaders in check. At length
       Brunswick made his way past the defile which Dumouriez had
       chosen for his first line of defence; but it was only to find
       the French posted in such strength on his flank that any
       further advance would imperil his own army. If the advance was
       to be continued, Dumouriez must be dislodged. Accordingly, on
       the 20th of September, Brunswick, facing half-round from his
       line of march, directed his artillery against the hills of
       Valmy, where Kellermann and the French left were encamped. The
       cannonade continued for some hours, but it was followed by no
       general attack. Already, before a blow had been struck, the
       German forces were wasting away with disease. ... The King of
       Prussia began to listen to the proposals of peace which were
       sent to him by Dumouriez. A week spent in negotiations served
       only to strengthen the French and to aggravate the scarcity
       and sickness within the German camp. Dissensions broke out
       between the Prussian and Austrian commanders; a retreat was
       ordered; and, to the astonishment of Europe, the veteran
       forces of Brunswick fell back before the mutinous soldiery and
       unknown generals of the Revolution. ... In the meantime the
       Legislative Assembly had decreed its own dissolution ... and
       had ordered the election of representatives to frame a
       constitution for France. ... The Girondins, who had been the
       party of extremes in the Legislative Assembly, were the party
       of moderation and order in the Convention. ... Monarchy was
       abolished, and France declared a Republic (September 21).
       Office continued in the hands of the Gironde; but the
       vehement, uncompromising spirit of their rivals, the so-called
       party of the Mountain, quickly made itself felt in all the
       relations of France to foreign powers. The intention of
       conquest might still be as sincerely disavowed as it had been
       five months before; but were the converts to liberty to be
       denied the right of uniting themselves to the French people by
       their own free will? ... The scruples which had lately
       condemned all annexation of territory vanished in that orgy of
       patriotism which followed the expulsion of the invader and the
       discovery that the Revolution was already a power in other
       lands than France. ... Along the entire frontier, from Dunkirk
       to the Maritime Alps, France nowhere touched a strong united, and
       independent people; and along this entire frontier, except in
       the country opposite Alsace, the armed proselytism of the
       French Revolution proved a greater force than the influences
       on which the existing order of things depended. In the Low
       Countries, in the Principalities of the Rhine, in Switzerland,
       in Savoy, in Piedmont itself, the doctrines of the Revolution
       were welcomed by a more or less numerous class, and the armies
       of France appeared for a moment as the missionaries of liberty
       and right rather than as an invading enemy. No sooner had
       Brunswick been brought to a stand by Dumouriez at Valmy than a
       French division under Custine crossed the Alsatian frontier
       and advanced upon Spires, where Brunswick had left large
       stores of war. The garrison was defeated in an encounter
       outside the town; Spires and Worms surrendered to Custine. In
       the neighbouring fortress of Mainz, the key to western
       Germany, Custine's advance was watched with anxious
       satisfaction by a republican party among the inhabitants, from
       whom the French general learnt that he had only to appear
       before the city to become its master. ... At the news of the
       capture of Spires, the Archbishop retired into the interior of
       Germany, leaving the administration to a board of
       ecclesiastics and officials, who published a manifesto calling
       upon their 'beloved brethren' the citizens to defend
       themselves to the last extremity, and then followed their
       master's example. A council of war declared the city to be
       untenable; and, before Custine had brought up a single
       siege-gun, the garrison capitulated, and the French were
       welcomed into Mainz by the partisans of the Republic (October
       20). ... Although the mass of the inhabitants held aloof, a
       Republic was finally proclaimed, and incorporated with the
       Republic of France. The success of Custine's raid into Germany
       did not divert the Convention from the design of attacking
       Austria in the Netherlands, which Dumouriez had from the first
       pressed upon the Government. It was not three years since the
       Netherlands had been in full revolt against the Emperor
       Joseph. ... Thus the ground was everywhere prepared for a
       French occupation. Dumouriez crossed the frontier. The border
       fortresses no longer existed: and after a single battle won by
       the French at Jemappes on the 6th November, the Austrians,
       finding the population universally hostile, abandoned the
       Netherlands without a struggle. The victory of Jemappes, the
       first pitched battle won by the Republic, excited an outburst
       of revolutionary fervour in the Convention which deeply
       affected the relations of France to Great Britain, hitherto a
       neutral spectator of the war. A decree was passed for the
       publication of a manifesto in all languages, declaring that
       the French nation offered its alliance to all peoples who
       wished to recover their freedom, and charging the generals of
       the Republic to give their protection to all persons who had
       suffered or might suffer in the cause of liberty. (November
       19.) A week later Savoy and Nice were annexed to France, the
       population of Savoy having almost unanimously declared in
       favour of France on the outbreak of war between France and
       Sardinia.
    {1284}
       On the 15th December the Convention proclaimed that a system
       of social and political revolution was henceforth to accompany
       every movement of its armies on foreign soil. 'In every
       country that shall be occupied by the armies of the French
       Republic'--such was the substance of the Decree of December
       15th--'the generals shall announce the abolition of all
       existing authorities; of nobility, of serfage, of every feudal
       right and every monopoly; they shall proclaim the sovereignty
       of the people. ... The French nation will treat as enemies any
       people which, refusing liberty and equality, desires to
       preserve its prince and privileged castes, or to make any
       accommodation with them.' This singular announcement of a new
       crusade caused the Government of Great Britain to arm."

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the 18th Century,
          volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 1.

          E. Baines,
          History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
          book 1, chapters 3-5 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A.D. 1792 (November-December).
       Charges against the King.
       Jacobin clamor for his condemnation.
       The contest in Convention.

       "There were, without a doubt, in this conjuncture, a great
       number of Mountaineers who, on this occasion, acted with the
       greatest sincerity, and only as republicans, in whose eyes
       Louis XVI. appeared guilty with respect to the revolution; and
       a dethroned king was dangerous to a young democracy. But this
       party would have been more clement, had it not had to ruin the
       Gironde at the same time with Louis XVI. ... Party motives and
       popular animosities combined against this unfortunate prince.
       Those who, two months before, would have repelled the idea of
       exposing him to any other punishment than that of
       dethronement, were stupefied; so quickly does man lose in
       moments of crisis the right to defend his opinions! ... After
       the 10th of August, there were found in the offices of the
       civil list documents which proved the secret correspondence of
       Louis XVI. with the discontented princes, with the emigration,
       and with Europe. In a report, drawn up at the command of the
       legislative assembly, he was accused of intending to betray
       the state and overthrow the revolution. He was accused of
       having written, on the 16th April, 1791, to the bishop of
       Clermont, that if he regained his power he would restore the
       former government, and the clergy to the state in which they
       previously were; of having afterwards proposed war, merely to
       hasten the approach of his deliverers; ... of having been on
       terms with his brothers, whom his public measures had
       discountenanced; and, lastly, of having constantly opposed the
       revolution. Fresh documents were soon brought forward in
       support of this accusation. In the Tuileries, behind a panel
       in the wainscot, there was a hole wrought in the wall, and
       closed by an iron door. This secret closet was pointed out by
       the minister, Roland, and there were discovered proofs of all
       the conspiracies and intrigues of the court against the
       revolution; projects with the popular leaders to strengthen
       the constitutional power of the king, to restore the ancient
       regime and the aristocrats; the manœuvres of Talon, the
       arrangements with Mirabeau, the propositions accepted by
       Bouillé, under the constituent assembly, and some new plots
       under the legislative assembly. This discovery increased the
       exasperation against Louis XVI. Mirabeau's bust was broken by
       the Jacobins, and the convention covered the one which stood
       in the hall where it held its sittings. For some time there
       had been a question in the assembly as to the trial of this
       prince, who, having been dethroned, could no longer be
       proceeded against. There was no tribunal empowered to
       pronounce his sentence, no punishment which could be inflicted
       on him: accordingly, they plunged into false interpretations
       of the inviolability granted to Louis XVI., in order to
       condemn him legally. ... The committee of legislation,
       commissioned to draw up a report on the question as to whether
       Louis XVI. could be tried, and whether he could be tried by
       the convention, decided in the affirmative. ... The discussion
       commenced on the 13th of November, six days after the report
       of the committee. ... This violent party [the Mountain], who
       wished to substitute a coup d'etat for a sentence, to follow
       no law, no form, but to strike Louis XVI. like a conquered
       prisoner, by making hostilities even survive victory, had but
       a very feeble majority in the convention; but without, it was
       strongly supported by the Jacobins and the commune.
       Notwithstanding the terror which it already inspired, its
       murderous suggestions were repelled by the convention; and the
       partisans of inviolability, in their turn, courageously
       asserted reasons of public interest at the same time as rules
       of justice and humanity. They maintained that the same men
       could not be judges and legislators, the jury and the
       accusers. ... In a political view, they showed the
       consequences of the king's condemnation, as it would affect
       the anarchical party of the kingdom, rendering it still more
       insolent; and with regard to Europe, whose still neutral
       powers it would induce to join the coalition against the
       republic. But Robespierre, who during this long debate
       displayed a daring and perseverance that presaged his power,
       appeared at the tribune to support Saint Just, to reproach the
       convention with involving in doubt what the insurrection had
       decided, and with restoring, by sympathy and the publicity of
       a defence, the fallen royalist party. 'The assembly,' said
       Robespierre, 'has involuntarily been led far away from the
       real question. Here we have nothing to do with trial: Louis is
       not an accused man; you are not judges, you are, and can only
       be statesmen. You have no sentence to pronounce for or against
       a man, but you are called on to adopt a measure of public
       safety; to perform an act of national precaution. A dethroned
       king is only fit for two purposes, to disturb the tranquillity
       of the state, and shake its freedom, or to strengthen one or
       the other of them. Louis was king; the republic is founded;
       the famous question you are discussing is decided in these few
       words. Louis cannot be tried; he is already tried, he is
       condemned, or the republic is not absolved.' He required that
       the convention should declare Louis XVI. a traitor towards the
       French, criminal towards humanity, and sentence him at once to
       death, by virtue of the insurrection. The Mountaineers, by
       these extreme propositions, by the popularity they attained
       without, rendered condemnation in a measure inevitable. By
       gaining an extraordinary advance on the other parties, it
       obliged them to follow it, though at a distance. The majority
       of the convention, composed in a large part of Girondists, who
       dared not pronounce Louis XVI. inviolable, and of the Plain,
       decided, on Pétion's proposition, against the opinion of the
       fanatical Mountaineers and against that of the partisans of
       inviolability, that Louis XVI. should be tried by the
       convention. Robert Lindet then made, in the name of the
       commission of the twenty-one, his report respecting Louis XVI.
       The arraignment, setting forth the offences imputed to him,
       was drawn up, and the convention summoned the prisoner to its
       bar."

          F. A. Mignet,
          History of the French Revolution,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          G. H. Lewes,
          Life of Robespierre,
          chapter 17.

          A. de Lamartine,
          History of the Girondists,
          books 32-33 (volume 2).

          A. de Beauchesne,
          Louis XVII.: His Life, his Suffering, his Death,
          book 9.

    {1285}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1792-1793 (December-January).
       The King's Trial and death sentence.

       "On December 11, the ill-fated monarch, taken from his prison
       to his former palace, appeared at the bar of his republican
       judges, was received in silence and with covered heads, and
       answered interrogatories addressed to him as 'Louis Capet,'
       though with an air of deference. His passive constancy touched
       many hearts. ... On the 26th the advocates of the King made an
       eloquent defence for their discrowned client, and Louis added,
       in a few simple words, that the 'blood of the 10th of August
       should not be laid to his charge.' The debates in the Assembly
       now began, and it soon became evident that the Jacobin faction
       were making the question the means to further their objects,
       and to hold up their opponents to popular hatred. They
       clamored for immediate vengeance on the tyrant, declared that
       the Republic could not be safe until the Court was smitten on
       its head, and a great example had been given to Europe, and
       denounced as reactionary and as concealed royalists all who
       resisted the demands of patriotism. These ferocious invectives
       were aided by the expedients so often employed with success,
       and the capital and its mobs were arrayed to intimidate any
       deputies who hesitated in the 'cause of the Nation.' The
       Moderates, on the other hand, were divided in mind; a
       majority, perhaps, condemning the King, but also wishing to
       spare his life: and the Gironde leaders, halting between their
       convictions, their feelings, their desires, and their fears,
       shrank from a courageous and resolute course. The result was
       such as usually follows when energy and will encounter
       indecision. On January 14 [the 15th, according to Thiers and
       others], 1793, the Convention declared Louis XVI. guilty, and
       on the following day [the speaking and voting lasted through
       the night of the 16th and the day after it] sentence of
       immediate death was pronounced by a majority of one [but the
       minority, in this view, included 26 votes that were cast for
       death but in favor of a postponement of the penalty, on
       grounds of political expediency], proposals for a respite and
       an appeal to the people having been rejected at the critical
       moment. The votes had been taken after a solemn call of the
       deputies at a sitting protracted for days; and the spectacle
       of the vast dim hall, of the shadowy figures of the awestruck
       judges meting out the fate of their former Sovereign, and tier
       upon tier of half-seen faces, looking, as in a theatre, on the
       drama below, and breaking out into discordant clamor, made a
       fearful impression on many eye-witnesses. One vote excited a
       sensation of disgust even among the most ruthless chiefs of
       the Mountain, though it was remarked that many of the
       abandoned women who crowded the galleries shrieked
       approbation. The Duke of Orleans, whose Jacobin professions
       had caused him to be returned for Paris, with a voice in which
       effrontery mingled with terror, pronounced for the immediate
       execution of his kinsman. The minister of justice--Danton had
       resigned--announced on the 20th the sentence to the King. The
       captive received the message calmly, asked for three days to
       get ready to die (a request, however, at once refused), and
       prayed that he might see his family and have a confessor."

          W. O'C. Morris,
          The French Revolution, and First Empire,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 2, pages 44-72.

          A. F. Bertrand de Moleville,
          Private Memoirs, relative to the last year of Louis XVI.,
          chapters 39-40.

          J. B. Cléry,
          Journal of Occurrences at the Temple.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1792-1793 (December-February).
       Determination to incorporate the Austrian Netherlands and to
       attack Holland.
       Pitt's unavailing struggle for peace.
       England driven to arms.
       War with the Maritime Powers declared by the French.

       "Since the beginning of December, the French government had
       contracted their far-reaching schemes within definite limits.
       They were compelled to give up the hope of revolutionizing the
       German Empire and establishing a Republic in the British
       Islands; but they were all the more determined in the resolve
       to subject the countries which had hitherto been occupied in
       the name of freedom, to the rule of France. This object was
       more especially pursued in Belgium by Danton and three other
       deputies, who were sent as Commissioners of the Convention to
       that country on the 30th of November. They were directed to
       enquire into the condition of the Provinces, and to consider
       Dumouriez's complaints against Pache [the Minister at War] and
       the Committee formed to purchase supplies for the army."
       Danton became resolute in the determination to incorporate
       Belgium and pressed the project inexorably. "It was a matter
       of course that England would interpose both by word and deed
       directly France prepared to take possession of Belgium. ...
       England had guaranteed the possession of Belgium to the
       Emperor in 1790--and the closing of the Scheldt to the Dutch,
       and its political position in Holland to the House of Orange
       in 1788. Under an imperative sense of her own interests, she
       had struggled to prevent the French from gaining a footing in
       Antwerp and Ostend. Prudence, fidelity to treaties, the
       retrospect of the past and the hopes of the future--all called
       loudly upon her not to allow the balance of Europe to be
       disturbed, and least of all in Belgium."

          H. von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 5, chapter 5 (volume 2).

       "The French Government resolved to attack Holland, and ordered
       its generals to enforce by arms the opening of the Scheldt. To
       do this was to force England into war. Public opinion was
       already pressing every day harder upon Pitt [see ENGLAND: A.
       D. 1793-1796]. ... Across the Channel his moderation was only
       taken for fear. ... The rejection of his last offers indeed
       made a contest inevitable. Both sides ceased from diplomatic
       communications, and in February 1793 France issued her
       Declaration of War."

          J. R. Green,
          History of the English People,
          book 9, chapter 4 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 22 (volume 6).

          Earl Stanhope,
          Life of Pitt,
          chapter 16 (volume 2).

          Despatches of Earl Gower,
          page 256-309.

    {1286}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (January).
       The execution of the king.

       "To this conclusion, then, hast thou come, O hapless Louis!
       The Son of Sixty Kings is to die on the Scaffold by form of
       Law. Under Sixty Kings this same form of law, form of Society,
       has been fashioning itself together these thousand years; and
       has become, one way and other, a most strange Machine. Surely,
       if needful, it is also frightful, this Machine: dead, blind:
       not what it should be: which with swift stroke, or by cold
       slow torture, has wasted the lives and souls of innumerable
       men. And behold now a King himself or say rather Kinghood in
       his person, is to expire here in cruel tortures;--like a
       Phalaris shut in the belly of his own red-heated Brazen Bull!
       It is ever so; and thou shouldst know it, O haughty tyrannous
       man: injustice breeds injustice: curses and falsehoods do
       verily return 'always home,' wide as they may wander. Innocent
       Louis bears the sins of many generations: he too experiences
       that man's tribunal is not in this Earth: that if he had no
       higher one, it were not well with him. A King dying by such
       violence appeals impressively to the imagination; as the like
       must do, and ought to do. And yet at bottom it is not the King
       dying, but the man! Kingship is a coat: the grand loss is of
       the skin. The man from whom you take his Life, to him can the
       whole combined world do more? ... A Confessor has come; Abbé
       Edgeworth, of Irish extraction, whom the King knew by good
       report, has come promptly on this solemn mission. Leave the
       Earth alone, then, thou hapless King; it with its malice will
       go its way, thou also canst go thine. A hard scene yet
       remains: the parting with our loved ones. Kind hearts,
       environed in the same grim peril with us; to be left here! Let
       the reader look with the eyes of Valet Cléry through these
       glass-doors, where also the Municipality watches: and see the
       cruelest of scenes: 'At half-past eight, the door of the
       ante-room opened: the Queen appeared first, leading her Son by
       the hand: then Madame Royale and Madame Elizabeth: they all
       flung themselves into the arms of the King. Silence reigned
       for some minutes; interrupted only by sobs.' ... For nearly
       two hours this agony lasts; then they tear themselves asunder.
       'Promise that you will see us on the morrow.' He promises:
       --Ah yes, yes: yet once; and go now, ye loved ones: cry to God
       for yourselves and met!--It was a hard scene, but it is over.
       He will not see them on the morrow. The Queen in passing
       through the ante-room, glanced at the Cerberus Municipals;
       and, with woman's vehemence, said through her tears, 'Vous
       étes tous des scélérats.' King Louis slept sound, till five in
       the morning, when Cléry, as he had been ordered, awoke him.
       Cléry dressed his hair: while this went forward, Louis took a
       ring from his watch, and kept trying it on his finger: it was
       his wedding-ring, which he is now to return to the Queen as a
       mute farewell. At half-past six, he took the Sacrament, and
       continued in devotion, and conference with Abbé Edgeworth. He
       will not see his family: it were too hard to bear. At eight
       the Municipals enter: the King gives them his Will, and
       messages and effects; which they, at first, brutally refuse to
       take charge of: he gives them a roll of gold pieces, a hundred
       and twenty-five louis; these are to be returned to
       Malesherbes, who had lent them. At nine, Santerre says the
       hour is come. The King begs yet to retire for three minutes.
       At the end of three minutes, Santerre again says the hour is
       come. 'Stamping on the ground with his right-foot, Louis
       answers: Partons, Let us go.'--How the rolling of those drums
       comes in, through the Temple bastions and bulwarks, on the
       heart of a queenly wife; soon to be a widow! He is gone, then,
       and has not seen us? ... At the Temple Gate were some faint
       cries, perhaps from voices of pitiful women: Grace! Grace!
       Through the rest of the streets there is silence as of the
       grave. No man not armed is allowed to be there: the armed, did
       any even pity, dare not express it, each man overawed by all
       his neighbours. All windows are down, none seen looking
       through them. All shops are shut. No wheel-carriage rolls,
       this morning, in these streets but one only. 80,000 armed men
       stand ranked, like armed statues of men; cannons bristle,
       cannoneers with match burning, but no word or movement: it is
       as a city enchanted into silence and stone: one carriage with
       its escort, slowly rumbling, is the only sound. Louis reads,
       in his Book of Devotion, the Prayers of the Dying: clatter of
       this death-march falls sharp on the ear, in the great silence;
       but the thought would fain struggle heavenward, and forget the
       Earth. As the clock strikes ten, behold the Place de la
       Revolution, once Place de Louis Quinze: the Guillotine,
       mounted near the old Pedestal where once stood the Statue of
       that Louis! Far round, all bristles with cannons and armed
       men: spectators crowding in the rear; D'Orléans Egalité there
       in cabriolet. ... Heedless of all Louis reads his Prayers of
       the Dying; not till five minutes yet has he finished: then the
       Carriage opens. What temper he is in? Ten different witnesses
       will give ten different accounts of it. He is in the collision
       of all tempers; arrived now at the black Mahlstrom and descent
       of Death: in sorrow, in indignation, in resignation struggling
       to be resigned. 'Take care of M. Edgeworth,' he straitly
       charges the Lieutenant who is sitting with them: then they two
       descend. The drums are beating: 'Taisez-vous, Silence!' he
       cries 'in a terrible voice, d'une voix terrible.' He mounts
       the scaffold, not without delay; he is in puce coat, breeches
       of gray, white stockings. He strips off the coat; stands
       disclosed in a sleeve-waistcoat of white flannel. The
       executioners approach to bind him: he spurns, resists; Abbé
       Edgeworth has to remind him how the Saviour, in whom men
       trust, submitted to be bound. His hands are tied, his head
       bare; the fatal moment is come. He advances to the edge of the
       Scaffold, 'his face very red,' and says: 'Frenchmen, I die
       innocent: it is from the Scaffold and near appearing before
       God that I tell you so. I pardon my enemies; I desire that
       France--' A General on horseback, Santerre or another, prances
       out with uplifted hand: 'Tambours!' The drums drown the voice.
       'Executioners, do your duty!' The Executioners, desperate lest
       themselves be murdered (for Santerre and his Armed Ranks will
       strike, if they do not), seize the hapless Louis: six of them
       desperate, him singly desperate, struggling there; and bind
       him to their plank. Abbé Edgeworth, stooping, bespeaks him:
       'Son of Saint Louis, ascend to Heaven.' The Axe clanks down; a
       King's Life is shorn away. It is Monday the 21st of January
       1793. He was aged 38 years four months and 28 days.
    {1287}
       Executioner Samson shows the Head: fierce shouts of Vive la
       République rises, and swells; caps raised on bayonets, hats
       waving: students of the College of Four Nations take it up, on
       the far Quais; fling it over Paris. D'Orléans drives off in
       his cabriolet: the Townhall Councillors rub their hands,
       saying, 'It is done, It is done.' ... In the coffee-houses
       that evening, says Prudhomme, Patriot shook hands with Patriot
       in a more cordial manner than usual. Not till some days after,
       according to Mercier, did public men see what a grave thing it
       was. A grave thing it indisputably is; and will have
       consequences. ... At home this Killing of a King has divided
       all friends; and abroad it has united all enemies. Fraternity
       of Peoples, Revolutionary Propagandism; Atheism, Regicide;
       total destruction of social order in this world! All Kings,
       and lovers of Kings, and haters of Anarchy, rank in coalition;
       as in a war for life."

          T. Carlyle,
          The French Revolution,
          volume 3, book 2, chapter 8.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (February-April).
       Increasing anarchy.
       Degradation of manners.
       Formation of the terrible Revolutionary Tribunal.
       Treacherous designs of Dumouriez.
       His invasion of Holland.
       His defeat at Neerwinden and retreat.
       His flight to the enemy.

       "While the French were ... throwing down the gauntlet to all
       Europe, their own country seemed sinking into anarchical
       dissolution. Paris was filled with tumult, insurrection and
       robbery. At the denunciations of Marat against 'forestallers,'
       the shops were entered by the mob, who carried off articles at
       their own prices, and sometimes without paying at all. The
       populace was agitated by the harangues of low itinerant
       demagogues. Rough and brutal manners were affected, and all
       the courtesies of life abolished. The revolutionary leaders
       adopted a dress called the 'carmagnole,' consisting of
       enormous black pantaloons, a short jacket, a three-coloured
       waistcoat, and a Jacobite wig of short black hair, a terrible
       moustache, the 'bonnet rouge,' and an enormous sabre. [The
       name Carmagnole was also given to a tune and a dance; it is
       supposed to have borne originally some reference not now
       understood to Carmagnola in Piedmont.] Moderate persons of no
       strong political opinions were denounced as 'suspected,' and
       their crime stigmatised by the newly coined word of
       'moderantisme.' The variations of popular feeling were
       recorded like the heat of the weather, or the rising of a
       flood. The principal articles in the journals were entitled
       'Thermometer of the Public Mind;' the Jacobins talked of ...
       being 'up to the level.' Many of the provinces were in a
       disturbed state. A movement had been organising in Brittany
       ever since 1791, but the death of the Marquis de la Rouarie,
       its principal leader, had for the present suspended it. A more
       formidable insurrection was preparing in La Vendée. ... It was
       in the midst of these disturbances, aggravated by a suspicion
       of General Dumouriez's treachery, which we shall presently
       have to relate, that the terrible court known as the
       Revolutionary Tribunal was established. It was first formally
       proposed in the Convention March 9th, by Carrier, the
       miscreant afterwards notorious by his massacres at Nantes,
       urged by Cambacérès on the 10th, and completed that very night
       at the instance of Danton, who rushed to the tribune, insisted
       that the Assembly should not separate, till the new Court had
       been organised. ... The extraordinary tribunal of August 1792
       had not been found to work fast enough, and it was now
       superseded by this new one, which became in fact only a method
       of massacring under the form of law. The Revolutionary
       Tribunal was designed to take cognisance of all
       counter-revolutionary attempts, of all attacks upon liberty,
       equality, the unity and indivisibility of the Republic, the
       internal and external safety of the State. A commission of six
       members of the Convention was to examine and report upon the
       cases to be brought before it, to draw up and present the acts
       of accusation. The tribunal was to be composed of a jury to
       decide upon the facts, five judges to apply the law, a public
       accuser, and two substitutes; from its sentence there was no
       appeal. Meanwhile Dumouriez had returned to the army, very
       dissatisfied that he had failed in his attempts to save the
       King and baffle the Jacobins. He had formed the design of
       invading Holland, dissolving the Revolutionary Committee in
       that country, annulling the decree of December 15th, offering
       neutrality to the English, a suspension of arms to the
       Austrians, reuniting the Belgian and Batavian republics, and
       proposing to France a re-union with them. In case of refusal,
       he designed to march upon Paris, dissolve the Convention,
       extinguish Jacobinism; in short, to play the part of Monk in
       England. This plan was confided to four persons only, among
       whom Danton is said to have been one. ... Dumouriez, having
       directed General Miranda to lay siege to Maestricht, left
       Antwerp for Holland, February 22nd, and by March 4th had
       seized Breda, Klundert and Gertruydenberg. Austria, at the
       instance of England, had pushed forward 112,000 men under
       Prince Josias of Saxe-Coburg. Clairfait, with his army, at
       this time occupied Berghem, where he was separated from the
       French only by the little river Roer and the fortress of
       Juliers. Coburg, having joined Clairfait, March 1st, crossed
       the Roer, defeated the French under Dampierre at Altenhoven,
       and thus compelled Miranda to raise the siege of Maestricht,
       and retire towards Tongres. Aix-la-Chapelle was entered by the
       Austrians after a smart contest, and the French compelled to
       retreat upon Liege, while the divisions under Stengel and
       Neuilly, being cut off by this movement, were thrown back into
       Limburg. The Austrians then crossed the Meuse, and took Liege,
       March 6th. Dumouriez was now compelled to concentrate his
       forces at Louvain. From this place he wrote a threatening
       letter to the Convention, March 11th, denouncing the
       proceedings of the ministry, the acts of oppression committed
       in Belgium, and the decree of December 15th. This letter threw
       the Committee of General Defence into consternation. It was
       resolved to keep it secret, and Danton and Lacroix set off for
       Dumouriez's camp, to try what they could do with him, but
       found him inflexible. His proceedings had already unmasked his
       designs. At Antwerp he had ordered the Jacobin Club to be
       closed, and the members to be imprisoned, at Brussels he had
       dissolved the legion of 'sans-culottes.' Dumouriez was
       defeated by Prince Coburg at Neerwinden, March 18th, and again
       on the 22nd at Louvain. In a secret interview with the
       Austrian Colonel Mack, a day or two after, at Ath, he
       announced to that officer his intention to march on Paris and
       establish a constitutional monarchy, but nothing was said as
       to who was to wear the crown.
    {1288}
       The Austrians were to support Dumouriez's advance upon Paris,
       but not to show themselves except in case of need, and he was
       to have the command of what Austrian troops he might select.
       The French now continued their retreat, which, in consequence
       of these negociations, was unmolested. The Archduke Charles
       and Prince Coburg entered Brussels March 25th, and the Dutch
       towns were shortly after retaken. When Dumouriez arrived with
       his van at Courtrai, he was met by three emissaries of the
       Jacobins, sent apparently to sound him. He bluntly told them
       that his design was to save France, whether they called him
       Cæsar, Cromwell or Monk, denounced the Convention as an
       assembly of tyrants, said that he despised their decrees. ...
       At St. Amand he was met by Beurnonville, then minister of war,
       who was to supersede him in the command, and by four
       commissaries despatched by the Convention." Dumouriez arrested
       these, delivered them to Clairfait, and they were sent to
       Maestricht. "The allies were so sanguine that Dumouriez's
       defection would put an end to the Revolution, that Lord
       Auckland and Count Stahremberg, the Austrian minister, looking
       upon the dissolution and flight of the Convention as certain,
       addressed a joint note to the States-General, requesting them
       not to shelter such members of it as had taken any part in the
       condemnation of Louis XVI. But Dumouriez's army was not with
       him. On the road to Condé he was fired on by a body of
       volunteers and compelled to fly for his life (April 4th)." The
       day following he abandoned his army and went over to the
       Austrian quarters at Tournay, with a few companions, thus
       ending his political and military career. "The situation of
       France at this time seemed almost desperate. The army of the
       North was completely disorganised through the treachery of
       Dumouriez; the armies of the Rhine and Moselle were
       retreating; those of the Alps and Italy were expecting an
       attack; on the eastern side of the Pyrenees the troops were
       without artillery, without generals, almost without bread,
       while on the western side the Spaniards were advancing towards
       Bayonne. Brest, Cherbourg, the coasts of Brittany, were
       threatened by the English. The ocean ports contained only six
       ships of the line ready for sea, and the Mediterranean fleet
       was being repaired at Toulon. But the energy of the
       revolutionary leaders was equal to the occasion."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 7, chapter 5 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN
          A. Griffiths,
          French Revolutionary Generals,
          chapter 5.

          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the 18th Century,
          volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 1-2.

          C. MacFarlane,
          The French Revolution,
          volume 3, chapter 11.

    FRANCE: A. D: 1793 (March-April).
       The insurrection in La Vendee.

       "Ever since the abolition of royalty and the constitution of
       1790, that is, since the 10th of August, a condemnatory and
       threatening silence had prevailed in Normandy. Bretagne
       exhibited still more hostile sentiments, and the people there
       were engrossed by fondness for the priests and the gentry.
       Nearer to the banks of the Loire, this attachment amounted to
       insurrection; and lastly, on the left bank of that river, in
       the Bocage, Le Loroux, and La Vendée, the insurrection was
       complete, and large armies of ten and twenty thousand men were
       already in the field. ... It was particularly on this left
       bank, in Anjou, and Upper and Lower Poitou, that the famous
       war of La Vendée had broken out. It was in this part of France
       that the influence of time was least felt, and that it had
       produced least change in the ancient manners. The feudal
       system had there acquired a truly patriarchal character; and
       the Revolution, instead of operating a beneficial reform in
       the country, had shocked the most kindly habits and been
       received as a persecution. The Bocage and the Marais
       constitute a singular country, which it is necessary to
       describe, in order to convey an idea of the manners of the
       population, and the kind of society that was formed there.
       Setting out from Nantes and Saumur and proceeding from the
       Loire to the sands of Olonne, Lucon, Fontenay, and Niort, you
       meet with an unequal undulating soil, intersected by ravines
       and crossed by a multitude of hedges, which serve to fence in
       each field, and which have on this account obtained for the
       country the name of the Bocage. As you approach the sea the
       ground declines, till it terminates in salt marshes, and is
       everywhere cut up by a multitude of small canals, which render
       access almost impossible. This is what is called the Marais.
       The only abundant produce in this country is pasturage,
       consequently cattle are plentiful. The peasants there grew
       only just sufficient corn for their own consumption, and
       employed the produce of their herds and flocks as a medium of
       exchange. It is well known that no people are more simple than
       those subsisting by this kind of industry. Few great towns had
       been built in these parts. They contained only large villages
       of two or three thousand souls. Between the two high-roads
       leading, the one from Tours to Poitiers, and the other from
       Nantes to La Rochelle, extended a tract thirty leagues in
       breadth, where there were none but cross-roads leading to
       villages and hamlets. The country was divided into a great
       number of small farms paying a rent of from five to six
       hundred francs, each let to a single family, which divided the
       produce of the cattle with the proprietor of the land. From
       this division of farms, the seigneurs had to treat with each
       family, and kept up a continual and easy intercourse with
       them. The simplest mode of life prevailed in the mansions of
       the gentry: they were fond of the chase, on account of the
       abundance of game; the gentry and the peasants hunted
       together, and they were all celebrated for their skill and
       vigour. The priests, men of extraordinary purity of character,
       exercised there a truly paternal ministry. ... When the
       Revolution, so beneficent in other quarters, reached this
       country, with its iron level, it produced profound agitation.
       It had been well if it could have made an exception there, but
       that was impossible. ... When the removal of the non-juring
       priests deprived the peasants of the ministers in whom they
       had confidence, they were vehemently exasperated, and, as in
       Bretagne, they ran into the woods and travelled to a
       considerable distance to attend the ceremonies of a worship,
       the only true one in their estimation. From that moment a
       violent hatred was kindled in their souls, and the priests
       neglected no means of fanning the flames. The 10th of August
       drove several Poitevin nobles back to their estates; the 21st
       of January estranged them, and they communicated their
       indignation to those about them. They did not conspire,
       however, as some have conceived.
    {1289}
       The known dispositions of the country had incited men who were
       strangers to it to frame plans of conspiracy. One had been
       hatched in Bretagne, but none was formed in the Bocage; there
       was no concerted plan there; the people suffered themselves to
       be driven to extremity. At length, the levy of 300,000 men
       excited in the month of March a general insurrection. ...
       Obliged to take arms, they chose rather to fight against the
       republic than for it. Nearly about the same time, that is, at
       the beginning of March, the drawing was the occasion of an
       insurrection in the Upper Bocage and in the Marais. On the
       10th of March, the drawing was to take place at St. Florent,
       near Ancenis, in Anjou. The young men refused to draw. The
       guard endeavoured to force them to comply. The military
       commandant ordered a piece of cannon to be pointed and fired
       at the mutineers. They dashed forward with their bludgeons,
       made themselves masters of the piece, disarmed the guard, and
       were, at the same time, not a little astonished at their own
       temerity. A carrier, named Cathelineau, a man highly esteemed
       in that part of the country, possessing great bravery and
       powers of persuasion, quitting his farm on hearing the
       tidings, hastened to join them, rallied them, roused their
       courage, and gave some consistency to the insurrection by his
       skill in keeping it up. The very same day he resolved to
       attack a republican post consisting of eighty men. The
       peasants followed him with their bludgeons and their muskets.
       After a first volley, every shot of which told, because they
       were excellent marksmen, they rushed upon the post, disarmed
       it, and made themselves master of the position. Next day,
       Cathelineau proceeded to Chemillé, which he likewise took, in
       spite of 200 republicans and three pieces of cannon. A
       gamekeeper at the château of Maulevrier, named Stofflet, and a
       young peasant of the village of Chanzeau, had on their part
       collected a band of peasants. These came and joined
       Cathelineau, who conceived the daring design of attacking
       Chollet, the most considerable town in the country, the chief
       place of a district, and guarded by 500 republicans. ... The
       victorious band of Cathelineau entered Chollet, seized all the
       arms that it could find, and made cartridges out of the
       charges of the cannon. It was always in this manner that the
       Vendeans procured ammunition. ... Another much more general
       revolt had broken out in the Marais and the department of La
       Vendée. At Machecoul and Challans, the recruiting was the
       occasion of a universal insurrection. ... Three hundred
       republicans were shot by parties of 20 or 30. ...In the
       department of La Vendée, that is, to the south of the theatre
       of this war, the insurrection assumed still more consistence.
       The national guards of Fontenay, having set out on their march
       for Chantonnay, were repulsed and beaten. Chantonnay was
       plundered. General Verteuil, who commanded the 11th military
       division, on receiving intelligence of this defeat, dispatched
       General Marcé with 1,200 men, partly troops of the line, and
       partly national guards. The rebels who were met at St.
       Vincent, were repulsed. General Marcé had time to add 1,200
       more men and nine pieces of cannon to his little army. In
       marching upon St. Fulgent, he again fell in with the Vendeans
       in a valley and stopped to restore a bridge which they had
       destroyed. About four in the afternoon of the 18th of March,
       the Vendeans, taking the initiative, advanced and attacked him
       ... and made themselves masters of the artillery, the
       ammunition, and the arms, which the soldiers threw away that
       they might be the lighter in their flight. These more
       important successes in the department of La Vendée properly so
       called, procured for the insurgents the name of Vendeans,
       which they afterwards retained, though the war was far more
       active out of La Vendée. The pillage committed by them in the
       Marais caused them to be called brigands, though the greater
       number did not deserve that appellation. The insurrection
       extended into the Marais from the environs of Nantes to Les
       Sables, and into Anjou and Poitou, as far as the environs of
       Vihiers and Parthenay. ... Easter recalled all the insurgents
       to their homes, from which they never would stay away long. To
       them a war was a sort of sporting excursion of several days;
       they carried with them a sufficient quantity of bread for the
       time, and then returned to inflame their neighbours by the
       accounts which they gave. Places of meeting were appointed for
       the month of April. The insurrection was then general and
       extended over the whole surface of the country. It might be
       comprised in a line which, commencing at Nantes, would pass
       through Pornic, the Isle of Noirmoutiers, Les Sables, Luçon,
       Fontenay, Niort, and Parthenay, and return by Airvault,
       Thouar, Doué, and St. Florent, to the Loire. The insurrection,
       begun by men who were not superior to the peasants whom they
       commanded, excepting by their natural qualities, was soon
       continued by men of a higher rank. The peasants went to the
       mansions and forced the nobles to put themselves at their
       head. The whole Marais insisted on being commanded by
       Charette. ... In the Bocage, the peasants applied to Messrs.
       de Bonchamps, d'Elbée, and de Laroche-Jacquelein, and forced
       them from their mansions to place them at their head." These
       gentlemen were afterwards joined by M. de Lescure, a cousin of
       Henri de Laroche-Jacquelin.

          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 2, pages 146-152.

          ALSO IN
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe,
          chapter 12, (volume 3).

          Marquise de Larochejaquelein,
          Memoirs.

          Henri Larochejaquelein and the War in La Vendée,
          (Chambers Miscellany, volume 2).

          L. I. Guiney,
          Monsieur Henri
          (de La Rochejaquelein.)

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (March-June).
       Vigorous measures of the Revolutionary government.
       The Committee of Public Safety.
       The final struggle of Jacobins and Girondins.
       The fall of the Girondins.

       The news of the defeat of Dumouriez at Neerwinden, which
       reached Paris on the 21st, "brought about two important
       measures. Jean Debry, on behalf of the Diplomatic Committee,
       proposed that all strangers should be expelled from France
       within eight days who could not give a good reason for their
       residence, and on the same evening the Committee of General
       Defence was reorganized and placed on another footing. This
       committee had come into existence in January, 1793. It
       originally consisted of 21 members, who were not directly
       elected by the Convention, but were chosen from the seven most
       important committees.
    {1290}
       But now, after the news of Neerwinden, a powerful committee
       was directly elected. It consisted of 24 members, and the
       first committee contained nine Girondins, nine deputies of the
       Plain, and six Jacobins, including every representative man in
       the Convention. ... The new Committee was given the greatest
       powers, and after first proposing to the Convention that the
       penalty of death should be decreed against every emigre over
       fourteen, and to everyone who protected an emigre, it proposed
       that Dumouriez should be summoned to the bar of the
       Convention." Early in April, news of the desertion of
       Dumouriez and the retreat of Custine, "made the Convention
       decide on yet further measures to strengthen the executive.
       Marat, who, like Danton and Robespierre, was statesman enough
       to perceive the need of strengthening the executive, proposed
       that enlarged powers should be given to the committees; and
       Isnard, as the reporter of the Committee of General Defence,
       proposed the establishment of a smaller committee of nine,
       with supreme and unlimited executive powers--a proposal which
       was warmly supported by every statesman in the Convention. ...
       It is noticeable that every measure which strengthened the
       terror when it was finally established was decreed while the
       Girondins could command a majority in: the Convention, and
       that it was a Girondin, Isnard, who proposed the immense
       powers of the Committee of Public Safety [Comité de Salut
       Public]. Upon April 6 Isnard brought up a decree defining the
       powers of the new committee. It was to consist of nine
       deputies; to confer in secret; to have supreme executive
       power, and authority to spend certain sums of' money without
       accounting for them, and it was to present a weekly report to
       the Convention. These immense powers were granted under the
       pressure of news from the frontier, and it was obvious that it
       would not be long before such a powerful executive could
       conquer the independence of the Convention. Isnard's proposals
       were opposed by Buzot, but decreed; and on April 7 the first
       Committee of Public Safety was elected. It consisted of the
       following members:--Barère, Delmas, Bréard, Cambon, Danton,
       Guyton-Morveau, Treilhard, Lacroix, and Robert Lindet. The
       very first proposal of the new committee was that it should
       appoint three representatives with every army from among the
       deputies of the Convention, with unlimited powers, who were to
       report to the committee itself. This motion was followed by a
       very statesmanlike one from Danton. He perceived the folly of
       the decree of November 18, which declared universal war
       against all kings. ... On his proposition the fatal decree ...
       was withdrawn, and it was made possible for France again to
       enter into the comity of European nations. It is very obvious
       that it was the foreign war which had developed the progress
       of the Revolution with such astonishing rapidity in France. It
       was Brunswick's manifesto which mainly caused the attack on
       the Tuileries on August 10; it was the surrender of Verdun
       which directly caused the massacres of September. It was the
       battle of Neerwinden which established the Revolutionary
       Tribunal, and that defeat and the desertion of Dumouriez which
       brought about the establishment of the Committee of Public
       Safety. The Girondins were chiefly responsible for the great
       war, and its first result was to destroy them as a party. ...
       Their early influence over the deputies of the Plain rested on
       a belief in their statesmanlike powers, but as time went on
       that influence steadily diminished. It was in vain for Danton
       to attempt to make peace in the Convention; bitter words on
       both sides had left too strong an impression ever to be
       effaced. The Jacobin leaders despised the Girondins; the
       Girondins hated the Jacobins for having won away power from
       them. The Jacobins formed a small but very united body, of
       which every member knew its own mind; they were determined to
       carry on the Republic at all costs, and to destroy the
       Girondins as quickly as they could. ... The desertion of
       Dumouriez had caused strong measures to be taken by the
       Convention, ... and all parties had concurred. ... But as soon
       as these important measures had been taken, which the majority
       of the Convention believed would enable France once more to
       free her frontiers from the invaders, the Girondins and
       Jacobins turned upon each other with redoubled ardour, and the
       death-struggle between them recommenced. The Girondins
       reopened the struggle with an attack upon Marat. Few steps
       could have been more foolish, for Marat, though in many ways a
       real statesman, had from the exaggeration of his language
       never obtained the influence in the Convention to which his
       abilities entitled him. ... But he remained the idol of the
       people of Paris, and in attacking him the Girondins
       exasperated the people of Paris in the person of their beloved
       journalist. On April 11 Guadet read a placard in the
       Convention, which Marat had posted on the walls of Paris, full
       of his usual libellous abuse of the Girondins. It was referred
       to the Committee of Legislation with other writings of Marat,"
       and two days later, on the report of the Committee, it was
       voted by the Convention (half of its members being absent),
       that Marat should be sent before the Tribunal for trial. This
       called out immediate demonstrations from Marat's Parisian
       admirers. "On April 15, in the name of 35 sections of Paris,
       Pache and Hébert demanded the expulsion from the Convention of
       22 of the leading Girondists as 'disturbers of the public peace,'
       including Brissot, Guadet, Vergniaud, Gensonné, Buzot,
       Barbaroux, Louvet, Petion, and Lanjuinais. ... On April 22 the
       trial of Marat took place. He was unanimously acquitted, although
       most of the judges of the Revolutionary Tribunal sympathized
       with the Girondins. ... The acquittal of Marat was a fearful
       blow to the Girondin party; they had in no way discredited the
       Jacobins, and had only made themselves unpopular in Paris. ...
       The Commune of Paris steadily organized the more advanced
       republicans of the city for an open attack upon the Girondins.
       ... Throughout the month of May, preparations for the final
       struggle went on; it was recognized by both parties that they
       must appeal to force, and arrangements for appealing to force
       were made as openly for the coup d'état of May 31 as they had
       been for that of August 10. On the one side, the Commune of
       Paris steadily concentrated its armed strength and formed its
       plan of action; on the other, the leading Girondins met daily
       at the house of Valazé, and prepared to move decrees in the
       Convention.'" But the Girondins were still divided among
       themselves.
    {1291}
       Some wished to appeal to the provinces, against Paris, which
       meant civil war; others opposed this as unpatriotic. On the
       31st of May, and on the two days following, the Commune of
       Paris called out its mob to execute the determined coup
       d'état. On the last of these three days (June 2), the
       Convention surrounded, imprisoned and terrorized by armed
       ruffians, led by Henriot, lately appointed Commander of the
       National Guard, submissively decreed that the proscribed
       Girondin deputies, with others, to the number altogether of
       31, should be placed under arrest in their own houses. This
       "left the members of the Mountain predominant in the
       Convention. The deputies of the Marsh or Plain were now docile
       to the voice of the Jacobin leaders," whose supremacy was now
       without dispute. On the preceding day, an attempt had been
       made, on the order of the Commune, to arrest M. Roland and two
       others of the ministers. Roland escaped, but Madame Roland,
       the more important Girondist leader, was taken and consigned
       to the Abbaye.

          H. M. Stephens,
          History of the French Revolution,
          volume 2, chapters 7-8.

          ALSO IN
          H. A. Taine,
          The French Revolution,
          book 4, chapter 13.

          W. Smyth,
          Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
          lecture 37 (volume 2).

          H. Von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 7, chapters 1-3 (volume 3).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (March-September).
       Formation of the great European Coalition against
       Revolutionary France.
       The seeds of dissension and weakness in it.

       "The impression made at St. Petersburg by the execution of
       Louis was fully as vivid as at London: already it was evident
       that these two capitals were the centres of the great contest
       which was approaching. ... An intimate and confidential
       correspondence immediately commenced between Count Woronzoff,
       the Russian ambassador at London, and Lord Grenville, the
       British secretary of state for foreign affairs, which
       terminated in a treaty between the powers, signed in London on
       the 25th of March. By this convention, which laid the basis of
       the grand alliance which afterwards brought the war to a
       glorious termination, it was provided that the two powers
       should 'employ their respective forces, as far as
       circumstances shall permit, in carrying on the just and
       necessary war in which they find themselves engaged against
       France; and they reciprocally engage not to lay down their
       arms without restitution of all the conquests which may have
       been made upon either of the respective powers, or upon such
       other states or allies to whom, by common consent, they shall
       extend the benefit of this treaty.' ... Shortly after [April
       25], a similar convention was entered into between Great
       Britain and Sardinia, by which the latter power was to receive
       an annual subsidy of £200,000 during the whole continuance of
       the war, and the former to keep on foot an army of 50,000 men;
       and the English government engaged to procure for it entire
       restitution of its dominions as they stood at the commencement
       of the war. By another convention, with the cabinet of Madrid,
       signed at Aranjuez on the 25th of May, they engaged not to
       make peace till they had obtained full restitution for the
       Spaniards 'of all places, towns, and territories which
       belonged to them at the commencement of the war, and which the
       enemy may have taken during its continuance.' A similar treaty
       was entered into with the court of the Two Sicilies, and with
       Prussia [July 12 and 14], in which the clauses, prohibiting
       all exportation to France, and preventing the trade of
       neutrals with it, were the same as in the Russian treaty.
       Treaties of the same tenor were concluded in the course of the
       summer with the Emperor of Germany [August 30], and the King
       of Portugal [September 26]. Thus was all Europe arrayed in a
       great league against Republican France, and thus did the
       regicides of that country, as the first fruits of their cruel
       triumph, find themselves excluded from the pale of civilized
       nations. ... But while all Europe thus resounded with the note
       of military preparation against France, Russia had other and
       more interested designs in view. Amidst the general
       consternation at the triumphs of the French republicans,
       Catharine conceived that she would be permitted to pursue,
       without molestation, her ambitious designs against Poland [See
       POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796]. She constantly represented the
       disturbances in that kingdom as the fruit of revolutionary
       propagandism, which it was indispensable to crush in the first
       instance. ... The ambitious views of Prussia were also ...
       strongly turned in the same direction. ... Nor was it only the
       ambitious projects of Russia and Prussia against the
       independence of Poland which already gave ground for gloomy
       augury as to the issue of the war. Its issue was more
       immediately affected by the jealousy of Austria and Prussia,
       which now broke out in the most undisguised manner, and
       occasioned such a division of the allied forces as effectually
       prevented any cordial or effective co-operation continuing to
       exist between them. The Prussian cabinet, mortified at the
       lead which the Imperial generals took in the common
       operations, insisted upon the formation of two independent
       German armies; one composed of Prussians, the other of
       Austrians, to one or other of which the forces of all the
       minor states should be joined: those of Saxony, Hanover, and
       Hesse being grouped around the standards of Prussia; those of
       Bavaria, Wirtemburg, Swabia, the Palatinate, and Franconia,
       following the double-headed eagles of Austria. By this means,
       all unity of action between the two grand allied armies was
       broken up. ... Prince Cobourg was appointed generalissimo of
       the allied Armies from the Rhine to the German ocean." In
       April, a corps of 20,000 English had been landed in Holland,
       "under the command of the Duke of York, and being united to
       10,000 Hanoverians and Hessians, formed a total of 30,000 men
       in British pay." Holland, as an ally of England, was already
       in the Coalition, the French having declared war, in February,
       against the two maritime powers, simultaneously.

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe,
          chapter 13 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN
          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the 18th Century,
          volume  6, division 2, chapter 2, section 3.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (April-August):
       Minister Genet in America.
       Washington's proclamation of neutrality.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.

    {1292}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (June).
       Flight of most of the Girondists.
       Their appeal to the country.
       Insurrection in the provinces.
       The rising at Lyons, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Toulon.
       Progress of the Vendean revolt.

       "After this day [of the events which culminated on the 2d of
       June, but which are commonly referred to as being of 'the 31st
       of May,' when they began], when the people made no other use
       of their power than to display and to exercise the pressure of
       Paris over the representation, they separated without
       committing any excess. ... La Montaigne caused the committees
       to be reinstated on the morrow, with the exception of that of
       public safety. They threw into the majority their most decided
       members. ... They deposed those ministers suspected of
       attachment to the' conquered; sent commissioners into the
       doubtful departments; annulled the project of the constitution
       proposed by the Girondists; and charged the committee of
       safety to draw up in eight days a project for the constitution
       entirely democratical. They pressed forward the recruiting and
       armament of the revolutionary army--that levy of patriotism en
       masse. They decreed a forced loan of a million upon the rich.
       They sent one after the other, accused upon accused, to the
       revolutionary tribunal. Their sittings were no longer
       deliberation, but cursory motions, decreed on the instant by
       acclamation, and sent immediately to the different committees
       for execution. They stripped the executive power of the little
       independence and responsibility it heretofore retained.
       Continually called into the bosom of their committees,
       ministers became no more than the passive executors of the
       measures they decreed. From this day, also, discussion was at
       an end; action was all. The disappearance of the Girondists
       deprived the Revolution of its voice. Eloquence was proscribed
       with Vergniaud, with the exception of those few days when the
       great party chiefs, Danton and Robespierre, spoke, not to
       refute opinions, but to intimate their will, and promulgate
       their orders. The Assemblies became almost mute. A dead
       silence reigned henceforth in the Convention. In the meanwhile
       the 22 Girondists [excepting Vergniaud, Gensonné, Ducos,
       Tonfrède, and a few others, who remained under the decree of
       arrest, facing all consequences], the members of the
       Commission of Twelve, and a certain number of their friends,
       warned of their danger by this first blow of ostracism, fled
       into their departments, and hurried to protest against the
       mutilation of the country. ... Robespierre, Danton, the
       Committee of Public Safety, and even the people themselves,
       seemed to shut their eyes to these evasions, as if desirous to
       be rid of victims whom it would pain them to strike. Buzot,
       Barbaroux, Guadet, Louvet, Salles, Pétion, Bergoing, Lesage,
       Cressy, Kervélégan and Lanjuinais, threw themselves into
       Normandy; and after having traversed it, inciting all the
       departments between Paris and the Ocean, established at Caen
       the focus and centre of insurrection against the tyranny of
       Paris. They gave themselves the name of the Central Assembly
       of Resistance to Oppression. Biroteau and Chasset had arrived
       at Lyons. The armed sections of this town were agitated with
       contrary and already bloody commotion [the Jacobin
       municipality having been overthrown, after hard fighting, and
       its chief, Chalier, put to death]. Brissot fled to Moulins,
       Robaut St. Etienne to Nismes. Grangeneuve, sent by Vergniaud,
       Tonfrède, and Ducos, to Bordeaux, raised troops ready to march
       upon the capital. Toulouse followed the same impulse of
       resistance to Paris. The departments of the west were on fire,
       and rejoiced to see the republic, torn into contending
       factions, offer them the aid of one of the two parties for the
       restoration of royalty. The mountainous centre of France ...
       was agitated. ... Marseilles enrolled 10,000 men at the voice
       of Rebecqui and the young friends of Barbaroux. They
       imprisoned the commissioners of the Convention, Roux and
       Antiboul. Royalty, always brooding in the south, insensibly
       transformed this movement of patriotism into a monarchical
       insurrection. Rebecqui, in despair ... at seeing loyalty avail
       itself of the rising in the south, escaped remorse by suicide,
       throwing himself into the sea. Lyons and Bordeaux likewise
       imprisoned the envoys of the Convention as Maratists. The
       first columns of the combined army of the departments began to
       move in all directions; 6,000 Marseillais were already at
       Avignon, ready to reascend the Rhone, and form a junction with
       the insurgents of Nismes and of Lyons. Brittany and Normandy
       uniting, concentrated their first forces at Evreux."

          A de Lamartine,
          History of the Girondists,
          book 43 (volume 3).

        The royalists of the west, "during this almost general rising
        of the departments, continued to extend their enterprises.
        After their first victories, the Vendeans seized on Bressure,
        Argenton, and Thouars. Entirely masters of their own country,
        they proposed getting possession of the frontiers, and
        opening the way to revolutionary France, as well as
        communications with England. On the 6th of June, the Vendean
        army, composed of 40,000 men, under Cathelineau, Lescure,
        Stofflet, and La Rochejacquelin, marched on Saumur, which it
        took by storm. It then prepared to attack and capture Nantes,
        to secure the possession of its own country, and become
        masters of the course of the Loire. Cathelineau, at the head
        of the Vendean troops, left a garrison in Saumur, took
        Angers, crossed the Loire, pretended to advance upon Tours
        and Lemans, and then rapidly threw himself upon Nantes, which
        he attacked on the right bank, while Charette was to attack
        it on the left."

          F. A. Mignet,
          History of the French Revolution,
          chapter 8.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (June-October).
       The new Jacobin Constitution postponed.
       Concentration of power in the Committee of Public Safety.
       The irresistible machine of revolutionary government.

       "It was while affairs were in this critical condition that the
       Mountain undertook the sole conduct of the government in
       France. They had hitherto resisted all attempts of the
       Girondists to establish a new constitution in place of that of
       1791. They now undertook the work themselves, and in four days
       drew up a constitution, as simple as it was democratic, which
       was issued on the 24th of June. Every citizen of the age of 21
       could vote directly in the election of deputies, who were
       chosen for a year at a time and were to sit in a single
       assembly. The assembly had the sole power of making laws, but
       a period was fixed during which the constituents could protest
       against its enactments. The executive power was entrusted to
       24 men, who were chosen by the assembly from candidates
       nominated by electors chosen by the original voters. Twelve
       out of the 24 were to be renewed every six months. But this
       constitution was intended merely to satisfy the departments,
       and was never put into practice. The condition of France
       required a greater concentration of power, and this was
       supplied by the Committee of Public Safety.
    {1293}
       Ever since the 6th of April the original members of the
       Committee had been re-elected, but on the 10th of July its
       composition was changed. Danton ceased to be a member, and
       Barère was joined by Robespierre, St. Just, Couthon,
       Billaud-Varennes, Collot d'Herbois, and, in a short time,
       Carnot. These men became the absolute rulers of France. The
       Committee had no difficulty in carrying their measures in the
       Convention, from which the opposition party had disappeared.
       All the state obligations were rendered uniform and inscribed
       in 'the great book of the national debt.' The treasury was
       filled by a compulsory loan from the rich. Every income
       between 1,000 and 10,000 francs had to pay ten per cent., and
       every excess over 10,000 francs had to be contributed in its
       entirety for one year. To recruit the army a levee en masse
       was decreed. 'The young men shall go to war; the married men
       shall forge arms and transport supplies; the wives shall make
       tents and clothes and serve in the hospitals; the children
       shall tear old linen into lint; the aged shall resort to the
       public places to excite the courage of the warriors and hatred
       against kings.' Nor were measures neglected against domestic
       enemies. On the 6th of September a revolutionary army,
       consisting of 6,000 men and 1,200 artillery men, was placed at
       the disposal of the Committee to carry out its orders
       throughout France. On the 17th the famous 'law of the
       suspects' was carried. Under the term  'suspect' were included
       all those who by words, acts or writings had shown themselves
       in favour of monarchy or of federalism, the relatives of the
       emigrants, etc., and they were to be imprisoned until the
       peace. As the people were in danger of famine, a maximum
       price, already established for corn, was decreed for all
       necessaries; if a merchant gave up his trade he became a
       suspect, and the hoarding of provisions was punished by death.
       On the 10th of October the Convention definitely transferred
       its powers to the Committee, by subjecting all officials to
       its authority and by postponing the trial of the new
       constitution until the peace."

          R. Lodge,
          History of Modern Europe,
          chapter 23, section 11.

       The Committee of Public Safety--the "Revolutionary
       Government," as Danton had named it, on the 2d of August, when
       he demanded the fearful powers that were given to
       it--"disposed of all the national forces; it appointed and
       dismissed the ministers, generals, Representatives on Mission,
       the judges and juries of the Revolutionary Tribunal. The
       latter instrument became its strong arm; it was, in fact, a
       court martial worked by civil magistrates. By its agents it
       directed the departments and armies, the political situation
       without and within, striking down at the same time the rebels
       within and the enemies without: for, together with the
       constitution were, of course, suspended the municipal laws and
       the political machinery of the communes; and thus cities and
       villages hitherto indifferent or opposed to the Revolution
       were republicanized. By the Tribunal it disposed of the
       persons of individuals; by requisition and the law of maximum
       (with which we are going to be better acquainted) it disposed
       of their fortunes. It can, indeed, be said that the whole of
       France was placed in a state of siege; but that was the price
       of its salvation. ... But Danton has committed, a great
       mistake,--one that he and especially France, will come to rue.
       He has declined to become a member of the Revolutionary
       Government, which has been established on his motion. 'It is
       my firm resolve not to be a member of such a government,' he
       had said. In other words, he has declined re-election as a
       member of the Committee de Salut Public, now it has been
       erected into a dictatorship. He unfortunately lacked all
       ambition. ... When afterwards, on September 8, one Gaston
       tells the Convention, 'Danton has a mighty revolutionary head.
       No one understands so well as he to execute what he himself
       proposes. I therefore move that he be added to the
       Revolutionary Government, in spite of his protest,' and it is
       so unanimously ordered, he again peremptorily declines. 'No, I
       will not be a member; but as a spy on it I intend to work.' A
       most fateful resignation! for while he still for a short time
       continues to exercise his old influence on the government,
       both from the outside, in his own person, and inside the
       Committee, in the person of Hérault de Sechelles, selected in
       his place, he very soon loses ground more and more,--so much
       so even that Hérault, his friend, is 'put in quarantine,' as
       was said in the Committee. And very natural. A statesman
       cannot have power when he shirks responsibility, and without
       power he soon loses all influence with the multitude. Those
       who now succeed him in power are Robespierre, Barère,
       Billaud-Varennes, and Carnot,--the two last very good working
       members, good men of the second rank, but after Danton not a
       single man is left fit to be leader."

          L. Gronlund,
          Ça Ira! or Danton in the French Revolution,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN
          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          H. M. Stephens,
          History of the French Revolution.
          volume 2, chapter 9.

          H. C. Lockwood,
          Constitutional History of France,
          chapter 1, and appendix 2.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (July).
       The assassination of Marat.

       "Amongst those who had placed faith in the Girondists and
       their ideals was a young woman of Normandy, Charlotte Corday.
       ... When the mob of Paris rose and drove with insult from the
       Convention those who in her eyes were the heroic defenders of
       the universal principles of truth and justice, she bitterly
       resented the wrong that had been done, not only to the men
       themselves, but to that France of which she regarded them as
       the true representatives. Owing to Marat's persistent cry for
       a dictatorship and for shedding of blood, it was he who, in
       the departments, was accounted especially responsible both for
       the expulsion of the Girondists and for the tyranny which now
       began to weigh as heavily upon the whole country as it had
       long weighed upon the capital. Incapable as all then were of
       comprehending the causes which had brought about the fall of
       the Girondists, Charlotte Corday imagined that by putting an
       end to this man's life, she could also put an end to the
       system of government which he advocated. Informing her friends
       that she wished to visit England, she left Caen and travelled
       in the diligence to Paris. On her arrival she purchased a
       knife, and afterwards obtained entrance into Marat's house on
       the pretext that she brought news which she desired to
       communicate to him. She knew that he would be eager to obtain
       intelligence of the movements of the Girondist deputies still
       in Normandy. Marat was ill at the time, and in a bath when
       Charlotte Corday was admitted.
    {1294}
       She gave him the names of the deputies who were at Caen. 'In a
       few days,' he said, as he wrote them hastily down, 'I will
       have them all guillotined in Paris.' As she heard these words
       she plunged the knife into his body and killed him on the
       spot. The cry uttered by the murdered man was heard, and
       Charlotte, who did not attempt to escape, was captured and
       conveyed to prison amid the murmurs of an angry crowd. It had
       been from the first her intention to sacrifice her life for
       the cause of her country, and, glorying in her deed, she met
       death with stoical indifference. 'I killed one man,' she said,
       when brought before the revolutionary court, 'in order to save
       the lives of 100,000 others.' ... His [Marat's] murder brought
       about contrary results to those which the woman who ignorantly
       and rashly had flung away her life hoped by the sacrifice to
       effect. ... He was regarded as a martyr by no small portion of
       the working population of Paris. ... His murder excited
       indignation beyond the comparatively narrow circle of those
       who took an active part in political life, while at the same
       time it added a new impulse to the growing cry for blood."

          B. M. Gardiner,
          The French Revolution,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN
          C. Mac Farlane,
          The French Revolution,
          volume 3, chapter 13.

          J. Michelet,
          Women of the French Revolution,
          chapter 18-19.

          Mrs. R. K. Van Alstine,
          Charlotte Corday.

          A. Dobson,
          Four French Women,
          chapter 1.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (July-December).
       The civil war.
       Sieges of Lyons and Toulon.
       Submission of Caen, Marseilles and Bordeaux.
       Crushing of the Vendeans.

       "The insurgents in Calvados [Normandy] were easily suppressed;
       at the very first skirmish at Vernon [July 13], the insurgent
       troops fled. Wimpfen endeavoured to rally them in vain. The
       moderate class, those who had taken up the defence of the
       Girondists, displayed little ardour or activity. When the
       constitution was accepted by the other departments, it saw the
       opportunity for admitting that it had been in error, when it
       thought it was taking arms against a mere factious minority.
       This retractation was made at Caen, which had been the
       headquarters of the revolt. The Mountain commissioners did not
       sully this first victory with executions. General Carteaux on
       the other hand, marched at the head of some troops against the
       sectionary army of the south; he defeated its force, pursued
       it to Marseilles, entered the town [August 23] after it, and
       Provence would have been brought into subjection like
       Calvados, if the royalists, who had taken refuge at Toulon,
       after their defeat, had not called in the English to their
       aid, and placed in their hands this key to France. Admiral
       Hood entered the town in the name of Louis XVII., whom he
       proclaimed king, disarmed the fleet, sent for 8,000 Spaniards
       by sea, occupied the surrounding forts, and forced Carteaux,
       who was advancing against Toulon, to fall back on Marseilles.
       Notwithstanding this check, the conventionalists succeeded in
       isolating the insurrection, and this was a great point. The
       Mountain commissioners had made their entry into the rebel
       capitals; Robert Lindet into Caen; Tallien into Bordeaux;
       Barras and Fréron into Marseilles. Only two towns remained to
       be taken Toulon and Lyons. A simultaneous attack from the
       south, west, and centre was no longer apprehended, and in the
       interior the enemy was only on the defensive. Lyons was
       besieged by Kellermann, general of the army of the Alps; three
       corps pressed the town on all sides. The veteran soldiers of
       the Alps, the revolutionary battalions and the newly levied
       troops, reinforced the besiegers every day. The people of
       Lyons defended themselves with all the courage of despair. At
       first, they relied on the assistance of the insurgents of the
       south; but these having been repulsed by Carteaux, the
       Lyonnese placed their last hope in the army of Piedmont, which
       attempted a diversion in their favour, but was beaten by
       Kellermann. Pressed still more energetically, they saw their
       first position carried. Famine began to be felt, and courage
       forsook them. The royalist leaders, convinced of the inutility
       of longer resistance, left the town, and the republican army
       entered the walls [October 9], where they awaited the orders
       of the convention. A few months after, Toulon itself [in the
       siege of which Napoleon Bonaparte commanded the artillery],
       defended by veteran troops and formidable fortifications, fell
       into the power of the republicans. The battalions of the army
       of Italy, reinforced by those which the taking of Lyons left
       disposable, pressed the place closely. After repeated attacks
       and prodigies of skill and valour, they made themselves
       masters of it, and the capture of Toulon finished what that of
       Lyons had begun [December 19]. Everywhere the convention was
       victorious. The Vendeans had failed in their attempt upon
       Nantes, after having lost many men, and their
       general-in-chief, Cathelineau. This attack put an end to the
       aggressive and previously promising movement of the Vendean
       insurrection. The royalists repassed the Loire, abandoned
       Saumur, and resumed their former cantonments. They were,
       however, still formidable; and the republicans, who pursued
       them, were again beaten in La Vendée. General Biron, who had
       succeeded General Berruyer, unsuccessfully continued the war
       with small bodies of troops; his moderation and defective
       system of attack caused him to be replaced by Canclaux and
       Rossignol, who were not more fortunate than he. There were two
       leaders, two armies, and two centres of operation; ... The
       committee of public safety soon remedied this, by appointing
       one sole general-in-chief, Lechelle, and by introducing war on
       a large scale into La Vendée. This new method, aided by the
       garrison of Mayence, consisting of 17,000 veterans, who,
       relieved from operations against the coalesced powers after
       the capitulation, were employed in the interior, entirely
       changed the face of the war. The royalists underwent four
       consecutive defeats, two at Châtillon, two at Cholet [the last
       being October 17]. Lescure, Bonchamps, and d'Elbée were
       mortally wounded: and the insurgents, completely beaten in
       Upper Vendée, and fearing that they should be exterminated if
       they took refuge in Lower Vendée, determined to leave their
       country to the number of 80,000 persons. This emigration
       through Brittany, which they hoped to arouse to insurrection,
       became fatal to them. Repulsed before Granville, utterly
       routed at Mons [Le Mans, December 12], they were destroyed at
       Savenay [December 23], and barely a few thousand men, the
       wreck of this vast emigration, returned to Vendée. These
       disasters, irreparable for the royalist cause, the taking of
       their land of Noir-moutiers from Charette, the dispersion of
       the troops of that leader, the death of Laroche jacquelin,
       rendered the republicans masters of the country.
    {1295}
       The committee of public safety, thinking, not without reason,
       that its enemies were beaten but not subjugated, adopted a
       terrible system of extermination to prevent them from rising
       again. General Thurreau surrounded Vendée with sixteen
       entrenched camps; twelve movable columns, called the infernal
       columns, overran the country in every direction, sword and
       fire in hand, scoured the woods, dispersed the assemblies, and
       diffused terror throughout this unhappy country."

          F. A. Mignet,
          History of the French Revolution,
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN
          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 2, pages 328-335,
          and 398-410.

          Marchioness de Larochejaquelain,
          Memoirs.

          A. des Echerolles,
          Early Life,
          volume 1, chapters 5-7.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (July-December).
       Progress of the war of the Coalition.
       Dissensions among the Allies.
       Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.
       French Victories of Hondschotten and Wattignies.
       Operations on the Rhine and elsewhere.

       "The civil war in which France for a moment appeared engulfed
       was soon confined to a few narrowing centres. What, in the
       meantime, had been the achievements of the mighty Coalition of
       banded Europe? Success, that might have been great, was
       attained on the Alpine and Pyrenean frontiers; and had the
       Piedmontese and Spaniards been well led they could have
       overrun Provence and Rousillon, and made the insurrection of
       the South fatal. But here, as elsewhere, the Allies did
       little; and, though defeated in almost every encounter, the
       republican levies held their ground against enemies who
       nowhere advanced. It was, however, in the North and the
       North-east that the real prize of victory was placed; and no
       doubt can exist that had unanimity in the councils of the
       Coalition prevailed, or had a great commander been in its
       camp, Paris might have been captured without difficulty, and
       the Revolution been summarily put down. But the Austrians, the
       Prussians, and the English, were divided in mind; they had no
       General capable of rising above the most ordinary routine of
       war; and the result was that the allied armies advanced
       tardily on an immense front, each leader thinking of his own
       plans only, and no one venturing to press forward boldly, or
       to pass the fortresses on the hostile frontiers, though
       obstacles like these could be of little use without the aid of
       powerful forces in the field. In this manner half the summer
       was lost in besieging Mayence, Valenciennes, and Condé; and
       when, after the fall of these places [July-August], an attempt
       was made to invade Picardy, dissensions between the Allies
       broke out, and the British contingent was detached to besiege
       Dunkirk, while the Austrians lingered in French Flanders,
       intent on enlarging by conquest Belgium, at that period an
       Austrian Province. Time was thus gained for the French armies,
       which, though they had made an honorable resistance, had been
       obliged to fall back at all points, and were in no condition
       to oppose their enemy; and the French army in the North,
       though driven nearly to the Somme, within a few marches of the
       capital, was allowed an opportunity to recruit its strength,
       and was not, as it might have been easily, destroyed. A part
       of the hastily raised levies was now incorporated in its
       ranks; and as these were largely composed of seasoned men from
       the old army of the Bourbon Monarchy, and from the volunteers
       of Valmy and Jemmapes, a respectable force was before long
       mustered. At the peremptory command of the Jacobin Government,
       this was at once directed against the invaders, who did not
       know what an invasion meant. The Duke of York, assailed with
       vigor and skill, was compelled to raise the siege of Dunkirk
       [by the French victory at Hondschotten, September 8]; and, to
       the astonishment of Europe, the divided forces of the halting
       and irresolute Coalition began to recede before the enemies,
       who saw victory yielded to them, and who, feeble soldiers as
       they often were, were nevertheless fired by ardent patriotism.
       As the autumn closed the trembling balance of fortune inclined
       decidedly on the side of the Republic. The French recruits,
       hurried to the frontier in masses, became gradually better
       soldiers, under the influence of increasing success. Carnot, a
       man of great but overrated powers, took the general direction
       of military affairs; and though his strategy was not sound, it
       was much better than the imbecility of his foes. At the same
       time, the Generals of the fallen Monarchy having disappeared,
       or, for the most part, failed, brilliant names began to emerge
       from the ranks, and to lead the suddenly raised armies; and
       though worthless selections were not seldom made, more than
       one private and sergeant gave proof of capacity of no common
       order. Terror certainly added strength to patriotism, for
       thousands were driven to the camp by force, and death was the
       usual penalty of a defeated chief; but it was not the less a
       great national movement, and high honor is justly due to a
       people which, in a situation that might have seemed hopeless,
       made such heroic: and noble efforts, even though it triumphed
       through the weakness of its foe. Owing to a happy inspiration
       of Carnot, a detachment was rapidly marched from the Rhine,
       where the Prussians remained in complete inaction; and with
       this reinforcement Jourdan gained a victory at Wattignies
       [October 16] over the Austrians, and opened the way into the
       Low Countries. At the close of the year the youthful Hoche,
       once a corporal, but a man of genius, who had given studious
       hours to the theory of war, divided Brunswick from the
       Austrian Würmser by a daring and able march through the
       Vosges; and the baffled Allies were driven out of Alsace, the
       borders of which they had just invaded. By these operations
       the great Northern frontier, the really vulnerable part of
       France, was almost freed from the invaders' presence; and,
       though less was achieved on the Southern frontier, the enemies
       of the Republic began to lose courage."

          W. O'C. Morris,
          The French Revolution,
          chapter 6.

       "The Prussians had remained wholly inactive for two months
       after the fall of Mayence, contenting themselves with watching
       the French in their lines at Weissenburg. Wearied at length by
       the torpor of his opponents, Moreau assumed the initiative,
       and attacked the Prussian corps at Pirmasens. This bold
       attempt was repulsed (September 14) with the loss of 4,000
       men; but it was not till a month later (October 13) that the
       Allies resumed the offensive, when the Weissenburg lines were
       stormed by a mixed force of Austrians and Prussians, and the
       French fled in confusion almost to Strasburg. But this
       important advantage led to no results, though the defeat of
       the Republican movement was hailed by a royalist movement in
       Alsace.
    {1296}
       The Austrians, immovable in their plans of conquest, refused
       to occupy Strasburg in the name of Louis XVII.; and the
       unfortunate royalists, abandoned to Republican vengeance, were
       indiscriminately consigned to the guillotine by a decree of
       the Convention, while the confederate army was occupied in the
       siege of Landau. But the lukewarmness of the Prussians had now
       become so evident, that it was only by the most vehement
       remonstrances of the Austrian cabinet that they were prevented
       from seceding altogether from the league; and the Republicans,
       taking advantage of the disunion of their enemies, again
       attacked the Allies (December 26), who were routed and driven
       over the Rhine [abandoning the siege of Landau]; while the
       victors, following up their success, retook Spires, and
       advanced to the gates of Mannheim. The operations in the
       Pyrenees and on the side of Savoy, during this campaign, led
       to no important results. On the western extremity of the
       Pyrenees, the Spaniards [had] entered France in the middle of
       April, routed their opponents in several encounters, and drove
       them into St. Jean Pied-de-Poet. An invasion of Roussillon, at
       the same time, was equally successful; and the Spaniards
       maintained themselves in the province till the end of the
       year, taking the fortresses of Bellegarde and Collioure, and
       routing two armies which attempted to dislodge them, at Truellas
       (September 22) and Boulon (December 7). An attempt of the
       Sardinians to expel the French from their conquests in Savoy
       was less fortunate; and, at the close of the campaign, both
       parties remained in their former position."

          A. Alison,
          Epitome of History of Europe,
          pages 58-59 (chapter 13,
          volume 4 of complete work).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 8, chapter 2 (volume 3).

          E. Baines,
          History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
          volume 1, chapters 9-11.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (August).
       Emancipation in San Domingo proclaimed.

          See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (September-December).
       The "Reign of Terror" becomes the "Order of the Day."
       Trial and execution of Marie Antoinette, Madame Roland, and
       the Girondists.

       "On the 16th of September, the Faubourg Saint-Antoine
       surrounded the Hôtel de Ville, clamoring for 'Bread.' Hébert
       and Chaumette appeased the mob by vociferous harangues against
       rich men and monopolists, and by promising to raise a
       revolutionary army with orders to scour the country, empty the
       granaries, and put the grain within reach of the people. 'The
       next thing will he a guillotine for the monopolists,' added
       Hébert. This had been demanded by memorials from the most
       ultra provincial Jacobins. The next day the Convention
       witnessed the terrible reaction of this scene. At the opening
       of the session Merlin de Douai proposed and carried a vote for
       the division of the revolutionary tribunal into four sections,
       in order to remedy the dilatoriness complained of by
       Robespierre and the Jacobins. The municipality soon arrived,
       followed by a great crowd; Chaumette, in a furious harangue,
       demanded a revolutionary army with a travelling guillotine.
       The ferocious Billaud-Varennes declared that this was not
       enough, and that all suspected persons must be arrested
       immediately. Danton interposed with the powerful eloquence of
       his palmy days; he approved of an immediate decree for the
       formation of a revolutionary army, but made no mention of the
       guillotine. ... Danton's words were impetuous, but his ideas
       were politic and deliberate. His motions were carried, amid
       general acclamation. But the violent propositions of
       Billaud-Varennes and others were also carried. The decree
       forbidding domiciliary visits and night arrests, which had
       been due to the Girondists, was revoked. A deputation from the
       Jacobins and the sections demanded the indictment of the
       'monster' Brissot with his accomplices, Vergniaud, Gensonné,
       and other 'miscreants.' 'Lawgivers,' said the spokesman of the
       deputation, 'let the Reign of Terror be the order of the day!'
       Barère, in the name of the Committee of Public Safety,
       obtained the passage of a decree organizing an armed force to
       restrain counter-revolutionists and protect supplies. Fear led
       him to unite with the most violent, and to adopt the great
       motto of the Paris Commune, 'Let the Reign of Terror be the
       order of the day!' 'The royalists are conspiring,' he said;
       'they want blood. Well they shall have that of the
       conspirators, of the Brissots and Marie Antoinettes!' The
       association of these two names shows what frenzy prevailed in
       the minds of the people. The next day September 6, two of the
       most formidable Jacobins, the cold, implacable
       Billaud-Varennes and the fiery Collot d'Herbois, were added to
       the Committee of Public Safety. Danton persisted in his
       refusal to return to it. This proves how mistaken the
       Girondists had been in accusing him of aspiring to the
       dictatorship. He kept aloof from the Committee chiefly because
       he knew that they were lost, and did not wish to contribute to
       their fall. Before leaving the ministry Garat had tried to
       prevent the Girondists from being brought to trial; upon
       making known his wish to Robespierre and Danton, he found
       Robespierre implacable, while Danton, with tears coursing down
       his rugged cheeks replied, 'I cannot save them!' ... On the 10th
       of October Saint-Just, in the name of the Committee of Public
       Safety, read to the Assembly an important report upon the
       situation of the Republic. It was violent and menacing to
       others beside the enemies of the Mountain; Hébert and his gang
       might well tremble. He inveighed not only against those who
       were plundering the government, but against the whole
       administration. ... Saint-Just's report had been preceded on
       the 3d of October by a report from the new Committee of Public
       Safety, concluding with the indictment of 40 deputies; 39 were
       Girondists or friends of the Gironde; the fortieth was the
       ex-Duke of Orleans. Twenty-one of these 39 were now in the
       hands of their enemies, and of these 21 only 9 belonged to
       the first deputies indicted on the 2d of June; the remainder
       had left Paris hoping to organize outside resistance, and had
       been declared outlawed. The deputies subsequently added to
       this number were members of the Right who had signed protests
       against the violation of the national representation on that
       fatal day. ... It was decided at the same session to bring the
       40 deputies, together with Marie Antoinette, to trial. The
       Jacobins and the commune had long been demanding the trial of
       the unhappy queen, and were raising loud clamors over the
       plots for her deliverance.
    {1297}
       She might perhaps have escaped from the Temple if she would
       have consented to leave her children. During July a sorrow
       equal to that of the 21st of January had been inflicted on
       her; she had been separated from her young son under the
       pretence that she treated him like a king, and was bringing
       him up to make 'a tyrant of him.' The child was placed in
       another part of the Temple, and his education was intrusted to
       a vulgar and brutal shoemaker, named Simon. Nevertheless the
       fate of Marie Antoinette at this epoch was still doubtful;
       neither the Committee of Public Safety nor the ministry
       desired her death. While Lebrun, the friend of the Girondists,
       was minister of foreign affairs, a project had been formed
       which would have saved her life. Danton knew of it and aided
       it. ... This plan was a negotiation with Venice, Tuscany, and
       Naples, the three Italian States yet neutral, who were to
       pledge themselves to maintain their wavering neutrality, in
       consideration of a guaranty of the safety of Marie Antoinette
       and her family. Two diplomatic agents who afterwards held high
       posts in France, Marat and Sémonville, were intrusted with
       this affair. As they were crossing from Switzerland into
       Italy, they were arrested, in violation of the law of nations,
       upon the neutral territory of the Grisons by an Austrian
       detachment (July 25). ... At tidings of the arrest of the
       French envoys, Marie Antoinette was separated from her
       daughter and sister-in-law Elizabeth, and transferred to the
       Conciergerie. On the 14th of October she appeared before the
       revolutionary tribunal. To the accusation of the public
       prosecutor, Fouquier-Tinville, made up of calumnies against
       her private life, and for the most part well-founded
       imputations against her political conduct, she opposed a
       plausible defence, which effaced as far as possible her part
       in the late government. ... The following questions were put
       to the jurors: 'Has Marie Antoinette aided in movements
       designed to assist the foreign enemies of the Republic to open
       French territory to them and to facilitate the progress of
       their arms? Has she taken part in a conspiracy tending to
       incite civil war?' The answer was in the affirmative, and the
       sentence of death was passed on her. The decisive portions
       which we now possess of the queen's correspondence with
       Austria had not then been made public; but enough was known to
       leave no doubt of her guilt, which had the same moral excuses
       as that of her husband. ... She met death [October 16] with
       courage and resignation. The populace who had hated her so
       much did not insult her last moments. ... A week after the
       queen's death the Girondists were summoned before the
       revolutionary tribunal. Brissot and Lasource alone had tried
       to escape this bloody ordeal, and to stir up resistance
       against it in the South. Vergniaud, Gensonné, and Valazé
       remained unshaken in their resolve to await trial. Gensonné,
       who had been placed in the keeping of a Swiss whose life he
       had saved on the 10th of August, and who had become a
       gendarme, might have escaped, but he refused to profit by this
       man's gratitude. ... The act of indictment drawn up by the
       ex-Feuillant Amar was only a repetition of the monstrous
       calumnies which had circulated through the clubs and the
       journals. Brissot was accused of having ruined the colonies by
       advocating the liberation of slaves, and of having drawn
       foreign arms upon France by declaring war on kings. The whole
       trial corresponded to this beginning. ... On the 29th the
       Jacobins appeared at the bar of the Convention, and called for
       a decree giving the jurors of the revolutionary tribunal the
       right to bring the proceedings to a close as soon as they
       believed themselves sufficiently enlightened. Robespierre and
       Barère supported the Jacobin demand. Upon Robespierre's motion
       it was decreed that after three days' proceedings, the jurors
       might declare themselves ready to render their verdict. The
       next day the jurors availed themselves of their privilege, and
       declared themselves sufficiently informed, although they had
       not heard the evidence for acquittal, neither the accused nor
       their counsel having been allowed to plead their cause.
       Brissot, Vergniaud, Gensonné, Valazé, Bishop Fauchet, Ducos,
       Boyer-Fonfrède, Lasource, and their friends were declared
       guilty of having conspired against the unity and
       indivisibility of the Republic, and against the liberty and
       safety of the French people. ... Danton, who had not been an
       accomplice in their death, had retired to his mother's home at
       Arcis-sur-Aube, that he might not be a witness thereof. The
       condemned were brought back to hear their sentence. The
       greater part of them rose up with a common impulse, and cried,
       'We are innocent! People, they are deceiving you!' The crowd
       remained motionless and silent. ... At midnight they partook
       of a last repast, passing the rest of the night in converse
       about their native land, their remnant of life being cheered
       by news of victory and pleasant sallies from young Ducos, who
       might have escaped, but preferred to share his friend
       Fonfréde's fate. Vergniaud had been given a subtle poison by
       Condorcet, but threw it away, choosing to die with his
       companions. One of his noble utterances gives us the key to
       his life. 'Others sought to consummate the Revolution by
       terror; I would accomplish it by love.' Next day, October 31,
       at noon, the prisoners were led forth, and as the five carts
       containing them left the Conciergerie, they struck up the
       national hymn ... and shouts of 'Long live the Republic.' The
       sounds died away as their number decreased, but did not cease
       until the last of the 21 mounted the fatal platform. ... The
       murderers of the Girondists were not likely to spare the
       illustrious woman who was at once the inspiration and the
       honor of that party, and the very same day Madame Roland who
       had been for five months a prisoner at St. Pelagie and the
       Abbaye, was transferred to the Conciergerie. Hébert and his
       followers had long clamored for her head. During her captivity
       she wrote her Memoirs, which unfortunately have not been
       preserved complete; no other souvenir of the Revolution equals
       this, although it is not always reliable, for Madame Roland
       had feminine weaknesses of intellect, despite her masculine
       strength of soul; she was prejudiced against all who disagreed
       with her, and regarded caution and compromise with a noble but
       impolitic scorn. ... The 18th Brumaire (November 10), she was
       summoned before the revolutionary tribunal; when she left her
       cell, clad in white, her dark hair, floating loosely over her
       shoulders, a smile on her lips and her face sparkling with
       life and animation. ...
    {1298}
       She was condemned in advance, not being allowed a word in her
       own defence, and was declared guilty of being an author or
       accomplice 'of a monstrous conspiracy against the unity and
       indivisibility of the Republic.' She heard her sentence
       calmly, saying to the judges: 'You deem me worthy the fate of
       the great men you have murdered. I will try to display the
       same courage on the scaffold.' She was taken directly to the
       Place de la Revolution, a man condemned for treason being
       placed in the same cart, who was overwhelmed with terror. She
       passed the mournful journey in soothing him, and on reaching
       the scaffold bid him mount first, that his sufferings might
       not be prolonged. As she took her place in turn, her eye fell
       on a colossal statue of Liberty, erected August 10, 1793. 'O
       Liberty,' she cried, 'what crimes are committed in thy name!'
       Some say that she said, 'O Liberty, how they have deceived
       thee!' Thus died the noblest woman in history since the
       incomparable Joan, who saved France! ... The bloody tribunal
       never paused; famous men of every party succeeded each other
       at the fatal bar, the ex-Duke of Orleans among them, but four
       days earlier than Madame Roland. ... The day after Madame
       Roland's trial began that of the venerable Bailli, ex-mayor of
       Paris and ex-president of the Constituent Assembly, a man who
       played a great part early in the Revolution, but faded out of
       sight with the constituent power."

          Henry Martin,
          Popular History of France, 1789-1877,
          volume 1, chapter 16.

          ALSO IN
          A. de Lamartine,
          History of the Girondists,
          chapters 46-52 (volume 3).

          C. D. Yonge,
          Life of Marie Antoinette,
          chapter 39.

          Madame Campan,
          Memoirs of the Private Life of Marie Antoinette,
          volume 2, conclusion.

          S. Marceau,
          Reminiscences of a Regicide,
          chapter 11.

          Count Beugnot,
          Life,
          volume 1, chapter 6.

          Lord R. Gower,
          Last Days of Marie Antoinette.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (October).
       Life in Paris during the Reign of Terror.
       Gaiety in the Prisons.
       The Tricoteuses, or knitting women.
       Revolutionary costumes and modes of speech.
       The guillotine as plaything and ornament.

       "By the end of October, 1793, the Committee of General
       Security had mastered Paris, and established the Reign of
       Terror there by means of the Revolutionary Tribunal, and could
       answer to the Great Committee of Public Safety for the
       tranquillity of the capital. There were no more riots; men
       were afraid even to express their opinions, much less to
       quarrel about them; the system of denunciation made Paris into
       a hive of unpaid spies, and ordinary crimes, pocket-picking
       and the like, vanished as if by magic. Yet it must not be
       supposed that Paris was gloomy or dull; on the contrary, the
       vast majority of citizens seemed glad to have an excuse to
       avoid politics, of which they had had a surfeit during the
       last four years, and to turn their thoughts to the literary
       side of their favourite journals, to the theatres, and to art.
       ... The dull places of Paris were the Revolutionary
       Committees, the Jacobin Club, the Convention, the Hôtel de
       Brienne, where the Committee of General Security sat, and the
       Pavillon de l'Egalité, formerly the Pavillon de Flore, in the
       Tuileries, where the Great Committee of Public Safety
       laboured. ... Elsewhere men were lighthearted and gay,
       following their usual avocations, and busy in their pursuit of
       pleasure or of gain. It is most essential to grasp the fact
       that there was no particular difference, for the vast majority
       of the population, in living in Paris during the Reign of
       Terror and at other times. The imagination of posterity,
       steeped in tales of the tumbrils bearing their burden to the
       guillotine, and of similar stories of horror, has conceived a
       ghastly picture of life at that extraordinary period, and it
       is only after living for months amongst the journals, memoirs,
       and letters of the time that one can realize the fact that to
       the average Parisian the necessity of getting his dinner or
       his evening's amusement remained the paramount thought of his
       daily life. ... Strange to say, nowhere was life more happy
       and gay than in the prisons of Paris, where the inmates lived
       in the constant expectation that the haphazard chance of being
       brought before the Revolutionary Tribunal and condemned to
       death might befall them at any moment. ... A little more must
       be said about the market-women, the tricoteuses, or
       knitting-women of infamous memory. These market-women had been
       treated as heroines ever since their march to Versailles in
       October, 1789. ... They formed their societies after the
       fashion of the Jacobin Club, presided over by Renée Audu,
       Agnès Lefevre, Marie Louise Bouju, and Rose Lacombe, and went
       about the streets of Paris insulting respectably dressed
       people, and hounding on the sans-culottes to deeds of
       atrocity. These Mænads were encouraged by Marat, and played an
       important part in the street history of Paris, up to the Reign
       of Terror, when their power was suddenly taken from them. On
       May 21, 1793, they were excluded by a decree from the
       galleries of the Convention; on May 26 they were forbidden to
       form part of any political assembly; and when they appealed
       from the Convention to the Commune of Paris, Chaumette
       abruptly told them 'that the Republic had no need of Joans of
       Arc.' Thus deprived of active participation in politics, the
       market-women became the tricoteuses, or knitting-women, who
       used to take their seats in the Place de la Revolution, and
       watch the guillotine as they knitted. Their active power for
       good or harm was gone. ... Life during the Terror in Paris ...
       differed in little things, in little affectations of liberty
       and equality, which are amusing to study. The fashions of
       dress everywhere betrayed the new order of things. A few men,
       such as Robespierre, might still go about with powdered hair
       and in knee-breeches, but the ordinary male costume of the
       time was designed to contrast in every way with the costume of
       a dandy of the 'ancien régime.' Instead of breeches, the
       fashion was to wear trousers; instead of shoes, top-boots; and
       instead of shaving, the young Parisian prided himself on letting
       his moustache grow. In female costume a different motive was
       at work. Only David's art disciples ventured to imitate the
       male apparel of ancient Greece and Rome, but such imitation
       became the fashion among women. Waists disappeared; and
       instead of stiffened skirts and narrow bodices, women wore
       short loose robes, which they fancied resembled Greek chitons;
       sandals took the place of high-heeled shoes; and the hair,
       instead of being worked up into elaborate edifices, was
       allowed to flow down freely. For ornaments, gun-metal and
       steel took the place of gold, silver and precious stones. ...
       The favourite design was the guillotine.
    {1299}
       Little guillotines were worn as brooches, as earrings and as
       clasps, and the women of the time simply followed the fashion
       without realizing what it meant. Indeed, the worship of the
       guillotine was one of the most curious features of the epoch.
       Children had toy guillotines given them; models were made to
       cut off imitation heads, when wine or sweet syrup flowed in
       place of blood; and hymns were written to La Sainte
       Guillotine, and jokes made upon it, as the 'national razor.'
       ... It is well known that the desire to emphasize the
       abolition of titles was followed by the abolition of the terms
       'Monsieur' and 'Madame,' and that their places were taken by
       'Citizen' and 'Citizeness;' and also how the use of the second
       person plural was dropped, and it was considered a sign of a
       good republican to tutoyer everyone, that is, to call them
       'thou' and 'thee.' ... The Reign of Terror in Paris seems to
       us an age of unique experiences, a time unparalleled in the
       history of the world; yet to the great majority of
       contemporaries it did not appear so; they lived their ordinary
       lives, and it was only in exceptional cases that the serenity
       of their days was interrupted, or that their minds were
       exercised by anything more than the necessity of earning their
       daily bread."

          H. M. Stephens,
          History of the French Revolution,
          volume 2, chapter 10.

          ALSO IN
          J. Michelet,
          Women of the French Revolution,
          chapters 20-30.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (October).
       The new republican calendar.

       "Before the year ended the legislators of Paris voted that
       there was no God, and destroyed or altered nearly everything
       that had any reference to Christianity. Robespierre, who would
       have stopped short at deism, and who would have preserved the
       external decencies, was overruled and intimidated by Hébert
       and his frowsy crew, who had either crept into the governing
       committees or had otherwise made themselves a power in the
       state. ... All popular journalists, patriots, and public
       bodies, had begun dating 'First Year of Liberty,' or 'First
       Year of the Republic;' and the old calendar had come to be
       considered as superstitious and slavish, as an abomination in
       the highest degree disgraceful to free and enlightened
       Frenchmen. Various petitions for a change had been presented;
       and at length the Convention had employed the mathematicians
       Romme and Monge, and the astronomer Laplace, to make a new
       republican calendar for the new era. These three philosophers,
       aided by Fabre d'Eglantine, who, as a poet, furnished the
       names, soon finished their work, which was sanctioned by the
       Convention and decreed into universal use as early as the 5th
       of October. It divided the year into four equal seasons, and
       twelve equal months of 30 days each. The five odd days which
       remained were to be festivals, and to bear the name of
       'Sansculottides.' ... One of these five days was to be
       consecrated to Genius, one to Industry, the third to Fine
       Actions, the fourth to Rewards, the fifth to Opinion. ... In
       leap-years, when there would be six days to dispose of, the
       last of those days or Sansculottides was to be consecrated to
       the Revolution, and to be observed in all times with all
       possible solemnity. The months were divided into three
       decades, or portions of ten days each, and, instead of the
       Christian sabbath, once in seven days, the décadi, or tenth
       day, was to be the day of rest. ... The decimal method of
       calculation ... was to preside over all divisions: thus,
       instead of our twenty-four hours to the day, and sixty minutes
       to the hour, the day was divided into ten parts, and the tenth
       was to be subdivided by tens and again by tens to the minutest
       division of time. New dials were ordered to mark the time in
       this new way, but, before they were finished, it was found
       that the people were puzzled and perplexed by this last
       alteration, and therefore this part of the calendar was
       adjourned for a year, and the hours, minutes and seconds were
       left as they were. As the republic commenced on the 21st of
       September close on the [autumnal] equinox, the republican year
       was made to commence at that season. The first month in the
       year (Fabre d'Eglantine being god-father to them all) was
       called Vendémiaire, or the vintage month, the second Brumaire,
       or the foggy month, the third Frimaire, or the frosty month.
       These were the three autumn months. Nivôse, Pluviôse, and
       Ventôse, or the snowy, rainy and windy, were the three winter
       months. Germinal, Floreal, and Prairial, or the bud month, the
       flower month, and the meadow month, formed the spring season.
       Messidor, Thermidor and Fructidor, or reaping month, heat
       month, and fruit month, made the summer, and completed the
       republican year. In more ways than one all this was calculated
       for the meridian of Paris, and could suit no other physical or
       moral climate. ... But the strangest thing about this
       republican calendar was its duration. It lasted till the 1st
       of January, 1806."

          C. Mac Farlane,
          The French Revolution,
          volume 4, volume 3.

       The Republican Calendar for the Year Two of the Republic
       (September 22, 1793-Sept. 21, 1794) is synchronized with the
       Gregorian Calendar as follows:
       1 Vendémiaire = September 22;
       1 Brumaire = October 22;
       1 Frimaire = November 21;
       1 Nivôse = December 21;
       1 Pluviôse = January 20;
       1 Ventôse = February 19;
       1 Germinal = March 21;
       1 Floreal = April 20;
       1 Prairial = May 20;
       1 Messidor = June 19;
       1 Thermidor = July 19;
       1 Fructidor= August 18;
       1st to 5th Sansculottides = September 17-21.

          H. M. Stephens,
          History of the French Revolution,
          volume 2, appendix 12.

          ALSO IN
          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 2, pages 364-365.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (November).
       Abandonment of Christianity.
       The Worship of Reason instituted.

       "The earliest steps towards a public abandonment of
       Christianity appear to have been taken by Fouché, the future
       minister of Police, and Duke of Otranto. ... He published at
       Nevers (October 10, 1793) a decree" ordaining that "no forms
       of religious worship be practised except within their
       respective temples;" that "ministers of religion are
       forbidden, under pain of imprisonment, to wear their official
       costumes in any other places besides their temples;" and that
       the inscription, "Death is an eternal sleep," should be placed
       over the entrance to the cemetery. "This decree was reported
       to the municipality of Paris by Chaumette, the fanatical
       procureur of the Commune, and was warmly applauded. ... The
       atheistical cabal of which he was the leader (his chief
       associates being the infamous Hébert, the Prussian baron
       Anacharsis Clootz, and Chabot, a renegade priest), now judged
       that public feeling was ripe for an avowed and combined
       onslaught on the profession of Christianity. ... They decreed
       that on the 10th of November the 'Worship of Reason' should be
       inaugurated at Notre Dame.
    {1300}
       On that day the venerable cathedral was profaned by a series
       of sacrilegious outrages unparalleled in the history of
       Christendom. A temple dedicated to 'Philosophy' was erected on
       a platform in the middle of the choir. A motley procession of
       citizens of both sexes, headed by the constituted authorities,
       advanced towards it; on their approach, the Goddess of Reason,
       impersonated by Mademoiselle Maillard, a well known figurante
       of the opera, took her seat upon a grassy throne in front of
       the temple; a hymn, composed in her honour by the poet
       Chenier, was sung by a body of young girls dressed in white
       and bedecked with flowers; and the multitude bowed the knee
       before her in profound adoration. It was the 'abomination of
       desolation sitting in the holy place.' At the close of this
       grotesque ceremony the whole cortège proceeded to the hall of
       the Convention, carrying with them their 'goddess,' who was
       borne aloft in a chair of state on the shoulders of four men.
       Having deposited her in front of the president, Chaumette
       harangued the Assembly. ... He proceeded to demand that the
       ci-devant metropolitical church should henceforth be the
       temple of Reason and Liberty; which proposition was
       immediately adopted. The 'goddess' was then conducted to the
       president, and he and other officers of the House saluted her
       with the 'fraternal kiss,' amid thunders of applause. After
       this, upon the motion of Thuriot, the Convention in a body
       joined the mass of the people, and marched in their company to
       the temple of Reason, to witness a repetition of the impieties
       above described. These demonstrations were zealously imitated
       in the other churches of the capital. ... The interior of St.
       Eustache was transformed into a 'guinguette,' or place of low
       public entertainment. ... At St. Gervais a ball was given in
       the chapel of the Virgin. In other churches theatrical
       spectacles took place. ... Representatives of the people
       thought it no shame to quit their curule chairs in order to
       dance the 'carmagnole' with abandoned women in the streets
       attired in sacerdotal garments. On Sunday, the 17th of
       November, all the parish churches of Paris were closed by
       authority, with three exceptions. ... Chaumette, at a sitting
       of the Commune on the 26th of November, called for further
       measures for the extermination of every vestige of Christian
       worship;" and the Council of the Commune, on his demand,
       ordered the closing of all churches and temples, of every
       religious denomination; made priests and ministers of religion
       responsible for any troubles that might arise from religious
       opinions, and commanded the arrest as a "suspect" of any
       person who should ask for the reopening of a church. "The
       example set by Paris, at this melancholy period, was
       faithfully repeated, if not surpassed in atrocity, throughout
       the provinces. Religion was proscribed, churches closed,
       Christian ordinances interdicted; the dreary gloom of
       atheistical despotism overspread the land. ... These infamies
       were too monstrous to be tolerated for any length of time. ...
       Robespierre, who had marked the symptoms of a coming reaction,
       boldly seized the opportunity, and denounced without mercy the
       hypocritical faction which disputed his own march towards
       absolute dictatorship."

          W. H. Jervis,
          The Gallican Church and the Revolution,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN
          A. de Lamartine,
          History of the Girondists,
          book 52 (volume 3).

          T. Carlyle,
          The French Revolution,
          book 5, chapter 4 (volume 3).

          E. de Pressense,
          Religion and the Reign of Terror,
          book 2, chapter 2.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (October-April).
       The Terror in the Provinces.
       Republican vengeance at Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon,
       Bordeaux, Nantes.
       Fusillades and Noyades.

       "The insurgents of Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon, and Bordeaux,
       were punished with pitiless severity. Lyons had revolted, and
       the convention decreed [October 12] the destruction of the
       city, the confiscation of the property of the rich, for the
       benefit of the patriots, and the punishment of the insurgents
       by martial law. Couthon, a commissioner well tried in cruelty,
       hesitated to carry into execution this monstrous decree, and
       was superseded by Collot d'Herbois and Fouché. Thousands of
       workmen were employed in the work of destruction: whole
       streets fell under their pickaxes: the prisons were gorged:
       the guillotine was too slow for revolutionary vengeance, and
       crowds of prisoners were shot, in murderous 'mitraillades.'
       ... At Marseilles, 12,000 of the richest citizens fled from
       the vengeance of the revolutionists, and their property was
       confiscated, and plundered. When Toulon fell before the
       strategy of Bonaparte, the savage vengeance and cruelty of the
       conquerors were indulged without restraint. ... The dockyard
       labourers were put to the sword: gangs of prisoners were
       brought out and executed by fusillades: the guillotine also
       claimed its victims: the sans-culottes rioted in confiscation
       and plunder. At Bordeaux, Tallien threw 15,000 citizens into
       prison. Hundreds fell under the guillotine; and the
       possessions and property of the rich were offered up to
       outrage and robbery. But all these atrocities were far
       surpassed in La Vendee. ... The barbarities of warfare were
       yet surpassed by the vengeance of the conquerors, when the
       insurrection was, at last, overcome. At Nantes, the monster
       Carrier outstripped his rivals in cruelty and insatiable
       thirst for blood. Not contented with wholesale mitraillades,
       he designed that masterpiece of cruelty, the noyades; and
       thousands of men, women and children who escaped the muskets
       of the rabble soldiery were deliberately drowned in the waters
       of the Loire. In four months, his victims reached 15,000. At
       Angers, and other towns in La Vendee, these hideous noyades
       were added to the terrors of the guillotine and the
       fusillades."

          Sir T. E. May,
          Democracy in Europe,
          chapter 14.

       "One begins to be sick of 'death vomited in great floods.'
       Nevertheless, hearest thou not, O Reader (for the sound
       reaches through centuries), in the dead December and January
       nights, over Nantes Town,--confused noises, as of musketry and
       tumult, as of rage and lamentation; mingling with the
       everlasting moan of the Loire waters there? Nantes Town is
       sunk in sleep; but Représentant Carrier is not sleeping, the
       wool-capped Company of Marat is not sleeping. Why unmoors that
       flatbottomed craft, that 'gabarre'; about eleven at night;
       with Ninety Priests under hatches? They are going to Belle
       Isle? In the middle of the Loire stream, on signal given, the
       gabarre is scuttled; she sinks with all her cargo. 'Sentence
       of Deportation,' writes Carrier, 'was executed vertically.'
       The Ninety Priests, with their gabarre-coffin, lie deep! It is
       the first of the Noyades [November 16], what we may call
       'Drownages' of Carrier; which have become famous forever.
    {1301}
       Guillotining there was at Nantes, till the Headsman sank worn
       out: then fusillading 'in the Plain of Saint-Mauve;' little
       children fusilladed, and women with children at the breast;
       children and women, by the hundred and twenty; and by the five
       hundred, so hot is La Véndee: till the very Jacobins grew
       sick, and all but the Company of Marat cried, Hold! Wherefore
       now we have got Noyading; and on the 24th night of Frostarious
       year 2, which is 14th of December 1793, we have a second
       Noyade; consisting of '138 persons.' Or why waste a gabarre,
       sinking it with them? Fling them out; fling them out, with
       their hands tied: pour a continual hail of lead over all the
       space, till the last struggler of them be sunk! Unsound
       sleepers of Nantes, and the Sea-Villages there-abouts, hear
       the musketry amid the night-winds; wonder what the meaning of
       it is. And women were in that gabarre; whom the Red Nightcaps
       were stripping naked; who begged, in their agony, that their
       smocks might not be stript from them. And young children were
       thrown in, their mothers vainly pleading: 'Wolflings,'
       answered the Company of Marat, 'who would grow to be wolves.'
       By degrees, daylight itself witnesses Noyades: women and men
       are tied together, feet and feet, hands and hands; and flung
       in: this they call Mariage Républicain, Republican Marriage.
       Cruel is the panther of the woods, the she-bear bereaved of
       her whelps: but there is in man a hatred crueler than that.
       Dumb, out of suffering now, as pale swollen corpses, the
       victims tumble confusedly seaward along the Loire stream; the
       tide rolling them back: clouds of ravens darken the River;
       wolves prowl on the shoal-places: Carrier writes, 'Quel
       torrent révolutionnaire, What a torrent of Revolution!' For
       the man is rabid; and the Time is rabid. These are the Noyades
       of Carrier; twenty-five by the tale, for what is done in
       darkness comes to be investigated in sunlight: not to be
       forgotten for centuries. ... Men are all rabid; as the Time
       is. Representative Lebon, at Arras, dashes his sword into the
       blood flowing from the Guillotine; exclaims, 'How I like it!'
       Mothers, they say, by his orders, have to stand by while the
       Guillotine devours their children: a band of music is
       stationed near; and, at the fall of every head, strikes up its
       'Ça-ira.'"

          T. Carlyle,
          The French Revolution,
          volume 3, book 5, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN
          H. M. Stephens,
          History of the French Revolution,
          volume 2, chapter 11.

          H. A. Taine,
          The French Revolution,
          book 5, chapter 1, section 9 (volume 3).

          Horrors of the Prison of Arras
          ("The Reign of Terror: A Collection of Authentic
          Narratives," volume 2).

          Duchesse de Duras,
          Prison Journals during the French Revolution

          A. des Echerolles,
          Early Life,
          volume 1, chapters 7-13, and volume 2, chapter l.

          See, also, FRANCE: 1794 (JUNE-JULY).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (November-June).
       The factions of the Mountain devour one another.
       Destruction of the Hebertists.
       Danton and his followers brought to the knife.
       Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety.
       The Feast of the Supreme Being.

       "Robespierre was unutterably outraged by the proceedings of
       the atheists. They perplexed him as a politician intent upon
       order, and they afflicted him sorely as an ardent disciple of
       the Savoyard Vicar. Hébert, however, was so strong that it
       needed some courage to attack him, nor did Robespierre dare to
       withstand him to the face. But he did not flinch from making
       an energetic assault upon atheism and the excesses of its
       partisans. His admirers usually count his speech of the 21st
       of November one of the most admirable of his oratorical
       successes. ... 'Atheism [he said] is aristocratic. The idea of
       a great being who watches over oppressed innocence and
       punishes triumphant crime is essentially the idea of the
       people. This is the sentiment of Europe and the Universe; it
       is the sentiment of the French nation. That people is attached
       neither to priests, nor to superstitions, nor to ceremonies;
       it is attached only to worship in itself, or in other words to
       the idea of an incomprehensible Power, the terror of
       wrong-doers, the stay and comfort of virtue, to which it
       delights to render words of homage that are all so many
       anathemas against injustice and triumphant crime.' This is
       Robespierre's favourite attitude, the priest posing as
       statesman. ... Danton followed practically the same line,
       though saying much less about it. 'If Greece,' he said in the
       Convention, 'had its Olympian games, France too shall
       solemnize her sans-culottid days. ... If we have not honoured
       the priest of error and fanaticism, neither do we wish to
       honour the priest of incredulity: we wish to serve the people.
       I demand that there shall be an end of these anti-religious
       masquerades in the Convention.' There was an end of the
       masquerading, but the Hébertists still kept their ground.
       Danton, Robespierre, and the Committee were all equally
       impotent against them for some months longer. The
       revolutionary force had been too strong to be resisted by any
       government since the Paris insurgents had carried both king
       and assembly in triumph from Versailles in the October of
       1789. It was now too strong for those who had begun to strive
       with all their might to build a new government out of the
       agencies that had shattered the old to pieces. For some months
       the battle which had been opened by Robespierre's remonstrance
       against atheistic intolerance, degenerated into a series of
       masked skirmishes. ... Collot D'Herbois had come back in hot
       haste from Lyons. ... Carrier was recalled from Nantes. ...
       The presence of these men of blood gave new courage and
       resolution to the Hébertists. Though the alliance was
       informal, yet as against Danton, Camille Desmoulins, and the
       rest of the Indulgents, as well as against Robespierre, they
       made common cause. Camille Desmoulins attacked Hébert in
       successive numbers of a journal ['Le Vieux Cordelier'] that is
       perhaps the one truly literary monument of this stage of the
       revolution. Hébert retaliated by impugning the patriotism of
       Desmoulins in the Club, and the unfortunate wit,
       notwithstanding the efforts of Robespierre on his behalf, was
       for a while turned out of the sacred precincts. ... Even
       Danton himself was attacked (December, 1793) and the integrity
       of his patriotism brought into question. Robespierre made an
       energetic defence of his great rival in the hierarchy of
       revolution. ... Robespierre, in whom spasmodical courage and
       timidity ruled by rapid turns, began to suspect that he had
       been premature; and a convenient illness, which some supposed
       to have been feigned, excused his withdrawal for some weeks
       from a scene where he felt that he could no longer see clear.
       We cannot doubt that both he and Danton were perfectly assured
       that the anarchic party must unavoidably roll headlong into the
       abyss.
    {1302}
       But the hour of doom was uncertain. To make a mistake in the
       right moment, to hurry the crisis, was instant death.
       Robespierre was a more adroit calculator than Danton. ... His
       absence during the final crisis of the anarchic party allowed
       events to ripen, without committing him to that initiative in
       dangerous action which he had dreaded on the 10th of August,
       as he dreaded it on every other decisive day of this burning
       time. The party of the Commune became more and more daring in
       their invectives against the Convention and the Committees. At
       length they proclaimed open insurrection. But Paris was cold,
       and opinion was divided. In the night of the 13th of March,
       Hébert, Chaumette, Clootz, were arrested. The next day
       Robespierre recovered sufficiently to appear at the Jacobin
       Club. He joined his colleagues of the Committee of Public
       Safety in striking the blow. On the 24th of March the
       Ultra-Revolutionist leaders were beheaded. The first bloody
       breach in the Jacobin ranks was speedily followed by the
       second. The Right wing of the opposition to the Committee soon
       followed the Left down the ways to dusty death, and the
       execution of the Anarchists only preceded by a week the arrest
       of the Moderates. When the seizure of Danton had once before
       been discussed in the Committee, Robespierre resisted the
       proposal violently. We have already seen how he defended
       Danton at the Jacobin Club. ... What produced this sudden
       tack? ... His acquiescence in the ruin of Danton is
       intelligible enough on the grounds of selfish policy. The
       Committee [of Public Safety] hated Danton for the good reason
       that he had openly attacked them, and his cry for clemency was
       an inflammatory and dangerous protest against their system.
       Now Robespierre, rightly or wrongly, had made up his mind that
       the Committee was the instrument by which, and which only, he
       could work out his own vague schemes of power and
       reconstruction. And, in any case, how could he resist the
       Committee? ... All goes to show that Robespierre was really
       moved by nothing more than his invariable dread of being left
       behind, of finding himself on the weaker side, of not seeming
       practical and political enough. And having made up his mind
       that the stronger party was bent on the destruction of the
       Dantonists, he became fiercer than Billaud himself. ... Danton
       had gone, as he often did, to his native village of
       Arcis-sur-Aube, to seek repose and a little clearness of sight
       in the night that wrapped him about. He was devoid of personal
       ambition; he never had any humour for mere factious struggles.
       ... It is not clear that he could have done anything. The
       balance of force, after the suppression of the Hébertists, was
       irretrievably against him, as calculation had already revealed to
       Robespierre. ... After the arrest, and on the proceedings to
       obtain the assent of the Convention to the trial of Danton and
       others of its members, one only of their friends had the
       courage to rise and demand that they should be heard at the
       bar. Robespierre burst out in cold rage; he asked whether they
       had undergone so many heroic sacrifices, counting among them
       these acts of 'painful severity,' only to fall under the yoke
       of a band of domineering intriguers; and he cried out
       impatiently that they would brook no claim of privilege, and
       suffer no rotten idol. The word was felicitously chosen, for
       the Convention dreaded to have its independence suspected, and
       it dreaded this all the more because at this time its
       independence did not really exist. The vote against Danton was
       unanimous, and the fact that it was so is the deepest stain on
       the fame of this assembly. On the afternoon of the 16th
       Germinal (April 5, 1794), Paris in amazement and some
       stupefaction saw the once dreaded Titan of the Mountain fast
       bound in the tumbril, and faring towards the sharp-clanging
       knife [with Camille Desmoulins and others]. 'I leave it all in
       a frightful welter,' Danton is reported to have said. 'Not a
       man of them has an idea of government. Robespierre will follow
       me; he is dragged down by me. Ah, better be a poor fisherman
       than meddle with the governing of men!' ... After the fall of
       the anarchists and the death of Danton, the relations between
       Robespierre and the Committees underwent a change. He, who had
       hitherto been on the side of government, became in turn an
       agency of opposition. He did this in the interest of ultimate
       stability, but the difference between the new position and the
       old is that he now distinctly associated the idea of a stable
       republic with the ascendency of his own religious conceptions.
       ... The base of Robespierre's scheme of social reconstruction
       now came clearly into view; and what a base! An official
       Supreme Being and a regulated Terror. ... How can we speak
       with decent patience of a man who seriously thought that he
       should conciliate the conservative and theological elements of
       the society at his feet, by such an odious opera-piece as the
       Feast of the Supreme Being. This was designed as a triumphant
       ripost to the Feast of Reason, which Chaumette and his friends
       had celebrated in the winter. ... Robespierre persuaded the
       Convention to decree an official recognition of the Supreme
       Being, and to attend a commemorative festival in honour of
       their mystic patron. He contrived to be chosen president for
       the decade in which the festival would fall. When the day came
       (20th Prairial, June 8, 1794), he clothed himself with more
       than even his usual care. As he looked out from the windows of
       the Tuileries upon the jubilant crowd in the gardens, he was
       intoxicated with enthusiasm. 'O Nature,' he cried, 'how
       sublime thy power, how full of delight! How tyrants must grow
       pale at the idea of such a festival as this!' In pontifical
       pride he walked at the head of the procession, with flowers
       and wheat-ears in his hand, to the sound of chants and
       symphonies and choruses of maidens. On the first of the great
       basins in the gardens, David, the artist, had devised an
       allegorical structure for which an inauspicious doom was
       prepared. Atheism, a statue of life size, was throned in the
       midst of an amiable group of human Vices, with Madness by her
       side, and Wisdom menacing them with lofty wrath. Great are the
       perils of symbolism. Robespierre applied a torch to Atheism, but
       alas, the wind was hostile, or else Atheism and Madness were
       damp. They obstinately resisted the torch, and it was hapless
       Wisdom who took fire. ... The whole mummery was pagan. ... It
       stands as the most disgusting and contemptible anachronism in
       history."

          J. Morley,
          Robespierre
          (Critical Miscellanies, Second Series).

          ALSO IN
          T. Carlyle,
          The French Revolution,
          volume 3, book 6.

          G. H. Lewes,
          Life of Robespierre,
          chapters 19-20.

          L. Gronlund,
          Ça ira: or Danton in the French Revolution,
          chapter 6.

          J. Claretie,
          Camille Desmoulins and his Wife,
          chapters 5-6.

    {1303}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (March-July).
       Withdrawal of Prussia from the European Coalition as an ally,
       to become a mercenary.
       Successes of the Republic.
       Conquest of the Austrian Netherlands.
       Advance to the Rhine.
       Loss of Corsica.
       Naval defeat off Ushant.

       "While the alliance of the Great Powers was on the point of
       dissolution from selfishness and jealousy, the French, with an
       energy and determination, which, considering their
       unparalleled difficulties, were truly heroic, had assembled
       armies numbering nearly a million of men. The aggregate of the
       allied forces did not much exceed 300,000. The campaign on the
       Dutch and Flemish frontiers of France was planned at Vienna,
       but had nearly been disconcerted at the outset by the refusal
       of the Duke of York to serve under General Clairfait. ... The
       Emperor settled the difficulty by signifying his intention to
       take the command in person. Thus one incompetent prince who
       knew little, was to be commanded by another incompetent prince
       who knew nothing, about war; and the success of a great
       enterprise was made subservient to considerations of punctilio
       and etiquette. The main object of the Austrian plan was to
       complete the reduction of the frontier fortresses by the
       capture of Landrecy on the Sambre, and then to advance through
       the plains of Picardy on Paris;--a plan which might have been
       feasible the year before. ... The King of Prussia formally
       withdrew from the alliance [March 13]; but condescended to
       assume the character of a mercenary. In the spring of the
       year, by a treaty with the English Government, his Prussian
       Majesty undertook to furnish 62,000 men for a year, in
       consideration of the sum of £1,800,000, of which Holland, by a
       separate convention, engaged to supply somewhat less than a
       fourth part. The organisation of the French army was effected
       under the direction of Carnot. ... The policy of terror was
       nevertheless applied to the administration of the army.
       Custine and Houchard, who had commanded the last campaign, ...
       were sent to the scaffold, because the arms of the republic
       had failed to achieve a complete triumph under their
       direction. ... Pichegru, the officer now selected to lead the
       hosts of France, went forth to assume his command with the
       knife of the executioner suspended over his head. His orders
       were to expel the invaders from the soil and strongholds of
       the republic, and to reconquer Belgium. The first step towards
       the fulfilment of this commission was the recovery of the
       three great frontier towns, Condé, Valenciennes, and Quesnoy.
       The siege of Quesnoy was immediately formed; and Pichegru,
       informed of or anticipating the plans of the Allies, disposed
       a large force in front of Cambray, to intercept the operations
       of ... the allied army upon Landrecy. ... On the 17th
       [of April] a great action was fought in which the allies
       obtained a success, sufficient to enable them to press the
       siege of Landrecy. ... Pichegru, a few days after [April 26,
       at the redoubts of Troisville] sustained a signal repulse from
       the British, in an attempt to raise the siege of Landrecy; but
       by a rapid and daring movement, he improved his defeat, and
       seized the important post of Moucron. The results were, that
       Clairfait was forced to fall back on Tournay; Courtray and
       Menin surrendered to the French; and thus the right flanks of
       the Allies were exposed. Landrecy, which, about the same time,
       fell into the hands of the Allies, was but a poor compensation
       for the reverses in West Flanders. The Duke of York, at the
       urgent instance of the Emperor, marched to the relief of
       Clairfait; but, in the meantime, the Austrian general, being
       hard pressed, was compelled to fall back upon a position which
       would enable him for a time to cover Bruges, Ghent, and
       Ostend. The English had also to sustain a vigorous attack near
       Tournay; but the enemy were defeated with the loss of 4,000
       men. It now became necessary to risk a general action to save
       Flanders, by cutting off that division of the French army
       which had outflanked the Allies. By bad management and want of
       concert this movement, which had been contrived by Colonel
       Mack, the chief military adviser of the Emperor, was wholly
       defeated [at Tourcoign, May 18]. ... The French took 1,500
       prisoners and 60 pieces of cannon. A thousand English soldiers
       lay dead on the field, and the Duke [of York] himself escaped
       with difficulty. Four days after, Pichegru having collected a
       great force, amounting, it has been stated, to 100,000 men,
       made a grand attack upon the allied army [at Pont Achin]. ...
       The battle raged from five in the morning until nine at night,
       and was at length determined by the bayonet. ... In consequence
       of this check, Pichegru fell back upon Lisle." It was after
       this repulse that "the French executive, on the flimsy
       pretence of a supposed attempt to assassinate Robespierre,
       instigated by the British Government, procured a decree from
       the Convention, that no English or Hanoverian prisoners should
       be made. In reply to this atrocious edict, the Duke of York
       issued a general order, enjoining forbearance to the troops
       under his command. Most of the French generals ... refused to
       become assassins. ... The decree was carried into execution in
       a few instances only. ... The Allies gained no military
       advantage by the action of Pont Achin on the 22nd of May. ...
       The Emperor ... abandoned the army and retired to Vienna. He
       left some orders and proclamations behind him, to which nobody
       thought it worth while to pay any attention. On the 5th of June,
       Pichegru invested Ypres, which Clairfait made two attempts to
       retain, but without success. The place surrendered on the
       17th; Clairfait retreated to Ghent; Walmoden abandoned Bruges;
       and the Duke of York, forced to quit his position at Tournay,
       encamped near Oudenarde. It was now determined by the Prince
       of Coburg, who resumed the chief command after the departure
       of the Emperor, to risk the fate of Belgium on a general
       action, which was fought at Fleurus on the 26th of June. The
       Austrians, after a desperate struggle, were defeated at all
       points by the French army of the Sambre under Jourdan.
       Charleroi having surrendered to the French ... and the Duke of
       York being forced to retreat, any further attempt to save the
       Netherlands was hopeless. Ostend and Mons, Ghent, Tournay, and
       Oudenarde, were successively evacuated; and the French were
       established at Brussels. When it was too late, the English
       army was reinforced. ... It now only remained for the French
       to recapture the fortresses on their own frontier which had
       been taken from them in the last campaign. ...
    {1304}
       Landrecy ... fell without a struggle. Quesnoy ... made a
       gallant [but vain] resistance. ... Valenciennes and Condé ...
       opened their gates. ... The victorious armies of the Republic
       were thus prepared for the conquest of Holland. ... The Prince
       of Orange made an appeal to the patriotism of his countrymen;
       but the republicans preferred the ascendancy of their faction
       to the liberties of their country. ... The other military
       operation's of the year, in which England was engaged, do not
       require prolonged notice. The Corsicans, under the guidance of
       their veteran chief, Paoli, ... sought the aid of England to
       throw off the French yoke, and offered in return allegiance of
       his countrymen to the British Crown. ... A small force was
       despatched, and, after a series of petty operations, Corsica
       was occupied by British troops, and proclaimed a part of the
       British dominions. An expedition on a greater scale was sent
       to the West Indies. Martinique, St. Lucie and Guadaloupe were
       easily taken; but the large island of St. Domingo, relieved by
       a timely arrival of succours from France, offered a formidable
       [and successful] resistance. ... The campaign on the Rhine was
       undertaken by the Allies under auspices ill calculated to
       inspire confidence, or even hope. The King of Prussia, not
       content with abandoning the cause, had done everything in his
       power to thwart and defeat the operations of the Allies. ...
       On the 22d of May, the Austrians crossed the Rhine and
       attacked the French in their intrenchments without success. On
       the same day, the Prussians defeated a division of the Republican
       army [at Kaiserslautern], and advanced their head-quarters to
       Deux-Ponts. Content with this achievement, the German armies
       remained inactive for several weeks, when the French, having
       obtained reinforcements, attacked the whole line of the German
       posts. ... Before the end of the year the Allies were in full
       retreat, and the Republicans in their turn had become the
       invaders of Germany. They occupied the Electorate of Treves,
       and they captured the important fort of Mannheim. Mentz also
       was placed under a close blockade. ... At sea, England
       maintained her ancient reputation. The French had made great
       exertions to fit out a fleet, and 26 ships of the line were
       assembled in the port of Brest," for the protecting of a
       merchant fleet, laden with much needed food-supplies, expected
       from America. Lord Howe, with an English fleet of 25 ships of
       the line, was on the watch for the Brest fleet when it put to
       sea. On the 1st of June he sighted and attacked it off Ushant,
       performing the celebrated manœuvre of breaking the enemy's
       line. Seven of the French ships were taken, one was sunk
       during the battle, and 18, much crippled, escaped. The victory
       caused great exultation in England, but it was fruitless, for
       the American convoy was brought safely into Brest.

          W. Massey,
          History of England during the reign of George III.,
          chapter 35 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 16 (volume 4).

          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the 18th Century,
          volume 6, division 2, chapter 2, section 3.

          Capt. A. T. Mahan,
          Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution
          and Empire, chapter 8 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (June-July).
       The monstrous Law of the 22d Prairial.
       The climax of the Reign of Terror.
       A summary of its horrors.

       "On the day of the Feast of the Supreme Being, the guillotine
       was concealed in the folds of rich hangings. It was the 20th
       of Prairial. Two days later Couthon proposed to the Convention
       the memorable Law of the 22d Prairial [June 10]. Robespierre
       was the draftsman, and the text of it still remains in his own
       writing. This monstrous law is simply the complete abrogation
       of all law. Of all laws ever passed in the world it is the
       most nakedly iniquitous. ... After the probity and good
       judgment of the tribunal, the two cardinal guarantees in state
       trials are accurate definition, and proof. The offence must be
       capable of precise description, and the proof against an
       offender must conform to strict rule. The Law of Prairial
       violently infringed all three of these essential conditions of
       judicial equity. First, the number of the jury who had power
       to convict was reduced. Second, treason was made to consist in
       such vague and infinitely elastic kinds of action as inspiring
       discouragement, misleading opinion, depraving manners,
       corrupting patriots, abusing the principles of the Revolution
       by perfidious applications. Third, proof was to lie in the
       conscience of the jury; there was an end of preliminary
       inquiry, of witnesses in defence, and of counsel for the
       accused. Any kind of testimony was evidence, whether material
       or moral, verbal or written, if it was of a kind 'likely to
       gain the assent of a man of reasonable mind.' Now, what was
       Robespierre's motive in devising this infernal instrument? ...
       To us the answer seems clear. We know what was the general aim
       in Robespierre's mind at this point in the history of the
       Revolution. His brother Augustin was then the representative
       of the Convention with the army of Italy, and General
       Bonaparte was on terms of close intimacy with him. Bonaparte
       said long afterwards ... that he saw long letters from
       Maximilian to Augustin Robespierre, all blaming the
       Conventional Commissioners [sent to the provinces]--Tallien,
       Fouché, Barras, Collot, and the rest--for the horrors they
       perpetrated, and accusing them of ruining the Revolution by
       their atrocities. Again, there is abundant testimony that
       Robespierre did his best to induce the Committee of Public
       Safety to bring those odious malefactors to justice. The text
       of the Law ... discloses the same object. The vague phrases of
       depraving manners and applying revolutionary principles
       perfidiously, were exactly calculated to smite the band of
       violent men whose conduct was to Robespierre the scandal of
       the Revolution. And there was a curious clause in the law as
       originally presented, which deprived the Convention of the
       right of preventing measures against its own members.
       Robespierre's general design in short was to effect a further
       purgation of the Convention. ... If Robespierre's design was
       what we believe it to have been, the result was a ghastly
       failure. The Committee of Public Safety would not consent to
       apply his law against the men for whom he had specially
       designed it. The frightful weapon which he had forged was
       seized by the Committee of General Security, and Paris was
       plunged into the fearful days of the Great Terror. The number
       of persons put to death by the Revolutionary Tribunal before
       the Law of Prairial had been comparatively moderate. From the
       creation of the Tribunal in April 1793, down to the execution
       of the Hébertists in March 1794, the number of persons
       condemned to death was 505.
    {1305}
       From the death of the Hébertists down to the death of
       Robespierre, the number of the condemned was 2,158. One-half
       of the entire number of victims, namely, 1,356, were
       guillotined after the Law of Prairial. ... A man was informed
       against; he was seized in his bed at five in the morning; at
       seven he was taken to the Conciergerie; at nine he received
       information of the charge against him; at ten he went into the
       dock; by two in the afternoon he was condemned; by four his
       head lay in the executioner's basket."

          J. Morley,
          Robespierre
          (Critical Miscellanies: Second Series).

       "Single indictments comprehended 20 or 30 people taken
       promiscuously--great noblemen from Paris, day labourers from
       Marseilles, sailors from Brest, peasants from Alsace--who were
       accused of conspiring together to destroy the Republic. All
       examination, discussion, and evidence were dispensed with; the
       names of the victims were hardly read out to the jury, and it
       happened, more than once, that the son was mistaken for the
       father--an entirely innocent person for the one really
       charged--and sent to the guillotine. The judges urged the jury
       to pass sentences of death, with loud threats; members of the
       Government committees attended daily, and applauded the bloody
       verdicts with ribald jests. On this spot at least the strife
       of parties was hushed."

          H. von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 10, chapter 1 (volume 4).

       "The first murders committed in 1793 proceeded from a real
       irritation caused by danger. Such perils had now ceased; the
       republic was victorious; people now slaughtered not from
       indignation, but from the atrocious habit which they had
       contracted. ... According to the law, the testimony of
       witnesses was to be dispensed with only when there existed
       material or moral proofs; nevertheless no witnesses were
       called, as it was alleged that proofs of this kind existed in
       every case. The jurors did not take the trouble to retire to
       the consultation room. They gave their opinions before the
       audience, and sentence was immediately pronounced. The accused
       had scarcely time to rise and to mention their names. One day,
       there was a prisoner whose name was not upon the list of the
       accused, and who said to the Court, 'I am not accused; my name
       is not on your list.' 'What signifies that?' said Fouquier,
       'give it quick!' He gave it, and was sent to the scaffold like
       the others. ... The most extraordinary blunders were
       committed. ... More than once victims were called long after
       they had perished. There were hundreds of acts of accusation
       quite ready, to which there was nothing to add but the
       designation of the individuals. ... The printing-office was
       contiguous to the hall of the tribunal: the forms were kept
       standing, the title, the motives, were ready composed; there
       was nothing but the names to be added. These were handed
       through a small loop-hole to the overseer. Thousands of copies
       were immediately worked off and plunged families into mourning
       and struck terror into the prisons. The hawkers came to sell
       the bulletin of the tribunal under the prisoners' windows,
       crying, 'Here are the names of those who have gained prizes in
       the lottery of St. Guillotine.' The accused were executed on
       the breaking up of the court, or at latest on the morrow, if
       the day was too far advanced. Ever since the passing of the
       Law of the 22d of Prairial, victims perished at the rate of 50
       or 60 a day. 'That goes well,' said Fouquier-Tinville; 'heads
       fall like tiles:' and he added, 'It must go better still next
       decade; I must have 450 at least.'"

          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 3, pages 63-66.

       "One hundred and seventy-eight tribunals, of which 40 are
       ambulatory, pronounce in every part of the territory sentences
       of death which are immediately executed on the spot. Between
       April 6, 1793, and Thermidor 9, year II. [July 27, 1794], that
       of Paris has 2,625 persons guillotined, while the provincial
       judges do as much work as the Paris judges. In the small town
       of Orange alone, they guillotine 331 persons. In the single
       town of Arras they have 299 men and 93 women guillotined. At
       Nantes, the revolutionary tribunals and military committees
       have, on the average, 100 persons a day guillotined, or shot,
       in all 1971. In the city of Lyons the revolutionary committee
       admit 1684 executions, while Cadillot, one of Robespierre's
       correspondents, advises him of 6,000.--The statement of these
       murders is not complete, but 17,000 have been enumerated. ...
       Even excepting those who had died fighting or who, taken with
       arms in their hands, were shot down or sabred on the spot,
       there were 10,000 persons slaughtered without trial in the
       province of Anjou alone. ... It is estimated that, in the
       eleven western departments, the dead of both sexes and of all
       ages exceeded 400,000.--Considering the programme and
       principles of the Jacobin sect, this is no great number; they
       might have killed a good many more. But time was wanting;
       during their short reign they did what they could with the
       instrument in their hands. Look at their machine. ...
       Organised March 30 and April 6,1793, the Revolutionary
       Committees and the Revolutionary Tribunal had but seventeen
       months in which to do their work. They did not drive ahead
       with all their might until after the fall of the Girondists,
       and especially after September, 1793, that is to say for a
       period of eleven months. Its loose wheels were not screwed up
       and the whole was not in running order under the impulse of
       the central motor until after December, 1793, that is to say
       during eight months. Perfected by the Law of Prairial 22, it
       works for the past two months faster and better than before.
       ... Baudot and Jean Bon St. Andre, Carrier, Antonelle and
       Guffroy had already estimated the lives to be taken at several
       millions, and, according to Collot d'Herbois, who had a lively
       imagination, 'the political perspiration should go on freely,
       and not stop until from twelve to fifteen million Frenchmen
       had been destroyed.'"

          H. A. Taine,
          The French Revolution,
          book 8, chapter 1 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN
          W. Smyth,
          Lectures on the History of the French Revolution,
          Lectures 39-42 (volume 2).

          Abbé Dumesnil,
          Recollections of the Reign of Terror.

          Count Beugnot,
          Life,
          volume 1, chapters 7-8.

          J. Wilson,
          The Reign of Terror and its Secret Police
          (Studies in Modern Mind, etc.), chapter 7.

          The Reign of Terror:
          A collection of authentic narratives,
          2 volumes.

    {1306}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (July).
       The Fall of Robespierre.
       End of the Reign of Terror.

       Robespierre "was already feeling himself unequal to the task
       laid upon him. He said himself on one occasion: 'I was not
       made to rule, I was made to combat the enemies of the
       Revolution;' and so the possession of supreme power produced
       in him no feeling of exultation. On the contrary, it preyed
       upon his spirits, and made him fancy himself the object of
       universal hatred. A guard now slept nightly at his house, and
       followed him in all his walks. Two pistols lay ever at his
       side. He would not eat food till some one else had tasted from
       the dish. His jealous fears were awakened by every sign of
       popularity in another. Even the successes of his generals
       filled him with anxiety, lest they should raise up dangerous
       rivals. He had, indeed ... grounds enough for anxiety. In the
       Committee of Public Safety every member, except St. Just and
       Couthon, viewed him with hatred and suspicion. Carnot resented
       his interferences. The Terrorists were contemptuous of his
       religious festivals, and disliked his decided supremacy. The
       friends of Mercy saw with indignation that the number of
       victims was increasing. The friends of Disorder found
       themselves restrained, and were bored by his long speeches
       about virtue and simplicity of life. He was hated for what was
       good and for what was evil in his government; and meanwhile
       the national distress was growing, and the cry of starvation
       was heard louder than ever. Fortunately there was a splendid
       harvest in 1794; but before it was gathered in Robespierre had
       fallen. A somewhat frivolous incident did much to discredit
       him. A certain old woman named Catherine Théot, living in an
       obscure part of Paris, had taken to seeing visions. Some of
       the Terrorists produced a paper, purporting to be written by
       her, and declaring that Robespierre was the Messiah. The paper
       was a forgery, but it served to cover Robespierre with
       ridicule, and to rouse in him a fierce determination to
       suppress those whom he considered his enemies in the Committee
       and the Convention. For some time he had taken little part in
       the proceedings of either of these bodies. His reliance was
       chiefly on the Jacobin Club, the reorganized Commune, and the
       National Guards, still under the command of Henriot. But on
       July 26th [8th Thermidor] Robespierre came to the Convention
       and delivered one of his most elaborate speeches, maintaining
       that the affairs of France had been mismanaged; that the army
       had been allowed to become dangerously independent; that the
       Government must be strengthened and simplified; and that
       traitors must be punished. He made no definite proposals, and
       did not name his intended victims. The real meaning of the
       speech was evidently that he ought to be made Dictator, but
       that in order to obtain his end, it was necessary to conceal
       the use he meant to make of his power. The members of the
       Convention naturally felt that some of themselves were aimed
       at. Few felt themselves safe; but Robespierre's dominance had
       become so established that no one ventured at first to
       criticize. It was proposed, and carried unanimously, that the
       speech should be printed and circulated throughout France.
       Then at length a deputy named Cambon rose to answer
       Robespierre's attacks on the recent management of the
       finances. Finding himself favourably listened to, he went on
       to attack Robespierre himself. Other members of the hitherto
       docile Convention now took courage; and it was decided that
       the speech should be referred to the Committees before it was
       printed. The crisis was now at hand. Robespierre went down as
       usual to the Jacobin Club, where he was received with the
       usual enthusiasm. The members swore to die with their leader,
       or to suppress his enemies. On the following day [9th
       Thermidor] St. Just attacked Billaud and Collot. Billaud
       [followed and supported by Tallien] replied by asserting that
       on the previous night the Jacobins had pledged themselves to
       massacre the deputies. Then the storm burst. A cry of horror
       and indignation arose; and as Billaud proceeded to give
       details of the alleged conspiracy, shouts of 'Down with the
       tyrant!' began to rise from the benches. Robespierre vainly
       strove to obtain a hearing. He rushed about the chamber,
       appealing to the several groups. As he went up to the higher
       benches on the Left, he was met with the cry, 'Back, tyrant,
       the shade of Danton repels you!' and when he sought shelter
       among the deputies on the Right, and actually sat down in
       their midst, they indignantly exclaimed, 'Wretch, that was
       Vergniaud's seat!' Baited on all sides, his attempts to speak
       became shrieks, which were scarcely audible, however, amid the
       shouts and interruptions that rose from all the groups. His
       voice grew hoarser ... till at length it failed him
       altogether. Then one of the Mountain cried, 'The blood of
       Danton chokes him!' Amid a scene of indescribable excitement
       and uproar, a decree was passed that Robespierre and some of
       his leading followers should be arrested. They were seized by
       the officers of the Convention, and hurried off to different
       prisons; so that, in case of a rescue, only one of them might
       be released. There was room enough for fear. The Commune
       organized an insurrection, as soon as they heard what the
       Convention had done; and by a sudden attack the prisoners were
       all delivered from the hands of their guards. Both parties now
       hastily gathered armed forces. Those of the municipality were
       by far the most numerous, and Henriot confidently ordered them
       to advance. But the men refused to obey. The Sections mostly
       declared for the Convention, and thus by an unexpected
       reaction the Robespierian leaders found themselves almost
       deserted. A detachment of soldiers forced their way into the
       room where the small band of fanatics were drawing up a
       Proclamation. A pistol was fired; and no one knows with
       certainty whether Robespierre attempted suicide, or was shot
       by one of his opponents. At any rate his jaw was fractured,
       and he was laid out, a ghastly spectacle, on an adjacent
       table. The room was soon crowded. Some spat at the prostrate
       form. Others stabbed him with their knives. Soon he was
       dragged [along with Couthon, St. Just, Henriot, and others]
       before the Tribunal which he himself had instituted. The,
       necessary formalities were hurried through, and the mangled
       body was borne to the guillotine, where what remained to him
       of life was quickly extinguished. Then, from the crowd, a man
       stepped quickly up to the blood-stained corpse, and uttered
       over him the words, 'Yes, Robespierre, there is a God!'"

          J. E. Symes.
          The French Revolution,
          chapter 13.

    {1307}

       "Samson's work done, there bursts forth shout on shout of
       applause. Shout, which prolongs itself not only over Paris,
       but over France, but over Europe, and down to this generation.
       Deservedly, and also undeservedly. O unhappiest Advocate of
       Arras, wert thou worse than other Advocates? Stricter man,
       according to his Formula, to his Credo and his Cant, of
       probities, benevolences, pleasures-of-virtue, and suchlike,
       lived not in that age. A man fitted, in some luckier settled
       age, to have become one of those incorruptible barren
       Pattern-Figures, and have had marble-tablets and
       funeral-sermons. His poor landlord, the Cabinet-maker in the
       Rue Saint-Honorè, loved him; his Brother died for him. May God
       be merciful to him and to us! This is the end of the Reign of
       Terror; new glorious Revolution named 'of Thermidor'; of
       Thermidor 9th, year 2; which being interpreted into old
       slave-style means 27th of July, 1794."

          T. Carlyle,
          The French Revolution,
          book 6, chapter 7 (volume 3).

       "He [Robespierre] had qualities, it is true, which we must
       respect; he was honest, sincere, self-denying and consistent.
       But he was cowardly, relentless, pedantic, unloving, intensely
       vain and morbidly envious. ... He has not left the legacy to
       mankind of one grand thought, nor the example of one generous
       and exalted action."

          G. H. Lewes,
          Life of Robespierre.
          Conclusion.

       "The ninth of Thermidor is one of the great epochs in the
       history of Europe. It is true that the three members of the
       Committee of Public Safety [Billaud, Collot, and Barère],
       who triumphed were by no means better men than the three
       [Robespierre, Couthon, and St. Just], who fell. Indeed, we are
       inclined to think that of these six statesmen the least bad
       were Robespierre and St. Just, whose cruelty was the effect of
       sincere fanaticism operating on narrow understandings and
       acrimonious tempers. The worst of the six was, beyond all
       doubt, Barère, who had no faith in any part of the system
       which he upheld by persecution."

          Lord Macaulay,
          Barère's Memoirs
          (Essays, volume 5).

          ALSO IN
          G. Everitt,
          Guillotine the Great,
          chapter 2.

          J. W. Croker,
          Robespierre (Quarterly Review,
          September, 1835, volume 34).

          W. Chambers,
          Robespierre
          (Chambers' Edin. Journal, 1852).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (July-April).
       Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
       The Thermidorians and the Jeunesse Doree.
       End of the Jacobin Club.
       Insurrection of Germinal 12.
       Fall of the Montagnards.
       The White Terror in the Provinces.

       "On the morning of the 10th of Thermidor all the people who
       lived near the prisons of Paris crowded on the roofs of their
       houses and cried, 'All is over! Robespierre is dead!' The
       thousands of prisoners, who had believed themselves doomed to
       death, imagined themselves rescued from the tomb. Many were
       set free the same day, and all the rest regained hope and
       confidence. Their feeling of deliverance was shared throughout
       France. The Reign of Terror had become a sort of nightmare
       that stifled the nation, and the Reign of Terror and
       Robespierre were identical in the sight of the great majority.
       ... The Convention presented a strange aspect. Party remnants
       were united in the coalition party called the 'Thermidorians.'
       Many of the Mountaineers and of those who had been fiercest in
       their missions presently took seats with the Right or Centre;
       and the periodic change of Committees, so long contested, was
       determined upon. Lots were drawn, and Barère, Lindet, and
       Prieur went out; Carnot, indispensable in the war, was
       re-elected until the coming spring; Billaud and Collot,
       feeling out of place in the new order of things, resigned.
       Danton's friends now prevailed; but, alas! the Dantonists were
       not Danton."

          H. Martin,
          Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
          chapter 22 (volume l).

       "The Reign of Terror was practically over, but the
       ground-swell which follows a storm continued for some time
       longer. Twenty-one victims suffered on the same day with
       Robespierre, 70 on the next; altogether 114 were condemned and
       executed in the three days which followed his death. ... A
       strong reaction against the 'Terreur' now set in. Upwards of
       10,000 'suspects' were set free, and Robespierre's law of the
       22 Prairial was abolished. Fréron, a leading Thermidorien,
       organized a band of young men who called themselves the
       Jeunesse Dorée [gilded youth], or Muscadins, and chiefly
       frequented the Palais Royal. They wore a ridiculous dress, 'a
       la Victime' [large cravat, black or green collar, and crape
       around the arm, signifying relationship to some of the victims
       of the revolutionary tribunal.--Thiers], and devoted
       themselves to punishing the Jacobins. They had their hymn, 'Le
       réveil du Peuple.' which they sang about the street, often
       coming into collision with the sans-culottes shouting the
       Marseillaise. On the 11th of November the Muscadins broke open
       the hall of the celebrated club, turned out the members, and
       shut it up for ever. ... The committees of Salut Public and
       Sureté Générale were entirely remodelled and their powers much
       restrained; also the Revolutionary Tribunal was reorganized on
       the lines advocated by Camille Desmoulins in his proposal for
       a Comité de Clémence--which cost him his life. Carrier and
       Lebon suffered death for their atrocious conduct in La Vendée
       and [Arras]; 73 members who had protested against the arrest
       of the Girondins were recalled, and the survivors of the
       leading Girondists, Louvet, Lanjuinais, Isnard,
       Larévillière-Lépeaux and others, 22 in number, were restored
       to their seats in the Convention."

          Sergent Marceau,
          Reminiscences of a Regicide,
          part 2, chapter 12.

       "Billaud, Collot, and other marked Terrorists, already
       denounced in the Convention by Danton's friends, felt that
       danger was every day drawing nearer to themselves. Their fate
       was to all appearance sealed by the readmission to the
       Convention (December 8) of the 73 deputies of the right,
       imprisoned in 1793 for signing protests against the expulsion
       of the Girondists. By the return of these deputies the
       complexion of the Assembly was entirely altered. ... They now
       sought to undo the work of the Convention since the
       insurrection by which their party had been overwhelmed. They
       demanded that confiscated property should be restored to the
       relatives of persons condemned by the revolutionary courts;
       that emigrants who had fled in consequence of Terrorist
       persecutions should be allowed to return; that those deputies
       proscribed on June 2,1793, who yet survived, should be
       recalled to their seats. The Mountain, as a body, violently
       opposed even the discussion of such questions. The
       Thermidorians split into two divisions. Some in alarm rejoined
       the Mountain; while others, headed by Tallien and Fréron,
       sought their safety by coalescing with the returned members of
       the right. A committee was appointed to report on accusations
       brought against Collot, Billaud, Barère, and Vadier (December
       27, 1794). In a few weeks the survivors of the proscribed
       deputies entered the Convention amidst applause (March 8,
       1795). ... There was at this time great misery prevalent in
       Paris, and imminent peril of insurrection.
    {1308}
       After Robespierre's fall, maximum prices were no longer
       observed, and assignats were only accepted in payment of goods
       at their real value compared with coin. The result was a rapid
       rise in prices, so that in December prices were double what
       they had been in July, and were continuing to rise in
       proportion as assignats decreased in value. ... The maximum
       laws, already a dead letter, were repealed (December 24). The
       abolition of maximum prices and requisitions increased the
       already lavish expenditure of the Government, which, to meet
       the deficit in its revenues, had no resource but to create
       more assignats, and the faster these were issued the faster
       they fell in value and the higher prices rose. In July 1794,
       they had been worth 34 per cent. of their nominal value. In
       December they were worth 22 per cent., and in May 1795 they
       were worth only 7 per cent. ... At this time a pound of bread
       cost eight shillings, of rice thirteen, of sugar seventeen,
       and other articles were all proportionately dear. It is
       literally true that more than half the population of Paris was
       only kept alive by occasional distributions of meat and other
       articles at low prices, and the daily distribution of bread at
       three half-pence a pound. In February, however, this source of
       relief threatened to fail. ... On April 1, or Germinal 12,
       bread riots, begun by women, broke out in every section. Bands
       collected and forced their way into the Convention, shouting
       for bread, but offering no violence to the deputies. ... The
       crowd was already dispersing when forces arrived from the
       sections and cleared the House. The insurrection was a
       spontaneous rising for bread, without method or combination.
       The Terrorists had sought, but vainly, to obtain direction of
       it. Had they succeeded, the Mountain would have had an
       opportunity of proscribing the right. Their failure gave the
       right the opportunity of proscribing the left. The
       transportation to Cayenne of Billaud, Collot, Barère, and
       Vadier was decreed, and the arrest of fifteen other
       Montagnards, accused without proof, in several cases without
       probability, of having been accomplices of the insurgents. ...
       The insurrection of Germinal 12 gave increased strength to the
       party of reaction. The Convention, in dread of the Terrorists,
       was compelled to look to it for support. ... In the
       departments famine, disorder, and crime prevailed, as well as
       in Paris. ... From the first the reaction proceeded in the
       departments with a more rapid step and in bolder form than in
       Paris. ... In the departments of the south-east, where the
       Royalists had always possessed a strong following, emigrants
       of all descriptions readily made their way back; and here the
       opponents of the Republic, instigated by a desire for
       vengeance, or merely by party spirit, commenced a reaction
       stained by crimes as atrocious as any committed during the
       course of the revolution. Young men belonging to the upper and
       middle classes were organised in bands bearing the names of
       companies of Jesus and companies of the Sun, and first at
       Lyons, then at Aix, Toulon, Marseilles, and other towns, they
       broke into the prisons and murdered their inmates without
       distinction of age or sex. Besides the Terrorist and the
       Jacobin, neither the Republican nor the purchaser of State
       lands was safe from their knives; and in the country numerous
       isolated murders were committed. This lawless and brutal
       movement, called the White Terror in distinction to the Red
       Terror preceding Thermidor 9, was suffered for weeks to run
       its course unchecked, and counted its victims by many
       hundreds, spreading over the whole of Provence, besides the
       departments of Rhone, Gard, Loire, Ain, and Jura."

          B. M. Gardiner,
          The French Revolution,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN
          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution (American edition),
          volume 3, pages 109-136; 149-175; 193-225.

          H. von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 12, chapters 1-3.

          J. Mallet du Pan,
          Memoirs and Correspondence,
          volume 2, chapters 5.

          A. des Echerolles,
          Early Life,
          volume 2, chapter 8.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (October-May).
       Subjugation of Holland.
       Overthrow of the Stadtholdership.
       Establishment of the Batavian Republic.
       Peace of Basle with Prussia.
       Successes on the Spanish and Italian frontiers.
       Crumbling of the Coalition.

       "Pichegru having taken Bois le Duc, October 9th, the Duke of
       York retreated to the Ar, and thence beyond the Waal. Venloo
       fell October 27th, Maestricht November 4th, and the capture of
       Nimeguen on the 9th, which the English abandoned after the
       fall of Maestricht, opened to the French the road into
       Holland. The Duke of York resigned the command to General
       Walmoden, December 2nd, and returned into England. His
       departure showed that the English government had abandoned all
       hope of saving Holland. It had, indeed, consented that the
       States-General should propose terms of accommodation to the
       French; and two Dutch envoys had been despatched to Paris to
       offer to the Committee of Public Welfare the recognition by
       their government of the French Republic, and the payment of
       200,000,000 florins within a year. But the Committee,
       suspecting that these offers were made only with the view of
       gaining time, paid no attention to them. The French were
       repulsed in their first attempt to cross the Waal by General
       Duncan with 8,000 English; but a severe frost enabled them to
       pass over on the ice, January 11th, 1795. Nothing but a
       victory could now save Holland. But Walmoden, instead of
       concentrating his troops for the purpose of giving battle,
       retreated over the Yssel, and finally over the Ems into
       Westphalia, whence the troops were carried to England by sea
       from Bremen. ... General Alvinzi, who held the Rhine between
       Emmerich and Arnheim, having retired upon Wesel, Pichegru had
       only to advance. On entering Holland, he called upon the
       patriots to rise, and his occupation of the Dutch towns was
       immediately followed by a revolution. The Prince of Orange,
       the hereditary Stadtholder, embarked for England, January
       19th, on which day Pichegru's advanced columns entered
       Amsterdam. Next day the Dutch fleet, frozen up in the Texel,
       was captured by the French hussars. Before the end of January
       the reduction of Holland had been completed, and a provincial
       [provisional?] government established at the Hague. The
       States-General, assembled February 24th, 1795, having
       received, through French influence, a new infusion of the
       patriot party, pronounced the abolition of the Stadtholderate,
       proclaimed the sovereignty of the people and the establishment
       of the Batavian Republic. A treaty of Peace with France
       followed, May 16th, and an-offensive alliance against all
       enemies whatsoever till the end of the war, and against
       England for ever.
    {1309}
       The sea and land forces to be provided by the Dutch were to
       serve under French commanders. Thus the new republic became a
       mere dependency of France. Dutch Flanders, the district on the
       left bank of the Hondt, Maestricht, Venloo, were retained by
       the French as a just indemnity for the expenses of the war, on
       which account the Dutch were also to pay 100,000,000 florins;
       but they were to receive, at the general peace, an equivalent
       for the ceded territories. By secret articles, the Dutch were
       to lend the French seven ships of war, to support a French
       army of 25,000 men, &c. Over and above the requisitions of the
       treaty, they were also called upon to reclothe the French
       troops, and to furnish them with provisions. In short, though
       the Dutch patriots had 'fraternised' with the French, and
       received them with open arms, they were treated little better
       than a conquered people. Secret negotiations had been for some
       time going on between France and Prussia for a peace. ...
       Frederick William II., ... satisfied with his acquisitions in
       Poland, to which the English and Dutch subsidies had helped
       him, ... abandoned himself to his voluptuous habits," and made
       overtures to the French. "Perhaps not the least influential
       among Frederick William's motives, was the refusal of the
       maritime Powers any longer to subsidise him for doing nothing.
       ... The Peace of Basle, between the French Republic and the
       King of Prussia, was signed April 5th 1795. The French troops
       were allowed to continue the occupation of the Rhenish
       provinces on the left bank. An article, that neither party
       should permit troops of the enemies of either to pass over its
       territories, was calculated to embarrass the Austrians. France
       agreed to accept the mediation of Prussia for princes of the
       Empire. ... Prussia should engage in no hostile enterprise
       against Holland, or any other country occupied by French
       troops; while the French agreed not to push their enterprises
       in Germany beyond a certain line of demarcation, including the
       Circles of Westphalia, Higher and Lower Saxony; Franconia, and
       that part of the two Circles of the Rhine situate on the right
       bank of the Main. ... Thus the King of Prussia, originally the
       most ardent promoter of the Coalition, was one of the first to
       desert it. By signing the Peace of Basle, he sacrificed
       Holland, facilitated the invasion of the Empire by the French,
       and thus prepared the ruin of the ancient German
       constitution." In the meantime the French had been pushing war
       with success on their Spanish frontier, recovering the ground
       which they had lost in the early part of 1794. In the eastern
       Pyrenees, Dugommier "retook Bellegarde in September, the last
       position held by the Spaniards in France, and by the battle of
       the Montagne Noire, which lasted from November 17th to the
       20th, opened the way into Catalonia. But at the beginning of
       this battle Dugommier was killed. Figuières surrendered
       November 24th, through the influence of the French democratic
       propaganda. On the west, Moncey captured St. Sebastian and
       Fuentarabia in August, and was preparing to attack Pampeluna,
       when terrible storms ... compelled him to retreat on the
       Bidassoa, and closed the campaign in that quarter. On the side
       of Piedmont, the French, after some reverses, succeeded in
       making themselves masters of Mont Cenis and the passes of the
       Maritime Alps, thus holding the keys of Italy; but the
       Government, content with this success, ventured not at present
       to undertake the invasion of that country." The King of
       Sardinia, Victor Amadeus, remained faithful to his engagements
       with Austria, although the French tempted him with an offer of
       the Milanese, "and the exchange of the island of Sardinia for
       territory more conveniently situated. With the Grand Duke of
       Tuscany they were more successful. ... On February 9th 1795, a
       treaty was signed by which the Grand Duke revoked his adhesion
       to the Coalition. ... Thus Ferdinand was the first to desert
       the Emperor, his brother. The example of Tuscany was followed
       by the Regent of Sweden."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 7, chapter 7 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN
          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 4, chapter 3 (volume 3).

          L. P. Segur,
          History of the Reign of Frederick William II. of Prussia,
          volume 3.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
       Brigandage in La Vendée.
       Chouannerie in Brittany.
       The Disastrous Quiberon expedition.
       End of the Vendean War.

       "Since the defeat at Savenay, the Vendée was no longer the
       scene of grand operations, but of brigandage and atrocities
       without result. The peasants, though detesting the Revolution,
       were anxious for peace; but, as there were still two chiefs,
       Charette and Stoffiet, in the field, who hated each other,
       this wish could scarcely be gratified. General Thurieu, sent
       by the former Revolutionary Committee, had but increased this
       detestation by allowing pillage and incendiarism. After the
       death of Robespierre he was replaced by General Clancaux, who
       had orders to employ more conciliatory measures. The defeat of
       the rebel troops at Savenay, and their subsequent dispersion,
       had led to a kind of guerilla warfare throughout the whole of
       Brittany, known by the name of Chouannerie. ['A poor peasant,
       named Jean Cottereau, had distinguished himself in this
       movement above all his companions, and his family bore the
       name of Chouans (Chat-huans) or night-owls. ... The name of
       Chouan passed from him to all the insurgents of Bretagne,
       although he himself never led more than a few hundred
       peasants, who obeyed him, as they said, out of friendship.']

          H. Von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          volume 4, page 238.

       The Chouans attacked the public conveyances, infested the high
       roads, murdered isolated bands of soldiers and functionaries.
       Their chiefs were Scepeaux, Bourmont, Cadoudal, but especially
       Puisaye ... formerly general of the Girondins, and who wanted
       to raise a more formidable insurrection than had hitherto been
       organised. Against them was sent Hoche [September, 1794], who
       accustomed his soldiers to pacify rather than destroy, and
       taught them to respect the habits, but above all the religion,
       of the inhabitants. After some difficult negotiations with
       Charette peace was concluded (15th February), but the
       suppression of the Chouans was more difficult still, and Hoche
       ... displayed in this ungrateful mission all the talents and
       humanity for which he was ever celebrated. Puisaye himself was
       in England, having obtained Pitt's promise of a fleet and an
       army, but his aide-de-camp concluded in his absence a treaty
       similar to that of Charette. ... Stoffiet surrendered the
       last.
    {1310}
       Not much dependence could be placed on either of these
       pacifications, Charette himself having confessed in a letter
       to the Count de Provence that they were but a trap for the
       Republicans; but they proved useful, nevertheless, by
       accustoming the country to peace." This deceptive state of
       peace came to an end early in the summer of 1795. "The
       conspiracy organised in London by Puisaye, assisted and
       subsidised by Pitt, ... fitted out a fleet, which harassed the
       French naval squadron, and then set sail for Brittany, where
       the expedition made itself master of the peninsula of Quiberon
       and the fort Penthièvre (27th June). The Brittany peasants,
       suspicious of the Vendeans and hating the English, did not
       respond to the call for revolt, and occasioned a loss of time
       to the invaders, of which Hoche took advantage to bring
       together his troops and to march on Quiberon, where he
       defeated the vanguard of the émigrés, and surrounded them in
       the peninsula. Puisaye [who had, it is said, about 10,000 men,
       émigrés and Chouans] attempted to crush Hoche by an attack in
       the rear, but was eventually out-manœuvred, Fort Penthièvre
       was scaled during the night, and the émigrés were routed;
       whilst the English squadron was caught in a hurricane and
       could not come to their assistance, save with one ship, which
       fired indiscriminately on friend and foe alike. Most of the
       Royalists rushed into the sea, where nearly all of them
       perished. Scarcely a thousand men remained, and these fought
       heroically. It is said that a promise was given to them that
       if they surrendered their lives should be spared, and,
       accordingly, 711 laid down their arms (21st July). By order of
       the Convention ... these 711 émigrés were shot. ... From his
       camp at Belleville, Charette, one of the insurgent generals,
       responded to this execution by the massacre of 2,000
       Republican prisoners." In the following October another
       expedition of Royalists, fitted out in England under the
       auspices of Pitt, "landed at the Ile Dieu ... a small island
       about eight miles from the mainland of Poitou, and was
       composed of 2,500 men, who were destined to be the nucleus of
       several regiments; it also had on board a large store of arms,
       ammunition, and the Count d'Artois. Charette, named general
       commander of the Catholic forces, was awaiting him with 10,000
       men. The whole of the Vendée was ready to rise the moment the
       prince touched French soil, but frivolous and undecided, he
       waited six weeks in idleness, endeavouring to obtain from
       England his recall. Hoche, to whom the command of the
       Republican forces had been entrusted, took advantage of this
       delay to cut off Charette from his communications, while he
       held Stoffiet and the rest of the Brittany chiefs in check,
       and occupied the coast with 30,000 men. The Count d'Artois,
       whom Pitt would not recall, entreated the English commander to
       set sail for England (December 17th, 1795), and the latter,
       unable to manage his fleet on a coast without shelter,
       complied with his request, leaving the prince on his arrival
       to the deserved contempt of even his own partisans. Charette
       in despair attempted another rising, hoping to be seconded by
       Stofflet, but he was beaten on all sides by Hoche. This
       general, who combined the astuteness of the statesman with the
       valour of the soldier, succeeded in a short time in pacifying
       the country by his generous but firm behaviour towards the
       inhabitants. Charette, tracked from shelter to shelter, was
       finally compelled to surrender, brought to Nantes, and shot
       (March 24th). The same lot had befallen Stofflet a month
       before at Angers. After these events Hoche led his troops into
       Brittany, where he succeeded in putting an end to the
       'Chouannerie.' The west returned to its normal condition."

          H. Van Laun,
          The French Revolutionary Epoch,
          book 2, chapter 2, and book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 3, pages 144-145; 188-193;
          230-240; 281-305; 343-345; 358-363; 384-389.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (April).
       The question of the Constitution.
       Insurrection of the 1st Prairial and its failure.
       Disarming of the Faubourgs.
       End of Sansculottism.
       Bourgeoisie dominant again.

       "The events of the 12th of Germinal decided nothing. The
       faubourgs had been repulsed, but not conquered. ... After so
       many questions decided against the democratists, there still
       remained one of the utmost importance--the constitution. On
       this depended the ascendancy of the multitude or of the
       bourgeoisie. The supporters of the revolutionary government
       then fell back on the democratic constitution of '93, which
       presented to them the means of resuming the authority they had
       lost. Their opponents, on the other hand, endeavoured to
       replace it by a constitution which would secure all the
       advantage to them, by concentrating the government a little
       more, and giving it to the middle class. For a month, both
       parties were preparing for this last contest. The constitution
       of 1793, having been sanctioned by the people, enjoyed a great
       prestige. It was accordingly attacked with infinite
       precaution. At first its assailants engaged to carry it into
       execution without restriction; next they appointed a
       commission of eleven members to prepare the 'lois organiques'
       which were to render it practicable; by and by, they ventured
       to suggest objections to it on the ground that it distributed
       power too loosely, and only recognised one assembly dependent
       on the people, even in its measures of legislation. At last, a
       sectionary deputation went so far as to term the constitution
       of '93 a decemviral constitution, dictated by terror. All its
       partisans, at once indignant and filled with fears, organized
       an insurrection to maintain it. ... The conspirators, warned
       by the failure of the risings of the 1st and 12th Germinal,
       omitted nothing to make up for their want of direct object and
       of organization. On the 1st Prairial (20th of May) in the name
       of the people, insurgent for the purpose of obtaining bread
       and their rights, they decreed the abolition of the
       revolutionary government, the establishment of the democratic
       constitution of '93, the dismissal and arrest of the members
       of the existing government, the liberation of the patriots,
       the convocation of the primary assemblies on the 25th
       Prairial, the convocation of the legislative assembly,
       destined to replace the convention, on the 25th Messidor, and
       the suspension of all authority not emanating from the people.
       They determined on forming a new municipality, to serve as a
       common centre; to seize on the barriers, telegraph, cannon,
       tocsins, drums, and not to rest till they had secured repose,
       happiness, liberty, and means of subsistence for all the
       French nation. They invited the artillery, gendarmes, horse
       and foot soldiers, to join the banners of the people, and
       marched on the convention. Meantime, the latter was
       deliberating on the means of preventing the insurrection. ...
    {1311}
       The committees came in all haste to apprise it of its danger;
       it immediately declared its sitting permanent, voted Paris
       responsible for the safety of the representatives of the
       republic, closed its doors, outlawed all the leaders of the
       mob, summoned the citizens of the sections to arms, and
       appointed as their leaders eight commissioners, among whom
       were Legendre, Henri la Riviere, Kervelegan, &c. These
       deputies had scarcely gone, when a loud noise was heard
       without. An outer door had been forced, and numbers of women
       rushed into the galleries, crying 'Bread and the constitution
       of '93!' ... The galleries were ... cleared; but the
       insurgents of the faubourgs soon reached the inner doors, and,
       finding them closed, forced them with hatchets and hammers,
       and then rushed in amidst the convention. The Hall now became
       a field of battle. The veterans and gendarmes, to whom the
       guard of the assembly was confided, cried 'To arms!' The
       deputy Auguis, sword in hand, headed them, and succeeded in
       repelling the assailants, and even made a few of them
       prisoners. But the insurgents, more numerous, returned to the
       charge, and again rushed into the house. The deputy Feraud
       entered precipitately, pursued by the insurgents, who fired
       some shots in the house. They took aim at Boissy d'Anglas, who
       was occupying the president's chair. ... Feraud ran to the
       tribune, to shield him with his body; he was struck at with
       pikes and sabres, and fell dangerously wounded. The insurgents
       dragged him into the lobby, and, mistaking him for Freron, cut
       off his head and placed it on a pike. After this skirmish they
       became masters of the Hall. Most of the deputies had taken
       flight. There only remained the members of the Crête [the
       'Crest'--a name now given to the remnant of the party of 'The
       Mountain'] and Boissy d'Anglas, who, calm, his hat on,
       heedless of threat and insult, protested in the name of the
       convention against this popular violence. They held out to him
       the bleeding head of Feraud; he bowed respectfully before it.
       They tried to force him, by placing pikes at his breast, to
       put the propositions of the insurgents to the vote; he
       steadily and courageously refused. But the Crêtois, who
       approved of the insurrection, took possession of the bureaux
       and of the tribune, and decreed, amidst the applause of the
       multitude, all the articles contained in the manifesto of the
       insurrection." Meantime "the commissioners despatched to the
       sections had quickly gathered them together. ... The aspect of
       affairs then underwent a change; Legendre, Kervelagan, and
       Auguis besieged the insurgents, in their turn, at the head of
       the sectionaries," and drove them at last from the hall of the
       convention. "The assembly again became complete; the sections
       received a vote of thanks, and the deliberations were resumed.
       All the measures adopted in the interim were annulled, and
       fourteen representatives, to whom were afterwards joined
       fourteen others, were arrested, for organizing the
       insurrection or approving it in their speeches. It was then
       midnight; at five in the morning the prisoners were already
       six leagues from Paris. Despite this defeat, the Faubourgs did
       not consider themselves beaten; and the next day they advanced
       en masse with their cannon against the convention. The
       sections, on their side, marched for its defence." But a
       collision was averted by negotiations, and the insurgents
       withdrew, "after having received an assurance that the
       Convention would assiduously attend to the question of
       provisions, and would soon publish the organic laws of the
       constitution of '93. ... Six democratic Mountaineers, Goujon,
       Bourbotte, Romme, Duroy, Duquesnoy, and Soubrany were brought
       before a military commission ... and ... condemned to death.
       They all stabbed themselves with the same knife, which was
       transferred from one to the other, exclaiming, 'Vive la
       République!' Romme, Goujon, and Duquesnoy were fortunate
       enough to wound themselves fatally; the other three were
       conducted to the scaffold in a dying state, but faced death
       with serene countenances. Meantime, the Faubourgs, though
       repelled on the 1st, and diverted from their object on the 2nd
       of Prairial, still had the means of rising," and the
       convention ordered them to be disarmed. "They were encompassed
       by all the interior sections. After attempting to resist, they
       yielded, giving up some of their leaders, their arms, and
       artillery. ... The inferior class was entirely excluded from
       the government of the state; the revolutionary committees
       which formed its assemblies were destroyed; the cannoneers
       forming its armed force were disarmed; the constitution of
       '93, which was its code, was abolished; and here the rule of
       the multitude terminated. ... From that period, the middle
       class resumed the management of the revolution without, and
       the assembly was as united under the Girondists as it had
       been, after the 2nd of June, under the Mountaineers."

          F. A. Mignet,
          History of the French Revolution,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          Duchesse d'Abrantes,
          Memoirs,
          chapters 12-14 (volume l).

          T. Carlyle,
          The French Revolution,
          volume 3, book 7, chapters 4-6.

          G. Long,
          France and its Revolutions,
          chapter 53.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (June-September).
       Framing and adoption of the Constitution of the Year III.
       Self-renewing decrees of the Convention.
       Hostility in Paris to them.
       Intrigues of the Royalists.

       "The royalist party, beaten on the frontiers, and deserted by
       the court of Spain, on which it placed most reliance, was now
       obliged to confine itself to intrigues in the interior; and it
       must be confessed that, at this moment, Paris offered a wide
       field for such intrigues. The work of the constitution was
       advancing; the time when the Convention was to resign its
       powers, when France should meet to elect fresh
       representatives, when a new Assembly should succeed that which
       had so long reigned, was more favourable than any other for
       counter-revolutionary manœuvres. The most vehement passions
       were in agitation in the sections of Paris. The members of
       them were not royalists, but they served the cause of royalty
       without being aware of it. They had made a point of opposing
       the Terrorists; they had animated themselves by the conflict;
       they wished to persecute also; and they were exasperated
       against the Convention, which would not permit this
       persecution to be carried too far. They were always ready to
       remember that Terror had sprung from its bosom; they demanded
       of it a constitution and laws, and the end of the long
       dictatorship which it had exercised. ... Behind this mass the
       royalists concealed themselves. ... The constitution had been
       presented by the commission of eleven. It was discussed during
       the three months of Messidor, Thermidor, and Fructidor
       [June-August], and was successively decreed with very little
       alteration."
    {1312}
       The principal features of the constitution so framed, known as
       the Constitution of the Year III., were the following: "A
       Council, called 'The Council of the Five Hundred,' composed of
       500 members, of, at least, thirty years of age, having
       exclusively the right of proposing laws, one-third to be
       renewed every year. A Council called 'The Council of the
       Ancients,' composed of 250 members, of, at least, forty years
       of age, all either widowers or married, having the sanction of
       the laws, to be renewed also by one-third. An executive
       Directory, composed of five members, deciding by a majority,
       to be renewed annually by one-fifth, having responsible
       ministers. ... The mode of nominating these powers was the
       following: All the citizens of the age of twenty-one met of
       right in primary assembly on every first day of the month of
       Prairial, and nominated electoral assemblies. These electoral
       assemblies met every 20th of Prairial, and nominated the two
       Councils; and the two Councils nominated the Directory. ...
       The judicial authority was committed to elective judges. ...
       There were to be no communal assemblies, but municipal and
       departmental administrations, composed of three, five, or more
       members, according to the population: they were to be formed
       by way of election. ... The press was entirely free. The
       emigrants were banished for ever from the territory of the
       republic; the national domains were irrevocably secured to the
       purchasers; all religions were declared free, but were neither
       acknowledged nor paid by the state. ... One important question
       was started. The Constituent Assembly, from a parade of
       disinterestedness, had excluded itself from the new
       legislative body [the Legislative Assembly of 1791]; would the
       Convention do the same?" The members of the Convention decided
       this question in the negative, and "decreed, on the 5th of
       Fructidor (August 22d), that the new legislative body should
       be composed of two-thirds of the Convention, and that one new
       third only should be elected. The question to be decided was,
       whether the Convention should itself designate the two-thirds
       to be retained, or whether it should leave that duty to the
       electoral assemblies. After a tremendous dispute, it was
       agreed on the 13th of Fructidor (August 30), that this choice
       should be left to the electoral assemblies. It was decided
       that the primary assemblies should meet on the 20th of
       Fructidor (September 6th), to accept the constitution and the
       two decrees of the 5th and the 13th of Fructidor. It was
       likewise decided that, after giving their votes upon the
       constitution and the decrees, the primary assemblies should
       again meet and proceed forthwith, that is to say, in the year
       III. (1795), to the elections for the 1st of Prairial in the
       following year." The right of voting upon the constitution was
       extended, by another decree, to the armies in the field. "No
       sooner were these resolutions adopted, than the enemies of the
       Convention, so numerous and so diverse, were deeply mortified
       by them. ... The Convention, they said, was determined to
       cling to power; ... it wished to retain by force a majority
       composed of men who had covered France with scaffolds. ... All
       the sections of Paris, excepting that of the Quinze-Vingts,
       accepted the Constitution and rejected the decrees. The result
       was not the same in the rest of France. ... On the 1st of
       Vendémiaire, year IV. (September 23, 1795), the general result
       of the votes was proclaimed. The constitution was accepted
       almost unanimously, and the decrees by an immense majority of
       the voters." The Convention now decreed that the new
       legislative body should be elected in October and meet
       November 6.

          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 3, pages 305-315.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 12, chapter 4 (volume 4).

          H. C. Lockwood,
          Constitutional History of France,
          chapter 1, and appendix 3.

          J. Mallet du Pan,
          Memoirs and Correspondence,
          volume 2, chapter 8.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (June-December).
       Death of the late King's son (Louis XVII.)
       Treaty of Basle with Spain.
       Acquisition of Spanish San Domingo.
       Ineffectual campaign on the Rhine.
       Victory at Loano.

       "The Committees had formed great plans for the campaign of
       1795; meaning to invade the territories of the allies, take
       Mayence, and enter Southern Germany, go down into Italy, and
       reach the very heart of Spain. But Carnot, Lindet, and Prieur
       were no longer on the Committee, and their successors were not
       their equals; army discipline was relaxed; a vulgar
       reactionist had replaced Carnot in the war department and was
       working ruin. ... The attack in Spain was to begin with the
       Lower Pyrenees, by the capture of Pampeluna and a march upon
       Castile, but famine and fever decimated the army of the
       Western Pyrenees, and General Moncey was forced to postpone
       all serious action till the summer. At the other end of the
       Pyrenees, the French and Spaniards were fighting aimlessly at
       the entry to Catalonia. The war was at a standstill; but the
       negotiations went on between the two countries. The king of
       Spain, as in honor bound, made the liberation of his young
       kinsman, the son of Louis XVI., a condition of peace. This the
       Republic would not grant, but the prisoner's death (June 8,
       1795) removed the obstacle. The counter-revolutionists accused
       the Committees of poisoning the child styled by the royalist
       party Louis XVII. This charge was false; the poor little
       prisoner died of scrofula, developed by inaction, ennui, and
       the sufferings of a pitiless imprisonment, increased by the
       cruel treatment of his jailers, a cobbler named Simon and his
       wife. A rumor was also spread that the child was not dead, but
       had been taken away and an impostor substituted, who had died.
       Only one of the royal family now remained in the Temple, Louis
       XVI.'s daughter, afterwards the Duchesse d'Angoulême. Spain
       interceded for her, and she was exchanged. ... Peace with
       Spain was also hastened by French successes beyond the
       Pyrenees; General Marceau, being reinforced, took Vittoria and
       Bilboa, and pushed on to the Ebro. On the 22d of July,
       Barthelémi, the able French diplomatist, signed a treaty of
       peace with Spain at Basle, restoring her Biscayan and
       Catalonian provinces, and accepting Spanish mediation in favor
       of the king of Naples, Duke of Parma, king of Portugal, and
       'the other Italian powers,' including, though not mentioning,
       the Pope; and Spain yielded her share of San Domingo, which
       put a brighter face on French affairs in America. ...
       Guadeloupe, Santa Lucia, and St. Eustache were restored to the
       French. ... Spain soon made overtures for an alliance with
       France, wishing to put down the English desire to rule the
       seas; and, before the new treaty was signed, the army of the
       Eastern Pyrenees was sent to reinforce the armies of the Alps
       and Italy, who had only held their positions in the Apennines
       and on the Ligurian coast against the Austrians and
       Piedmontese by sheer force of will; but in the autumn of 1795
       the face of affairs was changed.
    {1313}
       Now that Prussia had left the coalition, war on the Rhine went
       on between France and Austria, sustained by the South German
       States; France had to complete her mastery of the left bank by
       taking Mayence and Luxembourg; and Austria's aim was to
       dispute them with her. The French government charged Marceau
       to besiege Mayence during the winter of 1794-95, but did not
       furnish him the necessary resources, and, France not holding
       the right bank, Kléber could only partially invest the town,
       and both his soldiers and those blockading Luxembourg suffered
       greatly from cold and privation. Early in March, 1795,
       Pichegru was put in command of the armies of the Rhine and
       Moselle, and Jourdan was ordered to support him on the left
       (the Lower Rhine) with the army of Sambre-et-Meuse. Austria
       took no advantage of the feeble state of the French troops,
       and Luxembourg, one of the strongest posts in Europe,
       receiving no help, surrendered (June 24) with 800 cannon and
       huge store of provisions. The French now had the upper hand,
       Pichegru and Jourdan commanding 160,000 men on the Rhine. One
       of these men was upright and brave, but the other had treason
       in his soul; though everybody admired Pichegru, 'the conqueror
       of Holland.' ... In August, 1795, an agent of the Prince of
       Condé, who was then at Brisgau, in the Black Forest, with his
       corps of emigrants, offered Pichegru, who was in Alsace, the
       title of Marshal of France and Governor of Alsace, the royal
       castle of Chambord, a million down, an annuity of 200,000
       livres, and a house in Paris, in the 'king's' name, thus
       flattering at once his vanity and his greed. ... He was
       checked by no scruples; utterly devoid of moral sense, he
       hoped to gain his army by money and wine, and had no
       discussion with the Prince of Condé save as to the manner of
       his treason." In the end, Pichegru was not able to make his
       treason as effective as he had bargained to do; but he
       succeeded in spoiling the campaign of 1795 on the Rhine.
       Jourdan crossed the river and took Dusseldorf, with 168
       cannon, on the 6th of September, expecting a simultaneous
       movement on the part of Pichegru, to occupy the enemy in the
       latter's front. But Pichegru, though he took Mannheim, on the
       18th of September, threw a corps of 10,000 men into the hands
       of the Austrians, by placing it where it could be easily
       overwhelmed, and permitted his opponent, Wurmser, to send
       reinforcements to Clairfait, who forced Jourdan, in October,
       to retreat across the Rhine. "Pichegru's perfidy had thwarted
       a campaign which must have been decisive, and Jourdan's
       retreat was followed by the enemy's offensive return to the
       left bank [retaking Mannheim and raising the siege of
       Mayence], and by reverses which would have been fatal had they
       coincided with the outburst of royalist and reactionary plots
       and insurrections in the West, and in Paris itself; but they
       had luckily been stifled some time since, and as the
       Convention concluded its career, the direction of the war
       returned to the hands which guided it so well in 1793 and
       1794."

          H. Martin,
          Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
          chapter 24 (volume 1).

       "The peace with Spain ... enabled the government to detach the
       whole Pyrenean army to the support of General Scherer, who had
       succeeded Kellermann in the command of the army of Italy. On
       the 23d of November, the French attacked the Austrians in
       their position at Loano, and, after a conflict of two days,
       the enemy's centre was forced by Massena and Augereau, and the
       Imperialists fled with the loss of 7,000 men, 80 guns, and all
       their stores. But the season was too far advanced to prosecute
       this success, and the victors took up winter quarters on the
       ground they had occupied. ... The capture of the Cape of Good
       Hope (September 16) by the British under Sir James Craig, was
       the only other important event of this year."

          Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
          sections 154 and 157
          (chapter 18 of the complete work).

          ALSO IN:
          A. Griffiths,
          French Revolutionary Generals,
          chapter 13.

          E. Baines,
          History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
          book. 1, chapters 19-20 (volume l).

          A. de Beauchesne,
          Louis XVII.: His Life, his Sufferings, his Death.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (October-December).
       The Insurrection of the 13th Vendemiare, put down by
       Napoleon Bonaparte.
       Dissolution of the National Convention.
       Organization of the government of the Directory.
       Licentiousness of the time.

       "The Parisians ... proclaimed their hostility to the
       Convention and its designs. The National Guard, consisting of
       armed citizens, almost unanimously sided with the enemies of
       the Convention; and it was openly proposed to march to the
       Tuilleries, and compel a change of measures by force of arms.
       The Convention perceiving their unpopularity and danger, began
       to look about them anxiously for the means of defence. There
       were in and near Paris 5,000 regular troops, on whom they
       thought they might rely, and who of course contemned the
       National Guard as only half soldiers. They had besides some
       hundreds of artillery men; and they now organised what they
       called 'the Sacred Band,' a body of 1,500 ruffians, the most
       part of them old and tried instruments of Robespierre. With
       these means they prepared to arrange a plan of defence; and it
       was obvious that they did not want materials, provided they
       could find a skilful and determined head. The insurgent
       sections placed themselves under the command of Danican, an
       old general of no great skill or reputation. The Convention
       opposed to him Menou; and he marched at the head of a column
       into the section Le Pelletier to disarm the National Guard of
       that district--one of the wealthiest of the capital. The
       National Guard were found drawn up in readiness to receive him
       at the end of the Rue Vivienne; and Menou, becoming alarmed,
       and hampered by the presence of some of the' Representatives
       of the People,' entered into a parley, and retired without
       having struck a blow. The Convention judged that Menou was not
       master of nerves for such a crisis; and consulted eagerly
       about a successor to his command. Barras, one of their number,
       had happened to be present at Toulon and to have appreciated
       the character of Buonaparte. He had, probably, been applied to
       by Napoleon in his recent pursuit of employment. Deliberating
       with Tallien and Carnot, his colleagues, he suddenly said, 'I
       have the man whom you want; it is a little Corsican officer,
       who will not stand upon ceremony.' These words decided the
       fate of Napoleon and of France. Buonaparte had been in the
       Odeon Theatre when the affair of Le Pelletier occurred, had
       run out, and witnessed the result. He now happened to be in
       the gallery, and heard the discussion concerning the conduct
       of Menou.
    {1314}
       He was presently sent for, and asked his opinion as to that
       officer's retreat. He explained what had happened, and how the
       evil might have been avoided, in a manner which gave
       satisfaction. He was desired to assume the command, and
       arranged his plan of defence as well as the circumstances
       might permit; for it was already late at night, and the
       decisive assault on the Tuilleries was expected to take place
       next morning. Buonaparte stated that the failure of the march
       of Menou had been chiefly owing to the presence of the
       'Representatives of the People,' and refused to accept the
       command unless he received it free from all such interference.
       They yielded: Barras was named commander-in-chief; and
       Buonaparte second, with the virtual control. His first care
       was to despatch Murat, then a major of chasseurs, to Sablons,
       five miles off, where fifty great guns were posted. The
       Sectionaries sent a stronger detachment for these cannon
       immediately afterwards; and Murat, who passed them in the
       dark, would have gone in vain had he received his orders but a
       few minutes later. On the 4th of October (called in the
       revolutionary almanac the 13th Vendemiaire) the affray
       accordingly occurred. Thirty thousand National Guards advanced
       about two P. M., by different streets, to the siege of the
       palace: but its defence was now in far other hands than those
       of Louis XVI. Buonaparte, having planted artillery on all the
       bridges, had effectually secured the command of the river, and
       the safety of the Tuilleries on one side. He had placed cannon
       also at all the crossings of the streets by which the National
       Guard could advance towards the other front; and having posted
       his battalions in the garden of the Tuilleries and Place du
       Carousel, he awaited the attack. The insurgents had no cannon;
       and they came along the narrow streets of Paris in close and
       heavy columns. When one party reached the church of St. Roche,
       in the Rue St. Honoré, they found a body of Buonaparte's
       troops drawn up there, with two cannons. It is disputed on
       which side the firing began; but in an instant the artillery
       swept the streets and lanes, scattering grape-shot among the
       National Guards, and producing such confusion that they were
       compelled to give way. The first shot was a signal for all the
       batteries which Buonaparte had established; the quays of the
       Seine, opposite to the Tuilleries, were commanded by his guns
       below the palace and on the bridges. In less than an hour the
       action was over. The insurgents fled in all directions,
       leaving the streets covered with dead and wounded; the troops
       of the Convention marched into the various sections, disarmed
       the terrified inhabitants, and before nightfall everything was
       quiet. This eminent service secured the triumph of the
       Conventionalists. ... Within five days from the Day of the
       Sections Buonaparte was named second in command of the army of
       the interior; and shortly afterwards, Barras finding his
       duties as Director sufficient to occupy his time, gave up the
       command-in-chief of the same army to his 'little Corsican
       officer.'"

          J. G. Lockhart,
          Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
          chapter 3.

       The victory of the 13th Vendemiaire "enabled the Convention
       immediately to devote its attention to the formation of the
       Councils proposed by it, two-thirds of which were to consist
       of its own members. The first third, which was freely elected,
       had already been nominated by the Reactionary party. The
       members of the Directory were chosen, and the deputies of the
       Convention, believing that for their own interests the
       regicides should be at the head of the Government, nominated
       La Réveillère-Lepeaux, Sièyes, Rewbel, Le Tourneur, and
       Barras. Sièyes refused to act, and Carnot was elected in his
       place. Immediately after this, the Convention declared its
       session at an end, after it had had three years of existence,
       from the 21st September, 1792, to the 28th October, 1795 (4th
       Brumaire, Year IV.). ... The Directors were all, with the
       exception of Carnot, of moderate capacity, and concurred in
       rendering their own position the more difficult. At this
       period there was no element of order or good government in the
       Republic; anarchy and uneasiness everywhere prevailed, famine
       had become chronic, the troops were without clothes,
       provisions or horses; the Convention had spent an immense
       capital represented by assignats, and had sold almost half of
       the Republican territory, belonging to the proscribed classes
       ...; the excessive degree of discredit to which paper money
       had fallen, after the issue of thirty-eight thousand millions,
       had destroyed all confidence and all legitimate commerce. ...
       Such was the general poverty, that when the Directors entered
       the palace which had been assigned to them as a dwelling, they
       found no furniture there, and were compelled to borrow of the
       porter a few straw chairs and a wooden table, on the latter of
       which they drew up the decree by which they were appointed to
       office. Their first care was to establish their power, and
       they succeeded in doing this by frankly following at first the
       rules laid down by the Constitution. In a short time industry
       and commerce began to raise their heads, the supply of
       provisions became tolerably abundant, and the clubs were
       abandoned for the workshops and the fields. The Directory
       exerted itself to revive agriculture, industry, and the arts,
       re-established the public exhibitions, and founded primary,
       central, and normal schools. ... This period was distinguished
       by a great licentiousness in manners. The wealthy classes, who
       had been so long forced into retirement by the Reign of
       Terror, now gave themselves up to the pursuit of pleasure
       without stint, and indulged in a course of unbridled luxury,
       which was outwardly displayed in balls, festivities, rich
       costumes and sumptuous equipages. Barras, who was a man of
       pleasure, favoured this dangerous sign of the reaction, and
       his palace soon became the rendezvous of the most frivolous
       and corrupt society. In spite of this, however, the wealthy
       classes were still the victims, under the government of the
       Directory, of violent and spoliative measures."

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France,
          volume 2. pages 270-273.

    {1315}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (April-October).
       Triple attack on Austria.
       Bonaparte's first campaign in Italy.
       Submission of Sardinia.
       Armistice with Naples and the Pope.
       Pillage of art treasures.
       Hostile designs upon Venice.
       Expulsion of the Austrians from Lombardy.
       Failure of the campaign beyond the Rhine.

       "With the opening of the year 1796 the leading interest of
       European history passes to a new scene. ... The Directory was
       now able ... to throw its whole force into the struggle with
       Austria. By the advice of Bonaparte a threefold movement was
       undertaken against Vienna, by way of Lombardy, by the valley
       of the Danube, and by the valley of the Main. General Jourdan,
       in command of the army that had conquered the Netherlands, was
       ordered to enter Germany by Frankfort; Moreau, a Breton
       law-student in 1792, now one of the most skilful soldiers in
       Europe, crossed the Rhine at Strasburg; Bonaparte himself,
       drawing his scanty supplies along the coast-road from Nice,
       faced the allied forces of Austria and Sardinia upon the
       slopes of the Maritime Apennines, forty miles to the west of
       Genoa. ... Bonaparte entered Italy proclaiming himself the
       restorer of Italian freedom, but with the deliberate purpose
       of using Italy as a means of recruiting the exhausted treasury
       of France. His correspondence with the Directory exposes with
       brazen frankness this well·considered system of plunder and
       deceit, in which the general and the Government were cordially
       at one. ... The campaign of 1796 commenced in April, in the
       mountains above the coast-road connecting Nice and Genoa. ...
       Bonaparte ... for four days ... reiterated his attacks at
       Montenotte and at Millesimo, until he had forced his own army
       into a position in the centre of the Allies [Austrians and
       Piedmontese]; then, leaving a small force to watch the
       Austrians, he threw the mass of his troops upon the
       Piedmontese, and drove them back to within thirty miles of
       Turin. The terror-stricken Government, anticipating an
       outbreak in the capital itself, accepted an armistice from
       Bonaparte at Cherasco (April 28). ... The armistice, which was
       soon followed by a treaty of peace between France and
       Sardinia, ceding Savoy to the Republic, left him free to
       follow the Austrians, untroubled by the existence of some of
       the strongest fortresses of Europe behind him. In the
       negotiations with Sardinia, Bonaparte demanded the surrender
       of the town of Valenza, as necessary to secure his passage
       over the river Po. Having thus artfully led the Austrian
       Beaulieu to concentrate his forces at this point, he suddenly
       moved eastward along the southern bank of the river, and
       crossed at Piacenza, 50 miles below the spot where Beaulieu
       was awaiting him. ... The Austrian general, taken in the rear,
       had no alternative but to abandon Milan and all the country
       west of it, and to fall back upon the line of the Adda.
       Bonaparte followed, and on the 10th of May attacked the
       Austrians at Lodi. He himself stormed the bridge of Lodi at
       the head of his Grenadiers. The battle was so disastrous to
       the Austrians that they could risk no second engagement, and
       retired upon Mantua and the line of the Mincio. Bonaparte now
       made his triumphal entry into Milan (May 15). ... In return
       for the gift of liberty, the Milanese were invited to offer to
       their deliverers 20,000,000 francs, and a selection from the
       paintings in their churches and galleries. The Dukes of Parma
       and Modena, in return for an armistice, were required to hand
       over forty of their best pictures, and a sum of money
       proportioned to their revenues. The Dukes and the townspeople
       paid their contributions with a good grace: the peasantry of
       Lombardy, whose cattle were seized in order to supply an army
       that marched without any stores of its own, rose in arms, and
       threw themselves into Pavia, after killing all the French
       soldiers who fell in their way. The revolt was instantly
       suppressed, and the town of Pavia given up to pillage. ...
       Instead of crossing the Apennines, Bonaparte advanced against
       the Austrian positions upon the Mincio. ... A battle was
       fought and lost by the Austrians at Borghetto. ... Beaulieu's
       strength was exhausted; he could meet the enemy no more in the
       field, and led his army out of Italy into the Tyrol, leaving
       Mantua to be invested by the French. The first care of the
       conqueror was to make Venice pay for the crime of possessing
       territory intervening between the eastern and western extremes
       of the Austrian district. Bonaparte affected to believe that
       the Venetians had permitted Beaulieu to occupy Peschiera
       before he seized upon Brescia himself. ... 'I have purposely
       devised this rupture,' he wrote to the Directory (June 7th),
       'in case you should wish to obtain five or six millions of
       francs from Venice. If you have more decided intentions, I
       think it would be well to keep up the quarrel.' The intention
       referred to was the disgraceful project of sacrificing Venice
       to Austria in return for the cession of the Netherlands. ...
       The Austrians were fairly driven out of Lombardy, and
       Bonaparte was now free to deal with Southern Italy. He
       advanced into the States of the Church, and expelled the Papal
       Legate from Bologna. Ferdinand of Naples ... asked for a
       suspension of hostilities against his own kingdom ... and
       Bonaparte granted the king an armistice on easy terms. The
       Pope, in order to gain a few months' truce, had to permit the
       occupation of Ferrara, Ravenna, and Ancona, and to recognise
       the necessities, the learning, the taste, and the virtue of
       his conquerors by a gift of 20,000,000 francs, 500
       manuscripts, 100 pictures, and the busts of Marcus and Lucius
       Brutus. ... Tuscany had indeed made peace with the French
       Republic a year before, but ... while Bonaparte paid a
       respectful visit to the Grand Duke at Florence, Murat
       descended upon Leghorn, and seized upon everything that was
       not removed before his approach. Once established in Leghorn,
       the French declined to quit it. Mantua was meanwhile invested,
       and thither Bonaparte returned. Towards the end of July an
       Austrian relieving army, nearly double the strength of
       Bonaparte's, descended from the Tyrol. It was divided into
       three corps: one, under Quasdanovich, advanced by the road on
       the west of Lake Garda; the others, under Wurmser, the
       commander-in-chief, by the roads between the lake and the
       river Adige. ... Bonaparte ... instantly broke up the siege of
       Mantua, and withdrew from every position east of the river. On
       the 30th July, Quasdanovich was attacked and checked at
       Lonato. ... Wurmser, unaware of his colleague's repulse,
       entered Mantua in triumph, and then set out, expecting to
       envelop Bonaparte between two fires. But the French were ready
       for his approach. Wurmser was stopped and defeated at
       Castiglione (Aug. 3), while the western Austrian divisions
       were still held in check at Lonato. ... In five days the skill
       of Bonaparte and the unsparing exertions of his soldiery had
       more than retrieved all that appeared to have been lost. The
       Austrians retired into the Tyrol, leaving 15,000 prisoners in
       the hands of the enemy. Bonaparte now prepared to force his
       way into Germany by the Adige, in fulfilment of the original
       plan of the campaign. In the first days of September he again
       routed the Austrians, and gained possession of Roveredo and
       Trent.
    {1316}
       Wurmser hereupon attempted to shut the French up in the
       mountains by a movement southwards; but, while he operated
       with insufficient forces between the Brenta and the Adige,
       with a view of cutting Bonaparte off from Italy, he was
       himself [defeated at Bassano, September 8, and] cut off from
       Germany, and only escaped capture by throwing himself into
       Mantua with the shattered remnant of his army. The road into
       Germany through the Tyrol now lay open; but in the midst of
       his victories Bonaparte learnt that the northern armies of
       Moreau and Jourdan, with which he had intended to co-operate
       in an attack upon Vienna, were in full retreat. Moreau's
       advance into the valley of the Danube had, during the months
       of July and August, been attended with unbroken military and
       political success. The Archduke Charles, who was entrusted
       with the defence of the Empire," fell back before Moreau, in
       order to unite his forces with those of Wartensleben, who
       commanded an army which confronted Jourdan. "The design of the
       Archduke succeeded in the end, but it opened Germany to the
       French for six weeks, and revealed how worthless was the
       military constitution of the Empire, and how little the
       Germans had to expect from one another. ... At length the
       retreating movement of the Austrians stopped [and the Archduke
       fought an indecisive battle with Moreau at Neresheim, August
       11]. Leaving 30,000 men on the Lech to disguise his motions
       from Moreau, Charles turned suddenly northwards from Neuberg
       on the 17th August, met Wartensleben at Amberg, and attacked
       Jourdan ... with greatly superior numbers. Jourdan was
       defeated [September 3, at Würtzburg] and driven back in
       confusion towards the Rhine. The issue of the campaign was
       decided before Moreau heard of his colleague's danger. It only
       remained for him to save his own army by a skilful retreat,"
       in the course of which he defeated the Austrian general Latour
       at Biberach, October 2, and fought two indecisive battles with
       the Archduke, at Emmendingen, October 19, and at Huningen on
       the 24th.

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Griffiths,
          French Revolutionary Generals,
          chapters 14-15.

          General Jomini,
          Life of Napoleon,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          E. Baines,
          History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
          book 1, chapter 22 (volume 1).

          C. Adams,
          Great Campaigns, 1796-1870,
          chapter 1.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (September).
       Evacuation of Corsica by the English.
       Its reoccupation by the French.

       "Corsica, which had been delivered to the English by Paoli,
       and occupied by them as a fourth kingdom annexed to the crown
       of the King of Great Britain, had just been evacuated by its
       new masters. They had never succeeded in subduing the interior
       of the island, frequent insurrections had kept them in
       continual alarm, and free communication between the various
       towns could only be effected by sea. The victories of the
       French army in Italy, under the command of one of their
       countrymen, had redoubled this internal ferment in Corsica,
       and the English had decided on entirely abandoning their
       conquest. In September 1796 they withdrew their troops, and
       also removed from Corsica their chief partisans, such as
       General Paoli, Pozzo di Borgo, Beraldi and others, who sought
       an asylum in England. On the first intelligence of the English
       preparations for evacuating the island, Buonaparte despatched
       General Gentili thither at the head of two or three hundred
       banished Corsicans, and with this little band Gentili took
       possession of the principal strongholds. ... On the 5th
       Frimaire, year V. (November 25, 1796), I received a decree of
       the Executive Directory ... appointing me
       Commissioner-Extraordinary of the Government in Corsica, and
       ordering me to proceed thither at once."

          Count Miot de Melito,
          Memoirs,
          chapter 4.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (October).
       Failure of peace negotiations with England.
       Treaties with Naples and Genoa.

       "It was France itself, more even than Italy, which was
       succumbing under the victories in Italy, and was falling
       rapidly under the military despotism of Bonaparte; while what
       had begun as a mere war of defence was already becoming a war
       of aggression against everybody. ... The more patriotic
       members of the legislative bodies were opposed to what they
       considered only a war of personal ambitions, and were desirous
       of peace, and a considerable peace party was forming
       throughout the country. The opportunity was taken by the
       English government for making proposals for peace, and a
       pass-port was obtained from the directory for lord Malmesbury,
       who was sent to Paris as the English plenipotentiary. Lord
       Malmesbury arrived in Paris on the 2nd of Brumaire (the 23rd
       of October, 1796), and next day had his first interview with
       the French minister Delacroix, who was chosen by the directory
       to act as their representative. There was from the first an
       evident want of cordiality and sincerity on the part of the
       French government in this negotiation; and the demands they
       made, and the political views entertained by them, were so
       unreasonable, that, after it had dragged on slowly for about a
       month, it ended without a result. The directory were secretly
       making great preparations for the invasion of Ireland, and
       they had hopes of making a separate and very advantageous
       peace with Austria. Bonaparte had, during this time, become
       uneasy on account of his position in Italy," and "urged the
       directory to enter into negotiations with the different
       Italian states in his rear, such as Naples, Rome, and Genoa,
       and to form an offensive and defensive alliance with the king
       of Sardinia, so that he might be able to raise reinforcements
       in Italy. For this purpose he asked for authority to proclaim
       the independence of Lombardy and of the states of Modena; so
       that, by forming both into republics, he might create a
       powerful French party, through which he might obtain both men
       and provisions. The directory was not unwilling to second the
       wishes of Bonaparte, and on the 19th of Vendemiaire (the 10th
       of October) a peace was signed with Naples, which was followed
       by a treaty with Genoa. This latter state paid two millions of
       francs as an indemnity for the acts of hostility formerly
       committed against France, and added two millions more as a
       loan." The negotiation for an offensive alliance with Sardinia
       failed, because the king demanded Lombardy.

          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          volume 2, page 758.

          ALSO IN:
          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England in the 18th Century,
          chapter 27 (volume 7).

          E. Burke,
          Letters on a Regicide Peace.

    {1317}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (October-April).
       Bonaparte's continued victories in Italy.
       His advance into Carinthia and the Tyrol.
       Peace preliminaries of Leoben.

       "The failure of the French invasion of Germany ... enabled the
       Austrians to make a fresh effort for the relief of [Würmser]
       in Mantua. 40,000 men under Alvinzi and 18,000 under
       Davidowich entered Italy from the Tyrol and marched by
       different routes towards Verona. Bonaparte had employed the
       recent interlude in consolidating French influence in Italy.
       Against the wishes of the Directors he dethroned the duke of
       Modena, and formed his territories into the Cispadane
       Republic. Then he tried to induce Piedmont and Venice to join
       France, but both states preferred to retain their neutral
       position. This was another of the charges which the general
       was preparing against Venice. On the news of the Austrian
       advance, Bonaparte marched against Alvinzi, and checked him at
       Carmignano (6 November). But meanwhile Davidowich had taken
       Trent and was approaching Rivoli. Bonaparte, in danger of
       being surrounded, was compelled to give way, and retreated to
       Verona, while Alvinzi followed him. Never was the French
       position more critical, and nothing but a very bold move could
       save them. With reckless courage Bonaparte attacked Alvinzi at
       Arcola, and after three days' hard fighting [November 15-17,
       on the dykes and causeways of a marshy region] won a complete
       victory. He then forced Davidowich to retreat to the Tyrol.
       The danger was averted, and the blockade of Mantua was
       continued. But Austria, as if its resources were
       inexhaustible, determined on a fourth effort in January, 1797.
       Alvinzi was again entrusted with the command, while another
       detachment under Provera advanced from Friuli. Bonaparte
       collected all his forces, marched against Alvinzi, and crushed
       him at Rivoli (15 January). But meanwhile Provera had reached
       Mantua, where Bonaparte, by a forced march, overtook him, and
       won another complete victory in the battle of La Favorita. The
       fate of Mantua was at last decided, and the city surrendered
       on the 2nd of February. With a generosity worthy of the glory
       which he had obtained, Bonaparte allowed Würmser and the
       garrison to march out with the honours of war. He now turned
       to Romagna, occupied Bologna and terrified the Pope into
       signing the treaty of Tolentino. The temporal power was
       allowed to exist, but within very curtailed limits. Not only
       Avignon, but the whole of Romagna, with Ancona, was
       surrendered to France. Even these terms, harsh as they were,
       were not so severe as the Directors had wished. But Bonaparte
       was beginning to play his own game; he saw that Catholicism
       was regaining ground in France, and he wished to make friends
       on what might prove after all the winning side. Affairs in
       Italy were now fairly settled: two republics, the Cisalpine in
       Lombardy, and the Cispadane, which included Modena, Ferrara,
       and Bologna, had been created to secure French influence in
       Italy. ... The French had occupied the Venetian territory from
       Bergamo to Verona, and had established close relations with
       those classes who were dissatisfied with their exclusion from
       political power. When the republic armed against the danger of
       a revolt, Bonaparte treated it as another ground for that
       quarrel which he artfully fomented for his own purposes. But
       at present he had other objects more immediately pressing than
       the oppression of Venice. Jourdan's army on the Rhine had been
       entrusted to Hoche, whose ambition had long chafed at the want
       of an opportunity, and who was burning to acquire glory by
       retrieving the disasters of the last campaign. Bonaparte, on
       the other hand, was eager to anticipate a possible rival, and
       determined to hurry on his own invasion of Austria, in order
       to keep the war and the negotiations in his own hands. The
       task of meeting him was entrusted to the archduke Charles, who
       had won such a brilliant reputation in 1796, but who was
       placed at a great disadvantage to his opponent by having to
       obey instructions from Vienna. The French carried all before
       them, Joubert occupied Tyrol, Masséna forced the route to
       Carinthia, and Bonaparte himself, after defeating the archduke
       on the Tagliamento, occupied Trieste and Carniola. The French
       now marched over the Alps, driving the Austrians before them.
       At Leoben, which they reached on 7th April, they were less
       than eighty miles from Vienna. Here Austrian envoys arrived to
       open negotiations. They consented to surrender Belgium,
       Lombardy, and the Rhine frontier, but they demanded
       compensation in Bavaria. This demand Bonaparte refused, but
       offered to compensate Austria at the expense of a neutral
       state, Venice. The preliminaries of Leoben, signed on the 18th
       April, gave to Austria, Istria, Dalmatia, and the Venetian
       provinces between the Oglio, the Po, and the Adriatic. At this
       moment, Hoche and Moreau, after overcoming the obstacles
       interposed by a sluggish government, were crossing the Rhine
       to bring their armies to bear against Austria. They had
       already gained several successes when the unwelcome news
       reached them from Leoben, and they had to retreat. Bonaparte
       may have failed to extort the most extreme terms from Austria,
       but he had at any rate kept both power and fame to himself."

          R. Lodge,
          English of Modern Europe,
          chapter 23.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon I.,
          volume 1, chapters 5-7.

          Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
          volume 4, chapters 1-4.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (December-January):
       Hoche's expedition to Ireland.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1791-1798.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (February-October).
       British naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (April-May).
       The overthrow of Venice by Bonaparte.

       When Napoleon, in March, entered upon his campaign against the
       Archduke Charles, "the animosity existing between France and
       Venice had ... attained a height that threatened an open
       rupture between the two republics, and was, therefore, of some
       advantage to Austria. The Signoria saw plainly what its fate
       would be should the French prove victorious; but though they
       had 12,000 or 15,000 Slavonian troops ready at hand, and
       mostly assembled in the capital, they never ventured to use
       them till the moment for acting was past. On the Terra Firma,
       the citizens of Brescia and Bergamo had openly renounced the
       authority of St. Mark, and espoused the cause of France; the
       country people, on the other hand, were bitterly hostile to
       the new Republicans. Oppressed by requisitions, plundered and
       insulted by the troops, the peasants had slain straggling and
       marauding French soldiers; the comrades of the sufferers had
       retaliated, and an open revolt was more than once expected.
       General Battaglia, the Venetian providatore, remonstrated
       against the open violence practised on the subjects of Venice;
       Buonaparte replied by accusing the government of partiality
       for Austria, and went so far as to employ General Andrieux to
       instigate the people to rise against the senate. The
       Directory, however, desired him to pause, and not to 'drive
       the Venetians to extremity, till the opportunity, should have
       arrived for carrying into effect the future projects
       entertained against that state.'
    {1318}
       Both parties were watching their time, but the craven watches
       in vain, for he is struck down long before his time to strike
       arrives." A month later, when Napoleon was believed to be
       involved in difficulties in Carinthia and the Tyrol, Venice
       "had thrown off the mask of neutrality; the tocsin had sounded
       through the communes of the Terra Firma, and a body of troops
       had joined the insurgents in the attack on the citadel of
       Verona. Not only were the French assailed wherever they were
       found in arms, but the very sick were inhumanly slain in the
       hospitals by the infuriated peasantry; the principal massacre
       took place at Verona on Easter Monday [April 17], and cast a
       deep stain on the Venetian cause and character." But even
       while these sinister events were in progress, Bonaparte had
       made peace with the humiliated Austrians, and had signed the
       preliminary treaty of Leoben, which promised to give Venice to
       them in exchange for the Netherlands. And now, with all his
       forces set free, he was prepared to crush the venerable
       Republic, and make it subservient to his ambitious schemes. He
       "refused to hear of any accommodation: and, unfortunately, the
       base massacre of Verona blackened the Venetian cause so much
       as almost to gloss over the unprincipled violence of their
       adversaries. 'If you could offer me the treasures of Peru,'
       said Napoleon to the terrified deputies who came to sue for
       pardon and offer reparation, 'if you could cover your whole
       dominions with gold, the atonement would be insufficient.
       French blood has been treacherously shed, and the Lion of St.
       Mark must bite the dust.' On the 3d of May he declared war
       against the republic, and French troops immediately advanced
       to the shores of the lagunes. Here, however, the waves of the
       Adriatic arrested their progress, for they had not a single
       boat at command, whereas the Venetians had a good fleet in the
       harbour, and an army of 10,000 or 15,000 soldiers in the
       capital: they only wanted the courage to use them. Instead of
       fighting, however, they deliberated; and tried to purchase
       safety by gold, instead of maintaining it by arms. Finding the
       enemy relentless, the Great Council proposed to modify their
       government,--to render it more democratic, in order to please
       the French commander,--to lay their very institutions at the
       feet of the conqueror; and, strange to say, only 21 patricians
       out of 690 dissented from this act of national degradation.
       The democratic party, supported by the intrigues of Vittelan,
       the French secretary of legation, exerted themselves to the
       utmost. The Slavonian troops were disbanded, or embarked for
       Dalmatia; the fleet was dismantled, and the Senate were
       rapidly divesting themselves of every privilege, when, on the
       31st of May, a popular tumult broke out in the capital. The
       Great Council were in deliberation when shots were fired
       beneath the windows of the ducal palace. The trembling
       senators thought that the rising was directed against them,
       and that their lives were in danger, and hastened to divest
       themselves of every remnant of power and authority at the very
       moment when the populace were taking arms in their favour.
       'Long live St. Mark, and down with foreign dominion!' was the
       cry of the insurgents, but nothing could communicate one spark
       of gallant fire to the Venetian aristocracy. In the midst of
       the general confusion, while the adverse parties were firing
       on each other, and the disbanded Slavonians threatening to
       plunder the city, these unhappy legislators could only
       delegate their power to a hastily assembled provisional
       government, and then separate in shame and for ever. The
       democratic government commenced their career in a manner as
       dishonourable as that of the aristocracy had been closed."
       They "immediately despatched the flotilla to bring over the
       French troops. A brigade under Baraguai d'Hilliers soon landed
       [May 15] at the place of St. Mark; and Venice, which had
       braved the thunders of the Vatican, the power of the emperors,
       and the arms of the Othmans, ... now sunk for ever, and
       without striking one manly blow or firing one single shot for
       honour and fame! Venice counted 1300 years of independence,
       centuries of power and renown, and many also of greatness and
       glory, but ended in a manner more dishonourable than any state
       of which history makes mention. The French went through the
       form of acknowledging the new democratic government, but
       retained the power in their own hands. Heavy contributions
       were levied, all the naval and military stores were taken
       possession of, and the fleet, having conveyed French troops to
       the Ionian islands, was sent to Toulon."

          T. Mitchell,
          Principal Campaigns in the Rise of Napoleon,
          chapter 6 (Fraser's Magazine, April, 1846).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Flagg,
          Venice: The City of the Sea,
          part 1, chapters 1-4 (volume 1).

          Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
          volume 4, chapter 5.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (May-October).
       Napoleon's political work in Italy.
       Creation of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics.
       Dismemberment of the Graubunden.
       The Peace of Campo-Formio.
       Venice given over to Austria, and Lombardy and the Netherlands
       taken away.

       "The revolution in Venice was soon followed by another in
       Genoa, also organised by the plots of the French minister
       there, Faypoult. The Genoese had in general shown themselves
       favourable to France; but there existed among the nobles an
       anti-French party; the Senate, like that of Venice, was too
       aristocratic to suit Bonaparte's or the Directory's notions;
       and it was considered that Genoa, under a democratic
       constitution, would be more subservient to French interests.
       An insurrection, prepared by Faypoult, of some 700 or 800 of
       the lowest class of Genoese, aided by Frenchmen and Lombards,
       broke out on May 22nd, but was put down by the great mass of
       the real Genoese people. Bonaparte, however, was determined to
       effect his object. He directed a force of 12,000 men on Genoa,
       and despatched Lavalette with a letter to the Doge. ...
       Bonaparte's threats were attended by the same magical effects
       at Genoa as had followed them at Venice. The Senate
       immediately despatched three nobles to treat with him, and on
       June 6th was concluded the Treaty of Montebello. The
       Government of Genoa recognised by this treaty the sovereignty
       of the people, confided the legislative power to two Councils,
       one of 300, the other of 500 members, the executive power to a
       Senate of twelve, presided over by the Doge. Meanwhile a
       provisional government was to be established. By a secret
       article a contribution of four millions, disguised under the
       name of a loan, was imposed upon Genoa.
    {1319}
       Her obedience was recompensed with a considerable augmentation
       of territory, and the incorporation of the districts known as
       the 'imperial fiefs.' Such was the origin of the Ligurian
       Republic. Austrian Lombardy, after its conquest, had also been
       formed into the 'Lombard Republic'; but the Directory had not
       recognised it, awaiting a final settlement of Italy through a
       peace with Austria. Bonaparte, after taking possession of the
       Duchy of Modena and the Legations, had, at first, thought of
       erecting them into an independent state under the name of the
       'Cispadane Republic'; but he afterwards changed his mind and
       united these states with Lombardy under the title of the
       Cisalpine Republic. He declared, in the name of the Directory,
       the independence of this new republic, June 29th 1797;
       reserving, however, the right of nominating, for the first
       time, the members of the Government and of the legislative
       body. The districts of the Valteline, Chiavenna, and Bormio,
       subject to the Grison League, in which discontent and
       disturbance had been excited by French agents, were united in
       October to the new state; whose constitution was modelled on
       that of the French Republic. Bonaparte was commissioned by the
       Directory to negociate a definitive peace with Austria, and
       conferences were opened for that purpose at Montebello,
       Bonaparte's residence near Milan. The negociations were
       chiefly managed by himself, and on the part of Austria by the
       Marquis di Gallo, the Neapolitan ambassador at Vienna, and
       Count Meerfeld. ... The negociations were protracted six
       months, partly through Bonaparte's engagements in arranging
       the affairs of the new Italian republics, but more especially
       by divisions and feuds in the French Directory." The Peace of
       Campo Formio was concluded October 17. "It derived this name
       from its having been signed in a ruined castle situated in a
       small village of that name near Udine; a place selected on
       grounds of etiquette in preference to the residence of either
       of the negociators. By this treaty the Emperor ceded the
       Austrian Netherlands to France; abandoned to the Cisalpine
       Republic, which he recognised, Bergamo, Brescia, Crema,
       Peschiera, the town and fortress of Mantua with their
       territories, and all that part of the former Venetian
       possessions to the south and west of a line which, commencing
       in the Tyrol, traversed the Lago di Garda, the left bank of
       the Adige, but including Porto Legnago on the right bank, and
       thence along the left bank of the Po to its mouth. France was
       to possess the Ionian Islands, and all the Venetian
       settlements in Albania below the Gulf of Lodrino; the French
       Republic agreeing on its side that the Emperor should have
       Istria, Dalmatia, the Venetian isles in the Adriatic, the
       mouths of the Cattaro, the city of Venice, the Lagoons, and
       all the former Venetian terra firma to the line before
       described. The Emperor ceded the Breisgau to the Duke of
       Modena, to be held on the same conditions as he had held the
       Modenese. A congress composed of the plenipotentiaries of the
       German Federation was to assemble immediately, to treat of a
       peace between France and the Empire. To this patent treaty was
       added another secret one, by the principal article of which
       the Emperor consented that France should have the frontier of
       the Rhine, except the Prussian possessions, and stipulated
       that the Imperial troops should enter Venice on the same day
       that the French entered Mentz. He also promised to use his
       influence to obtain the accession of the Empire to this
       arrangement; and if that body withheld its consent, to give it
       no more assistance than his contingent. The navigation of the
       Rhine to be declared free. If, at the peace with the Empire,
       the French Republic should make any acquisitions in Germany,
       the Emperor was to obtain an equivalent there, and vice versa.
       The Dutch Stadtholder to have a territorial indemnity. To the
       King of Prussia were to be restored his possessions on the
       left bank of the Rhine, and he was consequently to have no new
       acquisitions in Germany. Princes and States of the Empire,
       damnified by this treaty, to obtain a suitable indemnity. ...
       By the Treaty of Campo Formio was terminated not only the
       Italian campaign, but also the first continental war of the
       Revolution. The establishment of Bonaparte's prestige and
       power by the former was a result still more momentous in its
       consequences for Europe than the fall of Venice and the
       revolutionising of Northern Italy."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 7, chapter 8 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 4, pages 214-225.

          Sir W. Scott,
          Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
          chapter 28.

          Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
          chapters 6-8.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (September).
       Conflict of the Directory and the two Councils.
       The Revolutionary Coup d'État of the 18th of Fructidor.
       Suppression of the Royalists and Moderates.
       Practical overthrow of the Constitution.

       "The inevitable dissension between the executive power and the
       electoral power had already displayed itself at the conclusion
       of the elections of the Year V. The elections were made for
       the most part under the influence of the reactionary party,
       which, whilst it refrained from conspiring for the overthrow
       of the new Constitution, saw with terror that the executive
       power was in the hands of men who had taken part in the
       excesses and crimes of the Convention. Pichegru, whose
       intrigues with the princes of the House of Bourbon were not
       yet known, was enthusiastically made President of the Council
       of Five Hundred, and Barbé-Marbois was made President of the
       Ancients. Le Tourneur having become, by lot, the retiring
       member of the Directory, Barthélemy, an upright and moderate
       man, was chosen in his place. He, as well as his colleague,
       Carnot, were opposed to violent measures; but they only formed
       in the Directorate a minority which was powerless against the
       Triumvirs Barras, Rewbel, and La Réveillère, who soon entered
       upon a struggle with the two Councils. ... There were,
       doubtless, amongst [their opponents] in the two Councils, some
       Royalists, and ardent reactionists, who desired with all their
       hearts the restoration of the Bourbons; but, according to the
       very best testimony, the majority of the names which were
       drawn from the electoral urn since the promulgation of the
       Constitution of the Year III. were strangers to the Royalist
       party. 'They did not desire,' to use the words of an eminent
       and impartial historian of our own day [De Barante, 'Life of
       Royer-Collard'], 'a counter-revolution, but the abolition of
       the revolutionary laws which were still in force. They wished
       for peace and true liberty, and the successive purification of
       a Directorate which was the direct heir of the Convention. ...
       But the Directorate was as much opposed to the Moderates as to
       the Royalists.'
    {1320}
       It pretended to regard these two parties as one, and falsely
       represented them as conspiring in common for the overthrow of
       the Republic and the re-establishment of monarchy. ... If
       there were few Royalists in the two Councils, there were also
       few men determined to provoke on the part of the Directors a
       recourse to violence against their colleagues. But as a great
       number of their members had sat in the Convention, they
       naturally feared a too complete reaction, and, affecting a
       great zeal for the Constitution, they founded at the Hotel
       Salm, under the name of the Constitutional Club, an
       association which was widely opposed in its spirit and
       tendency to that of the Hotel Clichy, in which were assembled
       the most ardent members of the reactionary party [and hence
       called Clichyans]. ... The Council of Five Hundred, on the
       motion of a member of the Clichy Club, energetically demanded
       that the Legislative power should have a share in determining
       questions of peace or war. No general had exercised, in this
       respect, a more arbitrary power than had Bonaparte, who had
       negotiated of his own mere authority several treaties, and the
       preliminaries of the peace of Campo Formio. He was offended at
       these pretensions on the part of the Council of Five Hundred,
       and entreated the Government to look to the army for support
       against the Councils and the reactionary press. He even sent
       to Paris, as a support to the policy of the Directors, General
       Augereau, one of the bravest men of his army, but by no means
       scrupulous as to the employment of violent means, and disposed
       to regard the sword as the supreme argument in politics,
       whether at home or abroad. The Directory gave him the command
       of the military division of Paris. ... Henceforth a coup
       d'état appeared inevitable. The Directors now marched some
       regiments upon the capital, in defiance of a clause of the
       Constitution which prohibited the presence of troops within a
       distance of twelve leagues of Paris, unless in accordance with
       a special law passed in or near Paris itself. The Councils
       burst forth into reproaches and threats against the Directors,
       to which the latter replied by fiery addresses to the armies,
       and to the Councils themselves. It was in vain that the
       Directors Carnot and Barthélemy endeavoured to quell the
       rising storm; their three colleagues refused to listen to
       them, and fixed the 18th Fructidor [September 4] for the
       execution of their criminal projects. During the night
       preceding that day, Augereau marched 12,000 men into Paris,
       and in the morning these troops, under his own command,
       supported by 40 pieces of cannon, surrounded the Tuileries, in
       which the Councils held their sittings. The grenadiers of the
       Councils' guard joined Augereau, who arrested with his own
       hand the brave Ramel, who commanded that guard, and General
       Pichegru, the President of the Council of Five Hundred. ...
       The Directors ... published a letter written by Moreau, which
       revealed Pichegru's treason; and at the same time nominated a
       Committee for the purpose of watching over the public safety.
       ... Forty-two members of the Council of Five Hundred, eleven
       members of that of the Ancients, and two of the Directors,
       Carnot [who escaped, however, into Switzerland] and
       Barthélemy, were condemned to be transported to the fatal
       district of Sinnamari. ... The Directors also made the editors
       of 35 journals the victims of their resentment. They had the
       laws passed in favour of the priests and emigrants reversed,
       and annulled the elections of 48 departments. Merlin de Douai
       and François de Neufchâteau were chosen as successors to
       Carnot and Barthélemy, who had been banished and proscribed by
       their colleagues. That which took place on the 18th Fructidor
       ruined the Constitutional and Moderate party, whilst it
       resuscitated that of the Revolution."

          E. de Bonnechose,
          History of France, 4th period,
          book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).

       "During these two days, Paris continued perfectly quiet. The
       patriots of the fauxbourgs deemed the punishment of
       transportation too mild. ... These groups, however, which were
       far from numerous, disturbed not in the least the peace of
       Paris. The sectionaries of Vendemiaire ... had no longer
       sufficient energy to take up arms spontaneously. They suffered
       the stroke of policy to be carried into effect without
       opposition. For the rest, public opinion continued uncertain.
       The sincere republicans clearly perceived that the royalist
       faction had rendered an energetic measure inevitable, but they
       deplored the violation of the laws and the intervention of the
       military power. They almost doubted the culpability of the
       conspirators on seeing such a man as Carnot mingled in their
       ranks. They apprehended that hatred had too strongly
       influenced the determinations of the Directory. Lastly, even,
       though considering its determinations as necessary, they were
       sad, and not without reason: for it became evident that that
       constitution, on which they had placed all their hope, was not
       the termination of our troubles and our discord. The mass of
       the population submitted and detached itself much on that day
       from political events. ... From that day, political zeal began
       to cool. Such were the consequences of the stroke of policy
       accomplished on the 18th of Fructidor. It has been asserted
       that it had become useless at the moment when it was executed;
       that the Directory, in frightening the royalist faction, had
       already succeeded in overawing it; that, by persisting in this
       stretch of power, it paved the way to military usurpation. ...
       But ... the royalist faction ... on the junction of the new
       third ... would infallibly have overturned everything, and
       mastered the Directory. Civil war would then have ensued
       between it and the armies. The Directory, in foreseeing this
       movement and timely repressing it, prevented a civil war; and,
       if it placed itself under the protection of the military, it
       submitted to a melancholy but inevitable necessity."

          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 4, pages 205-206.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-May).
       Revolutionary intrigues in Rome.
       French troops in possession of the city.
       Formation of the Roman Republic.
       Removal of the Pope.

       "At Rome a permanent conspiracy was established at the French
       Embassy, where Joseph Bonaparte, as the ambassador of the
       Republic, was the centre of a knot of conspirators. On the
       28th of December, 1797, came the first open attempt at
       insurrection. General Duphot, a hot-headed young man, one of
       the military attaches of the French Embassy, put himself at
       the head of a handful of the disaffected, and led them to the
       attack of one of the posts of the pontifical troops. In the
       ensuing skirmish a chance shot struck down the French general,
       and the rabble which followed him dispersed in all directions.
       It was just the opportunity for which the Directory had been
       waiting in order to break the treaty of Tolentino and seize
       upon Rome.
    {1321}
       Joseph Bonaparte left the city the morning after the émeute,
       and a column of troops was immediately detached from his
       brother's army in the north of Italy and ordered to march on
       Rome. It consisted of General Berthier's division and 6,000
       Poles under Dombrowski, and it received the ominous title of
       l'armée vengeresse--the avenging army. As they advanced
       through the Papal territory they met with no sympathy, no
       assistance, from the inhabitants, who looked upon them as
       invaders rather than deliverers. 'The army,' Berthier wrote to
       Bonaparte, 'has met with nothing but the most profound
       consternation in this country, without seeing one glimpse of
       the spirit of independence; only one single patriot came to
       me, and offered to set at liberty 2,000 convicts.' This
       liberal offer of a re-inforcement of 2,000 scoundrels the
       French general thought it better to decline. ... At length, on
       the 10th of February, Berthier appeared before Rome. ...
       Wishing to avoid a useless effusion of blood, Pius VI. ordered
       the gates to be thrown open, contenting himself with
       addressing, through the commandant of St. Angelo, a protest to
       the French general, in which he declared that he yielded only
       to overwhelming force. A few days after, a self-elected
       deputation of Romans waited upon Berthier, to request him to
       proclaim Rome a republic, under the protection of France. As
       Berthier had been one of the most active agents in getting up
       this deputation, he, of course, immediately yielded to their
       request. The French general then demanded of the Pope that he
       should formally resign his temporal power, and accept the new
       order of things. His reply was the same as that of every Pope
       of whom such a demand has been made: 'We cannot--we will not!'
       In the midst of a violent thunder-storm he was torn from his
       palace, forced into a carriage, and carried away to Viterbo,
       and thence to Siena, where he was kept a prisoner for three
       months. Rome was ruled by the iron hand of a military
       governor. ... Meanwhile, alarmed at the rising in Italy, the
       Directory were conveying the Pope to a French prison. ...
       After a short stay at Grenoble he was transferred to the
       fortress of Valence, where, broken down by the fatigues of his
       journey, he died on August 19th, 1799, praying for his enemies
       with his last breath."

          Chevalier O'Clery.
          History of the Italian Revolution,
          chapter 2, section 1.

          ALSO IN:
          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          J. Miley,
          History of the Papal States,
          book 8, chapter 3 (volume 3).

          J. E. Darras,
          History of the Catholic Church, 8th period,
          chapter 6 (volume 4).

          T. Roscoe,
          Memoirs of Scipio de Ricci.
          volume 2, chapter 4.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-September).
       Invasion and subjugation of Switzerland.
       Creation of the Helvetic Republic.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1799.
       Hostile attitude toward the United States.
       The X, Y, Z correspondence.
       Nearness of war.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1797-1799.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (May-August).
       Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt.
       His seizure of Malta.
       Pursuit by the English fleet under Nelson.
       The Battle of the Nile.

       "The treaty of Campo Formio, by which Austria obtained terms
       highly advantageous to her interests, dissolved the offensive
       and defensive alliance of the continental powers, and left
       England alone in arms. The humiliation of this country was to
       be the last and the greatest achievement of French ambition.
       ... During the autumn and winter of this year [1797-8],
       preparations for a great armament were proceeding at Toulon,
       and other harbours in possession of the French. The army of
       Italy, clamorous for a promised donation of 1,000,000,000
       francs, which the Directory were unable to pay, had been
       flattered by the title of the army of England, and appeased by
       the prospect of the plunder of this country. But whatever
       might be the view of the Directory, or the expectation of the
       army, Bonaparte had no intention of undertaking an enterprise
       so rash as a descent upon the coast of England, while the
       fleets of England kept possession of the seas. There was
       another quarter from which the British Empire might be menaced
       with a better chance of success. India could never be secure
       while Egypt and the great eastern port of the Mediterranean
       were in the possession of one of the great maritime powers.
       Egypt had been an object of French ambition since the time of
       Louis XIV. ... It was for Egypt, therefore, that the great
       armament of Toulon was destined. The project was not indeed
       considered a very hopeful one at Paris; but such was the dread
       and hatred of the ruling faction for the great military genius
       which had sprung out of the anarchy of France, and of the
       30,000 creditors whom they were unable to satisfy, that the
       issue of the expedition which they most desired was, that it
       might never return from the banks of the Nile. ... The fleet,
       consisting of thirteen ships of the line, with several
       frigates, smaller vessels, and transports conveying 28,000
       picked troops, with the full equipment for every kind of
       military service, set sail on the 14th of May. Attached to
       this singular expedition, destined for the invasion of a
       friendly country, and the destruction of an unoffending
       people, was a staff of professors, furnished with books, maps,
       and philosophical instruments for prosecuting scientific
       researches in a land which, to a Christian and a philosopher,
       was the most interesting portion of the globe. The great
       armament commenced its career of rapine by seizing on the
       important island of Malta. Under the shallow pretence of
       taking in water for a squadron which had left its anchorage
       only two days, a portion of the troops were landed, and, after
       a show of resistance, the degenerate knights, who had already
       been corrupted, surrendered Malta, Gozo, and Cumino, to the
       French Republic. A great amount of treasure and of munitions
       of war, besides the possession of the strongest place in the
       Mediterranean, were thus acquired without loss or delay. A
       conquest of such importance would have amply repaid and
       justified the expedition, if no ulterior object had been
       pursued. But Bonaparte suffered himself to be detained no more
       than twenty-four hours by this achievement; and having left a
       garrison of 4,000 men in the island, and established a form of
       civil government, after the French pattern, he shaped his
       course direct for Alexandria. On the 1st of July, the first
       division of the French troops were landed at Marabou, a few
       miles from the city. Aboukir and Rosetta, which commanded the
       mouths of the Nile, were occupied without difficulty.
       Alexandria itself was incapable of any effectual defence, and,
       after a few skirmishes with the handful of Janissaries which
       constituted the garrison, the French entered the place; and
       for several hours the inhabitants were given up to an
       indiscriminate massacre.
    {1322}
       Bonaparte pushed forward with his usual rapidity, undeterred
       by the horrors of the sandy desert, and the sufferings of his
       troops. After two victories over the Mamelukes, one of which
       was obtained within sight of the Pyramids [and called the
       Battle of the Pyramids], the French advanced to Cairo; and
       such was the terror which they had inspired, that the capital
       of Egypt was surrendered without a blow. Thus in three weeks
       the country had been overrun. The invaders had nothing to fear
       from the hostility of the people; a rich and fertile country,
       the frontier of Asia, was in their possession; but, in order
       to hold the possession secure, it was necessary to retain the
       command of the sea. The English Government, on their side,
       considered the capture of the Toulon armament an object of
       paramount importance; and Earl St. Vincent, who was still
       blockading the Spanish ports, was ordered to leave Cadiz, if
       necessary, with his whole fleet, in search of the French; but
       at all events, to detach a squadron, under Sir Horatio Nelson,
       on that service. ... Nelson left Gibraltar on the 8th of May,
       with three ships of the line, four frigates, and a sloop. ...
       He was reinforced, on the 5th of June, with ten sail of the
       line. His frigates had parted company with him on the 20th of
       May, and never returned." Suspecting that Egypt was
       Bonaparte's destination, he made sail for Alexandria, but
       passed the French expedition, at night, on the way, arrived in
       advance of it, and, thinking his surmise mistaken, steered
       away for the Morea and thence to Naples. It was not until the
       1st of August that he reached the Egyptian coast a second
       time, and found the French fleet, of sixteen sail, "at anchor
       in line of battle, in the Bay of Aboukir. Nelson, having
       determined to fight whenever he came up with the enemy,
       whether by day or by night, immediately made the signal for
       action. Although the French fleet lay in an open roadstead,
       they had taken up a position so strong as to justify their
       belief that they could not be successfully attacked by a force
       less than double their own. They lay close in shore, with a
       large shoal in their rear; in the advance of their line was an
       island, on which a formidable battery had been erected; and
       their flanks were covered by numerous gun-boats. ... The
       general action commenced at sunset, and continued throughout
       the night until six o'clock the following morning, a period of
       nearly twelve hours. But in less than two hours, five of the
       enemy's ships had struck; and, soon after nine o'clock, the
       sea and shore, for miles around, were illuminated by a fire
       which burst from the decks of the 'Orient,' the French
       flag-ship, of 120 guns. In about half an hour she blew up,
       with an explosion so appalling that for some minutes the
       action was suspended, as if by tacit consent. At this time the
       French Admiral Brueys was dead, ... killed by a chain-shot
       before the ship took fire. Nelson also had been carried below,
       with a wound which was, at first, supposed to be mortal. He
       had been struck in the head with a fragment of langridge shot,
       which tore away a part of the scalp. ... At three o'clock in
       the morning four more of the French ships were destroyed or
       taken. There was then an interval of two hours, during which
       hardly a shot was fired on either side. At ten minutes to
       seven another ship of the line, after a feeble attempt at
       resistance, hauled down her colours. The action was now over.
       Of the thirteen French ships of the line, nine had been taken,
       and two had been burnt." Two ships of the line and two
       frigates escaped. "The British killed and wounded were 895.
       The loss of the French, including prisoners, was 5,225. Such
       was the great battle of the Nile."

          W. Massey,
          History of England during the Reign of George III.,
          chapter 39 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          E. J. De La Gravière,
          Sketches of the Last Naval War,
          volume 1, part 3.

          R. Southey,
          Life of Nelson,
          chapter 5.

          Despatches and Letters of Lord Nelson,
          volume 3.

          Bonaparte,
          Memoirs Dictated at St. Helena,
          volume 2.

          A. T. Mahan,
          Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and
          Empire,
          chapter 9 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (August-April).
       Arming against the Second European Coalition.
       The conscription.
       Overthrow of the Neapolitan kingdom.
       Seizure of Piedmont.
       Campaigns in Switzerland, Italy, and on the upper Danube.
       Early successes and final reverses.

       "The Porte declared war against the French, and, entered into
       an alliance with Russia and England (12th August). A Russian
       fleet sailed from Sebastopol, and blockaded the Ionian
       Islands; the English vessels found every Turkish port open to
       them, and gained possession of the Levant trade, to the
       detriment of France. Thus the failure of the Egyptian
       expedition delivered the Ottoman Empire into the hands of two
       Powers, the one intent upon its dismemberment, the other eager
       to make itself master of its commerce; it gave England the
       supremacy in the Mediterranean; it inaugurated the appearance
       of Russia in southern Europe; it was the signal for a second
       coalition." Russia, "under Catherine, had but taken a nominal
       part in the first coalition, being too much occupied with the
       annihilation of Poland. ... But now Catherine was dead, Paul
       I., her son and successor, took the émigrés in his pay,
       offered the Pretender an asylum at Mittau, promised his
       protection to the Congress at Rastadt, and fitted out 100,000
       troops. Naples had been in a great ferment since the creation
       of the Roman Republic. The nobles and middle classes, imbued
       with French ideas, detested a Court sold to the English, and
       presided over by the imbecile Ferdinand, who left the cares of
       his government to his dissolute Queen. She hated the French,
       and now solicited Tuscany and Piedmont to unite with her to
       deliver Italy from the sway of these Republicans. The Austrian
       Court, of which Bonaparte had been the conscious or
       unconscious dupe, instead of disarming after the Treaty of
       Campo-Formio, continued its armaments with redoubled vigour,
       and now demanded indemnities, on the pretext that it had
       suffered from the Republican system which the French
       introduced into Switzerland and Italy. The Directory very
       naturally refused to accede to this; and thereupon Austria
       prepared for war, and endeavoured to drag Prussia and the
       German Empire into it. ... But Frederick William's successor
       and the princess of the empire declined to recommence
       hostilities with France, of which they had reason to fear the
       enmity, though at present she was scarcely able to resist a
       second coalition. The French nation, in fact, was sincerely
       eager for peace. ...
    {1323}
       Nevertheless, and though there was little unity amongst them,
       the Councils and the Directory prepared their measures of
       defence; they increased the revenue, by creating a tax on
       doors and windows; they authorised the sale of national
       property to the amount of 125,000,000 francs; and finally, on
       the report of Jourdan, they passed the famous law of
       conscription (5th September), which compelled every Frenchman
       to serve in the army from the age of 20 to that of 25, the
       first immediate levy to consist of 200,000 troops. When the
       victory of the Nile became known at Naples the court was a
       prey to frenzied excitement. Taxes had already been doubled, a
       fifth of the population called to arms, the nobles and middle
       classes were tortured into submission. And when the report
       spread that the Russians were marching through Poland, it was
       resolved to commence hostilities by attacking the Roman
       Republic, and to rouse Piedmont and Tuscany to rebellion.
       Forty thousand Neapolitans, scarcely provided with arms,
       headed by the Austrian general Mack, made their way into the
       Roman states, guarded only by 18,000 French troops, dispersed
       between the two seas (12th November). Championnet, their
       commander, abandoned Rome, took up a position on the Tiber,
       near Civita-Castellana, and concentrated all his forces on
       that point. The King of Naples entered Rome, while Mack went
       to encounter Championnet. The latter beat him, routed or
       captured the best of his troops, and compelled him to retire
       in disorder to the Neapolitan territory. Championnet, now at
       the head of 25,000 men, returned to Rome, previous to marching
       on Naples, where the greatest disorder prevailed. At the news
       of his approach the Court armed the lazzaroni, and fled with
       its treasures to the English fleet, abandoning the town to
       pillage and anarchy (20th December, 1798). Mack, seeing his
       army deserting him, and his officers making common cause with
       the Republicans, concluded an armistice with Championnet, but
       his soldiers revolted and compelled him to seek safety in the
       French camp. On Championnet's appearance before Naples, which
       the lazzaroni defended with fury, a violent battle ensued,
       lasting for three days; however, some of the citizens
       delivered the fort of St. Elmo to the French, and then the mob
       laid down its arms (23rd January, 1799). The Parthenopeian
       Republic [so called from one of the ancient names of the city
       of Naples] was immediately proclaimed, a provisional
       government organised, the citizens formed themselves into a
       National Guard, and the kingdom accepted the Revolution. The
       demand of Championnet for a war contribution of 27,000,000
       francs roused the Calabrians to revolt; anarchy prevailed
       everywhere; commissioners were sent by the Directory to
       re-establish order. The French general had them arrested, but
       he was deposed and succeeded by Macdonald. In commencing its
       aggression the court of Naples had counted on the aid of the
       King of Sardinia and the Grand Duke of Tuscany. But Piedmont,
       placed between three republics, was herself sharing the
       Revolutionary ferment; the King, who had concluded an alliance
       with Austria, proscribed the democrats, who, in their turn,
       declared war against him by means of the Ligurian Republic,
       whither they had fled. When Championnet was compelled to
       evacuate Rome, the Directory, afraid that Sardinia would
       harass the French rear, had ordered Joubert, commanding the
       army of Italy, to occupy Piedmont. The Piedmontese troops
       opened every place to the French, entered into their ranks,
       and the King [December 8, 1798] was forced to give up all
       claims to Piedmont, and to take refuge in Sardinia ...
       [retaining the latter, but abdicating the sovereignty of
       Piedmont]. Tuscany being also occupied by the Republican
       troops, the moment war was declared against Austria, Italy was
       virtually under French dominion. These events but increased
       the enmity of the Coalition, which hurried its preparations,
       while the Directory, cheered by its successes, resolved to
       take the offensive on all points. ... In the present struggle,
       however, the conditions of warfare were changed. The lines of
       invasion were no longer, as formerly, short and isolated, but
       stretched from the Zuyder Zee to the Gulf of Tarentum, open to
       be attacked in Holland from the rear, and at Naples by the
       English fleet. ... Seventy thousand troops, under the Archduke
       Charles, occupied Bavaria; General Hotze occupied the
       Vorarlberg with 25,000 men; Bellegarde was with 45,000 in the
       Tyrol; and 70,000 guarded the line of the Adige, headed by
       Marshal Kray. Eighty thousand Russians, in two equal
       divisions, were on their way to join the Austrians. The
       division under Suwarroff was to operate with Kray, that one
       under Korsakoff with the Archduke. Finally, 40,000 English and
       Russians were to land in Holland, and 20,000 English and
       Sicilians in Naples. The Directory, instead of concentrating
       its forces on the Adige and near the sources of the Danube,
       divided them. Fifteen thousand troops were posted in Holland,
       under Brune; 8,000 at Mayence, under Bernadotte; 40,000 from
       Strasburg to Bâle, under Jourdan; 30,000 in Switzerland, under
       Masséna; 50,000 on the Adige, under Schérer; 30,000 at Naples,
       under Macdonald. These various divisions were in reality meant
       to form but one army, of which Massena was the centre, Jourdan
       and Schérer the wings, Brune and Macdonald the extremities. To
       Massena was confided the principal operation, namely, to
       possess himself of the central Alps, in order to isolate the
       two imperial armies of the Adige and Danube and to neutralise
       their efforts. The Coalition having hit upon the same plan as
       the Directory, ordered the Austrians under Bellegarde to
       invade the Grisons, while on the other side a division was to
       descend into the Valteline." Masséna's right wing, under
       Lecourbe, defeated Bellegarde, crossed the upper Rhine and
       made its way to the Inn. Schérer also advanced by the
       Valteline to the upper Adige and joined operations with
       Lecourbe. "While these two generals were spreading terror in
       the Tyrol, Masséna made himself master of the Rhine from its
       sources to the lake of Constance, receiving but one check in
       the fruitless siege of Feldkirch, a position he coveted in
       order to be able to support with his right wing the army of
       the Danube, or with his left that of Italy. This check
       compelled Lecourbe and Dessoles to slacken their progress, and
       the various events on the Danube and the Po necessitated their
       recall in a short time. Jourdan had crossed the Rhine at Kehl,
       Bâle, and Schaffhausen (1st March), penetrated into the defile
       of the upper Danube, and reached the village of Ostrach, where
       he was confronted by the Archduke Charles, who had passed the
       Iller, and who, after a sanguinary battle [March 21],
       compelled him to retreat upon Tutlingen. The tidings of
       Masséna's success having reached Jourdan, he wished to support
       it by marching to Stockach, the key to the roads of
       Switzerland and Germany; but he was once more defeated (25th
       March), and retreated, not into Switzerland, whence he could
       have joined Masséna, but to the Rhine, which he imagined to be
       threatened. ...
    {1324}
       In Italy the Directory had given orders to Schérer to force
       the Adige, and to drive the Austrians over the Piave and the
       Brenta." He attacked and carried the Austrian camp of
       Pastrengo, near Rivoli, on the 25th of March, 1799, inflicting
       a loss of 8,000 on the enemy; but on the 5th of April, when
       moving to force the lower Adige, he was defeated by Kray at
       Magnano. "Schérer lost his head, fled precipitately, and did
       not stop until he had put a safe distance between himself and
       the enemy. ... The army of Switzerland, under Masséna,
       dispersed in the mountains, with both its flanks threatened,
       had no other means of salvation than to fall back behind the
       Rhine."

          H. Van Laun,
          The French Revolutionary Epoch,
          book 3, chapter 1, section 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          R Southey,
          Life of Nelson,
          chapter 6 (volume 2).

          A. Griffiths,
          French Revolutionary Generals,
          chapter 18.

          A. Gallenga,
          History of Piedmont,
          volume 3, chapter 5.

          P. Colletta,
          History of the Kingdom of Naples,
          book 3, chapter 2; book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (August-August).
       Bonaparte's organization of government in Egypt.
       His advance into Syria and repulse at Acre.
       His victory at Aboukir and return to France.

       "On hearing of the battle of Aboukir [better known as 'the
       battle of the Nile'], a solitary sigh escaped from Napoleon.
       'To France,' said he, 'the fates have decreed the empire of
       the land--to England that of the sea.' He endured this great
       calamity with the equanimity of a masculine spirit. He gave
       orders that the seamen landed at Alexandria should be formed
       into a marine brigade, and thus gained a valuable addition to
       his army; and proceeded himself to organise a system of
       government, under which the great natural resources of the
       country might be turned to the best advantage. ... He was
       careful to advance no claim to the sovereignty of Egypt, but
       asserted, that having rescued it from the Mameluke usurpation,
       it remained for him to administer law and justice, until the
       time should come for restoring the province to the dominion of
       the Grand Seignior. He then established two councils,
       consisting of natives, principally of Arab chiefs and Moslem
       of the church and the law, by whose advice all measures were,
       nominally, to be regulated. They formed of course a very
       subservient senate. ... The virtuosi and artists in his train,
       meanwhile, pursued with indefatigable energy their scientific
       researches; they ransacked the monuments of Egypt, and laid
       the foundation, at least, of all the wonderful discoveries
       which have since been made concerning the knowledge, arts,
       polity (and even language), of the ancient nation. Nor were
       their objects merely those of curiosity. They, under the
       General's direction, examined into the long-smothered traces
       of many an ancient device for improving the agriculture of the
       country. Canals that had been shut up for centuries were
       reopened; the waters of the Nile flowed once more where they
       had been guided by the skill of the Pharaohs or the Ptolemies.
       Cultivation was extended; property secured; and it cannot be
       doubted that the signal improvements since introduced in
       Egypt, are attributable mainly to the wise example of the
       French administration. ... In such labours Napoleon passed the
       autumn of 1798. ... General Dessaix, meanwhile, had pursued
       Mourad Bey into Upper Egypt, where the Mamelukes hardly made a
       single stand against him, but contrived by the excellence of
       their horses, and their familiarity with the deserts, to avoid
       any total disruption of their forces. ... The General, during
       this interval of repose, received no communication from the
       French Government; but rumours now began to reach his quarters
       which might well give him new anxieties. The report of another
       rupture with Austria gradually met with more credence; and it
       was before long placed beyond a doubt, that the Ottoman Porte,
       instead of being tempted into any recognition of the French
       establishment in Egypt, had declared war against the Republic,
       and summoned all the strength of her empire to pour in
       overwhelming numbers on the isolated army of Buonaparte. ...
       The General despatched a trusty messenger into India, inviting
       Tippoo Saib to inform him exactly of the condition of the
       English army in that region, and signifying that Egypt was
       only the first post in a march destined to surpass that of
       Alexander! 'He spent whole days,' writes his secretary, 'in
       lying flat on the ground stretched upon maps of Asia.' At
       length the time for action came. Leaving 15,000 in and about
       Cairo, the division of Dessaix in Upper Egypt, and garrisons
       in the chief towns,--Buonaparte on the 11th of February 1799
       marched for Syria at the head of 10,000 picked men, with the
       intention of crushing the Turkish armament in that quarter,
       before their chief force (which he now knew was assembling at
       Rhodes) should have time to reach Egypt by sea. Traversing the
       desert which divides Africa from Asia, he took possession of the
       fortress El-Arish (February 15), whose garrison, after a
       vigorous assault, capitulated on condition that they should be
       permitted to retreat into Syria, pledging their parole not to
       serve again during the war. Pursuing his march, he took Gazah
       (that ancient city of the Philistines) without opposition; but
       at Jaffa (the Joppa of holy writ), the Moslem made a resolute
       defence. The walls were carried by storm, 3,000 Turks died
       with arms in their hands, and the town was given up during
       three hours to the fury of the French soldiery--who never, as
       Napoleon confessed, availed themselves of the license of war
       more savagely than on this occasion. A party of the
       garrison--amounting, according to Buonaparte, to 1,200 men,
       but stated by others as nearly 3,000 in number--held out for
       some hours longer in the mosques and citadel; but at length,
       seeing no chance of rescue, grounded their arms on the 7th of
       March. ... On the 10th--three days after their surrender--the
       prisoners were marched out of Jaffa, in the centre of a
       battalion under General Bon. When they had reached the
       sand-hills, at some distance from the town, they were divided
       into small parties, and shot or bayoneted to a man. They, like
       true fatalists, submitted in silence; and their bodies were
       gathered together into a pyramid, where, after the lapse of
       thirty years, their bones are still visible whitening the
       sand. Such was the massacre of Jaffa, which will ever form one
       of the darkest stains on the name of Napoleon. He admitted the
       fact himself;--and justified it on the double plea, that he
       could not afford soldiers to guard so many prisoners, and that
       he could not grant them the benefit of their parole, because
       they were the very men who had already been set free on such
       terms at' El-Arish. ...
    {1325}
       Buonaparte had now ascertained that the Pacha of Syria,
       Achmet-Djezzar, was at St. Jean D'Acre (so renowned in the
       history of the crusades), and determined to defend that place
       to extremity, with the forces which had already been assembled
       for the invasion of Egypt. He in vain endeavoured to seduce
       this ferocious chief from his allegiance to the Porte, by
       holding out the hope of a separate independent government,
       under the protection of France. The first of Napoleon's
       messengers returned without an answer; the second was put to
       death; and the army moved on Acre in all the zeal of revenge,
       while the necessary apparatus of a siege was ordered to be
       sent round by sea from Alexandria. Sir Sidney Smith was then
       cruising in the Levant with two British ships of the line, the
       Tigre and the Theseus; and, being informed by the Pacha of the
       approaching storm, hastened to support him, in the defence of
       Acre. Napoleon's vessels, conveying guns and stores from
       Egypt, fell into his hands, and he appeared off the town two
       days before the French army came in view of it. He had on
       board his ship Colonel Philippeaux, a French royalist of great
       talents (formerly Buonaparte's school-fellow at Brienne); and
       the Pacha willingly permitted the English commodore and this
       skilful ally to regulate for him, as far as was possible, the
       plan of his defence. The loss of his own heavy artillery, and
       the presence of two English ships, were inauspicious omens;
       yet Buonaparte doubted not that the Turkish garrison would
       shrink before his onset, and he instantly commenced the siege.
       He opened his trenches on the 18th of March. 'On that little
       town' said he to one of his generals, as they were standing
       together on an eminence, which still bears the name of Richard
       Cœur-de-Lion--'on yonder little town depends the fate of the
       East. Behold the Key of Constantinople, or of India.' ...
       Meanwhile a vast Mussulman army had been gathered among the
       mountains of Samaria, and was preparing to descend upon Acre,
       and attack the besiegers in concert with the garrison of
       Djezzar. Junot, with his division, marched to encounter them,
       and would have been overwhelmed by their numbers, had not
       Napoleon himself followed and rescued him (April 8) at
       Nazareth, where the splendid cavalry of the Orientals were, as
       usual, unable to resist the solid squares and well-directed
       musketry of the French. Kleber with another division, was in
       like manner endangered, and in like manner rescued by the
       general-in-chief at Mount Tabor (April 15). The Mussulmans
       dispersed on all hands; and Napoleon, returning to his siege,
       pressed it on with desperate assaults, day after day, in which
       his best soldiers were thinned, before the united efforts of
       Djezzar's gallantry, and the skill of his allies." On the 21st
       of May, when the siege had been prosecuted for more than two
       months, Napoleon commanded a final assault. "The plague had
       some time before this appeared in the camp; every day the
       ranks of his legions were thinned by this pestilence, as well
       as by the weapons of the defenders of Acre. The hearts of all
       men were quickly sinking. The Turkish fleet was at hand to
       reinforce Djezzar; and upon the utter failure of the attack of
       the 21st of May, Napoleon yielded to stern necessity, and
       began his retreat upon Jaffa. ... The name of Jaffa was
       already sufficiently stained; but fame speedily represented
       Napoleon as having now made it the scene of another atrocity,
       not less shocking than that of the massacre of the Turkish
       prisoners. The accusation, which for many years made so much
       noise throughout Europe, amounts to this: that on the 27th of
       May, when it was necessary for Napoleon to pursue his march
       from Jaffa for Egypt, a certain number of the plague-patients
       in the hospital were found to be in a state that held out no
       hope whatever of their recovery; that the general, being
       unwilling to leave them to the tender mercies of the Turks,
       conceived the notion of administering opium, and so procuring
       for them at least a speedy and an easy death; and that a
       number of men were accordingly taken off in this method by his
       command. ... Whether the opium was really administered or
       not--that the audacious proposal to that effect was made by
       Napoleon, we have his own admission; and every reader must
       form his opinion--as to the degree of guilt which attaches to
       the fact of having meditated and designed the deed. ... The
       march onwards was a continued scene of misery; for the wounded
       and the sick were many, the heat oppressive, the thirst
       intolerable; and the ferocious Djezzar was hard behind, and
       the wild Arabs of the desert hovered round them on every side,
       so that he who fell behind his company was sure to be slain.
       ... Having at length accomplished this perilous journey [June
       14], Buonaparte repaired to his old head-quarters at Cairo,
       and re-entered on his great functions as the establisher of a
       new government in the state of Egypt. But he had not long
       occupied himself thus, ere new rumours concerning the beys on
       the Upper Nile, who seemed to have some strong and urgent
       motive for endeavouring to force a passage downwards, began to
       be mingled with, and by degrees explained by, tidings daily
       repeated of some grand disembarkation of the Ottomans,
       designed to have place in the neighbourhood of Alexandria.
       Leaving Dessaix, therefore, once more in command at Cairo, he
       himself descended the Nile, and travelled with all speed to
       Alexandria, where he found his presence most necessary. For,
       in effect, the great Turkish fleet had already run into the
       bay of Aboukir; and an army of 18,000, having gained the
       fortress, were there strengthening themselves, with the view
       of awaiting the promised descent and junction of the
       Mamelukes, and then, with overwhelming superiority of numbers,
       advancing to Alexandria, and completing the ruin of the French
       invaders. Buonaparte, reaching Alexandria on the evening of
       the 24th of July, found his army already posted in the
       neighbourhood of Aboukir, and prepared to anticipate the
       attack of the Turks on the morrow. ... The Turkish outposts
       were assaulted early next morning, and driven in with great
       slaughter; but the French, when they advanced, came within the
       range of the batteries and also of the shipping that lay close
       by the shore, and were checked. Their retreat might have ended
       in a route, but for the undisciplined eagerness with which the
       Turks engaged in the task of spoiling and maiming those that
       fell before them--thus giving to Murat the opportunity of
       charging their main body in flank with his cavalry, at the
       moment when the French infantry, profiting by their disordered
       and scattered condition, and rallying under the eye of
       Napoleon, forced a passage to the entrenchments. From that
       moment the battle was a massacre. ... Six thousand surrendered
       at discretion: 12,000 perished on the field or in the sea. ...
       Napoleon once more returned to Cairo on the 9th of August; but
       it was only to make some parting arrangements as to the
       administration, civil and military; for, from the moment of
       his victory at Aboukir, he had resolved to entrust Egypt to
       other hands, and Admiral Gantheaume was already preparing in
       secret the means of his removal to France."

          J. G. Lockhart,
          Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          Duke of Rovigo,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapters 9-11.

          Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
          volume 2.

          Letters from the army of Bonaparte in Egypt.

          M. de Bourrienne,
          Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 1. chapter 15-23.

    {1326}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (April-September).
          Murder of the French envoys at Rastadt.
          Disasters in North Italy.
          Suwarroff's victories.
          Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland and
          capture of the Dutch Fleet.

       "While the French armies were thus humiliated in the field,
       the representatives of the republic at the congress of Rastadt
       [where peace negotiations with the states of the empire had
       been in progress for months] became the victims of a
       sanguinary tragedy. As France had declared war against the
       emperor [as sovereign of Austria], and not against the empire,
       the congress had not necessarily been broken off; but the
       representatives of the German states were withdrawn one after
       another, until the successes of the Austrians rendered the
       position of the French ministers no longer secure. At length
       they received notice, from the nearest Austrian commander, to
       depart within twenty-four hours; and the French
       ministers--Jean Debry, Bonnier, and Roberjeot--left Rastadt
       with their families and attendants late in the evening of the
       8th of Floréal (the 28th of April). The night was very dark,
       and they appear to have been apprehensive of danger. At a very
       short distance from Rastadt they were surrounded by a troop of
       Austrian hussars, who stopped the carriages, dragged the three
       ministers out, and massacred them in the presence of their
       wives and children. The hussars then plundered the carriages,
       and took away, especially, all the papers. Fortunately for
       Jean Debry, he had been stunned, but not mortally wounded; and
       after the murderers were gone the cold air of the night
       restored him to life. This crime was supposed to have been
       perpetrated at the instigation of the imperial court, for
       reasons which have not been very clearly explained; but the
       representatives of the German states proclaimed loudly their
       indignation. The reverses of the republican arms, and the
       tragedy of Rastadt, were eagerly embraced by the opposition in
       France as occasions for raising a violent outcry against the
       directory. ... It was in the midst of this general
       unpopularity of the directors that the elections of the year
       VII. of the republic took place, and a great majority of the
       patriots obtained admission to the councils, and thus
       increased the numerical force of the opposition. ... The
       directory had made great efforts to repair the reverses which
       had marked the opening of the campaign. Jourdain had been
       deprived of the command of the army of the Danube, which had
       been placed, along with that of Switzerland, under the orders
       of Masséna. The command of the army of Italy had been
       transferred from Scherer to Moreau; and Macdonald had received
       orders to withdraw his forces from Naples and the papal
       states, in order to unite them with the army in Upper Italy.
       The Russians under Suwarrow had now joined the Austrian army
       in Italy; and this chief, who was in the height of his
       reputation as a military leader, was made commander-in-chief
       of the combined Austro-Russian forces, Melas commanding the
       Austrians under him. Suwarrow advanced rapidly upon the Adda,
       which protected the French lines; and, on the 8th of Floreal
       (the 27th of April), forced the passage of that river in two
       places, at Brivio and Trezzo, above and below the position
       occupied by the division of Serrurier, which formed the French
       left, and which was thus cut off from the rest of the army.
       Moreau, who took the command of the French forces on the
       evening of the same day, made a vain attempt to drive the
       enemy back over the Adda at Trezzo, and thus recover his
       communication with Serrurier; and that division was
       surrounded, and, after a desperate resistance, obliged to lay
       down its arms, with the exception of a small number of men who
       made their way across the mountains into Piedmont. Victor's
       division effected its retreat without much loss, and Moreau
       concentrated his forces in the neighbourhood of Milan. This
       disastrous engagement, which took place on the 9th of Floreal,
       was known as the battle of Cassano. Moreau remained at Milan
       two days to give the members of the government of the
       Cisalpine republic, and all the Milanese families who were
       politically compromised, time to make their escape in his
       rear; after which he continued his retreat. ... He was allowed
       to make this retreat without any serious interruption; for
       Suwarrow, instead of pursuing him actively, lost his time at
       Milan in celebrating the triumph of the anti-revolutionary
       party." Moreau first "established his army in a strong
       position at the confluence of the Tanaro and the Po, covered
       by both rivers, and commanding all the roads to Genoa; so that
       he could there, without great danger, wait the arrival of
       Macdonald." But soon, finding his position made critical by a
       general insurrection in Piedmont, he retired towards the
       mountains of Genoa. "On the 6th of Prairial (the 25th of May),
       Macdonald was at Florence; but he lost much time there; and it
       was only towards the end of the republican month (the middle
       of June), that he at length advanced into the plains of
       Piacenza to form his junction with Moreau." On the Trebbia he
       encountered Suwarrow's advance, under General Ott, and rashly
       attacked it. Having forced back Ott's advanced guard, the
       French suddenly found themselves confronted by Suwarrow
       himself and the main body of his army. "Macdonald now resolved
       to unite all his forces behind the Trebbia, and there risk a
       battle; but he was anticipated by Suwarrow, who attacked him
       next morning, and, after a very severe and sanguinary
       engagement, the French were driven over the Trebbia. The
       combat was continued next day, and ended again to the
       disadvantage of the French; and their position had become so
       critical, that Macdonald found it necessary to retreat upon
       the river Nura, and to make his way round the Apennines to
       Genoa. The French, closely pursued, experienced considerable
       loss in their retreat, until Suwarrow, hearing Moreau's cannon
       in his rear, discontinued the pursuit, in order to meet him."
       Moreau routed Bellegarde, in Suwarrow's rear, and took 3,000
       prisoners; but no further collision of importance occurred
       during the next two months of the summer.
    {1327}
       "Suwarrow had been prevented by the orders of the Aulic
       Council from following up with vigour his victory on the
       Trebbia, and had been obliged to occupy himself with sieges
       which employed with little advantage valuable time. Recruits
       were reaching the French armies in Italy, and they were
       restored to a state of greater efficiency. It was already the
       month of Thermidor (the middle of July), and Moreau saw the
       necessity of assuming the offensive and attacking the
       Austro-Russians while they were occupied with the sieges; but
       he was restrained by the orders of the directory to wait the
       arrival of Joubert. The latter, who had just contracted an
       advantageous marriage, by which the moderate party had hoped
       to attach him to their cause, lost an entire month in the
       celebration of his nuptial festivities, and only reached the
       army of Italy in the middle of Thermidor (the beginning of
       August), where he immediately succeeded Moreau in the command;
       but he prevailed upon that able general to remain with him, at
       least until after his first battle. The French army had taken
       a good position in advance of Novi, and were preparing to act
       against the enemy while he was still occupied in the sieges,
       when news arrived that Alessandria and Mantua had surrendered,
       and that Suwarrow was preparing to unite against them the
       whole strength of his forces. Joubert immediately resolved to
       fall back upon the Apennines, and there act upon the
       defensive; but it was already too late, for Suwarrow had
       advanced with such rapidity that he was forced to accept
       battle in the position he occupied, which was a very strong
       one. The battle began early in the morning of the 28th of
       Thermidor (the 15th of August); and very early in the action
       Joubert received a mortal wound from a ball which struck him
       near the heart. The engagement continued with great fury
       during the greater part of the day, but ended in the entire
       defeat of the French, who retreated from the field of battle
       in great confusion. The French lost about 10,000 men in killed
       and wounded, and a great number of prisoners. The news of this
       reverse was soon followed by disastrous intelligence from
       another quarter. The English had prepared an expedition
       against Holland, which was to be assisted by a detachment of
       Russian troops. The English forces, under Abercromby, landed
       near the mouth of the Helder in North Holland, on the 10th of
       Fructidor (the 27th of August), and defeated the French and
       Dutch republican army, commanded by Brune, in a decisive
       engagement [at the English camp, established on a well-drained
       morass, called the Zyp] on the 22nd of Fructidor (the 8th of
       September). Brune retreated upon Amsterdam; and the Russian
       contingent was thus enabled to effect its junction with the
       English without opposition. As one of the first consequences
       of this invasion, the English obtained possession of the whole
       Dutch fleet, upon the assistance of which the French
       government had counted in its designs against England. This
       succession of ill news excited the revolutionary party to a
       most unusual degree of violence."

          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          book 6, chapters 22-23 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Spalding,
          Suvóroff,
          chapters 7-8.

          L. M. P. de Laverne,
          Life of Field-Marshal Souvarof,
          chapter 6.

          E. Vehse,
          Memoirs of the Court of Austria,
          chapter 15, section 2 (volume 2).

          J. Adolphus,
          History of England: Reign of George III.,
          chapter 108 (volume 7).

          Gen. Sir H. Bunbury,
          Narratives of the Great War with France,
          pages 1-58.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (August-December).
       Campaign in Switzerland.
       Battle of Zurich.
       Defeat of the Russians.
       Suwarroff's retreat across the Alps.
       Reverses in Italy, and on the Rhine.
       Fall of the Parthenopean and Roman Republics.

       Since the retreat of Massena in June, the Archduke Charles had
       been watching the French on the Limmat and expecting the
       arrival of Russian reinforcements under Korsakoff; "but the
       Aulic Council, with unaccountable infatuation, ordered him at
       this important juncture to repair with the bulk of his army to
       the Rhine, leaving Switzerland to Korsakoff and the Russians.
       Before these injudicious orders, however, could be carried
       into effect, Massena had boldly assumed the offensive (August
       14) by a false attack on Zurich, intended to mask the
       operations of his right wing, which meanwhile, under Lecourbe,
       was directed against the St. Gothard, in order to cut off the
       communication between the allied forces in Switzerland and in
       Italy. These attacks proved completely successful, ... a
       French detachment ... seizing the St. Gothard, and
       establishing itself at Airolo, on the southern declivity.
       Lecourbe's left had meanwhile cleared the banks of the lake of
       Zurich of the enemy, who were driven back into Glarus. To
       obtain these brilliant successes on the right, Massena had
       been obliged to weaken his left wing; and the Archduke, now
       reinforced by 20, 000 Russians, attempted to avail himself of
       this circumstance to force the passage of the Limmat, below
       Zurich (August 16 and 17); but this enterprise, the success of
       which might have altered the fate of the war, failed from the
       defective construction of the pontoons; and the positive
       orders of the Aulic Council forbade his remaining longer in
       Switzerland. Accordingly, leaving 25,000 men under Hotze to
       support Korsakoff, he marched for the Upper Rhine, where the
       French, at his approach, abandoned the siege of Philipsburg,
       and retired to Mannheim; but this important post, the defences
       of which were imperfectly restored, was carried by a
       coup-de-main (September 18), and the French driven with severe
       loss over the Rhine. But this success was dearly bought by the
       disasters in Switzerland, which followed the Archduke's
       departure. It had been arranged that Suwarroff was to move
       from Bellinzona (September 21), and after retaking the St.
       Gothard combine with Korsakoff in a front attack on Massena,
       while Hotze assailed him in flank. But Massena, who was now
       the superior in numbers, determined to anticipate the arrival
       of Suwarroff by striking a blow, for which the presumptuous
       confidence of Korsakoff gave him increased facility. On the
       evening of 24th September, the passage of the river was
       surprised below Zurich, and the heights of Closter-Fahr
       carried by storm; and, in the course of the next day,
       Korsakoff, with his main army, was completely hemmed in at
       Zurich by the superior generalship of the French commander,
       who summoned the Russians to surrender. But the bravery shown
       by Korsakoff in these desperate circumstances equalled his
       former arrogance: on the 28th the Russian columns, issuing
       from the town, forced their way with the courage of despair
       through the surrounding masses of French, while a slender
       rear-guard defended the ramparts of Zurich till the remainder
       had extricated themselves.
    {1328}
       The town was at length entered, and a frightful carnage ensued
       in the streets, in the midst of which the illustrious Lavater
       was barbarously shot by a French soldier: while Korsakoff,
       after losing 8,000 killed and wounded, 5,000 prisoners, 100
       pieces of cannon, and all his ammunition, stores, and military
       chest, succeeded in reaching Schaffhausen. The attack of Soult
       above the lake (September 25) was equally triumphant. The
       gallant Hotze, who commanded in that quarter, was killed in
       the first encounter; and the Austrians, giving way in
       consternation, were driven over the Thur, and at length over
       the Rhine, with the loss of 20 guns and 3,000 prisoners.
       Suwarroff in the meantime was gallantly performing his part of
       the plan. On the 23d of September, the French posts at Airolo
       and St. Gothard were carried, after a desperate resistance, by
       the Russian main force, while their flank was turned by
       Rosenberg; and Lecourbe, hastily retreating, broke down the
       Devil's Bridge to check the advance of the enemy. A scene of
       useless butchery followed, the two parties firing on each
       other from the opposite brinks of the impassable abyss; but
       the flank of the French was at length turned, the bridge
       repaired, and the Russians, pressing on in triumph, joined the
       Austrian division of Auffenberg, at Wasen, and repulsed the
       French beyond Altdorf. But this was the limit of the old
       marshal's success. After effecting with severe loss the
       passage of the tremendous defiles and ridges of the
       Schachenthal, between Altdorf and Mutten, he found that Linken
       and Jellachich, who were to have moved from Coire to
       co-operate with him, had again retreated on learning the
       disaster at Zurich; and Suwarroff found himself in the midst
       of the enemy, with Massena on one side and Molitor on the
       other. With the utmost difficulty the veteran conqueror was
       prevailed upon, for the first time in his life, to order a
       retreat; which had become indispensable, and the heads of his
       columns were turned towards Glarus and the Grisons. But though
       the attack of Massena on their rear in the Muttenthal was
       repulsed with the loss of 2,000 men, their onward route was
       barred at Naefels by Molitor, who defied all the efforts of
       Prince Bagrathion to dislodge him; and in the midst of a heavy
       fall of snow, which obliterated the mountain paths, the
       Russian army wound its way (October 5) in single file over the
       rugged and sterile peaks of the Alps of Glarus. Numbers
       perished of cold, or fell over the precipices; but nothing
       could overcome the unconquerable spirit of the soldiers:
       without fire or stores, and compelled to bivouac on the snow,
       they still struggled on through incredible hardships, till the
       dreadful march terminated (October 10) at Ilantz. Such was the
       famous, passage of the Alps by Suwarroff. Korsakoff in the
       meanwhile (October 1-7) had maintained a desperate conflict
       near Constance, till the return of the Archduke checked the
       efforts of the French; and the Allies, abandoning the St.
       Gothard, and all the other posts they still held in
       Switzerland, concentrated their forces on the Rhine, which
       became the boundary of the two armies. ... In Italy, after the
       disastrous battle of Novi, the Directory had given the
       leadership of the armies, both of Italy and Savoy, to the
       gallant Championnet, but he could muster only 54,000 troops
       and 6,000 raw conscripts to oppose Melas, who had succeeded
       Suwarroff in the command, and who had 68,000, besides his
       garrisons and detachments. The proposition of Championnet had
       been to fall back, with his army still entire, to the other
       side of the Alps: but his orders were positive to attempt the
       relief of Coni, then besieged by the Austrians; and after a
       desultory warfare for several weeks, he commenced a decisive
       movement for that purpose at the end of October, with 35,000
       men. But before the different French columns could effect a
       junction, they were separately assailed by Melas: the
       divisions of Grenier and Victor were overwhelmed at Genola
       (November 4), and defeated with the loss of 7,000 men; and
       though St. Cyr repulsed the Imperialists (November 10) on the
       plateau of Novi, Coni was left to its fate, and surrendered
       with all its garrison (December 4). An epidemic disorder broke
       out in the French army, to which Championnet himself, and
       numerous soldiers, fell victims: the troops giving way to
       despair, abandoned their standards by hundreds and returned to
       France; and it was with difficulty that the eloquent
       exhortations of St. Cyr succeeded in keeping together a
       sufficient number to defend the Bochetta pass, in front of
       Genoa, the loss of which would have entailed destruction on
       the whole army. The discomfited Republicans were driven back
       on their own frontiers; and, excepting Genoa, the tricolor
       flag was everywhere expelled from Italy. At the same time the
       campaign on the Rhine was drawing to a close. The army of
       Massena was not strong enough to follow up the brilliant
       success at Zurich, and the jealousies of the Austrians and
       Russians, who mutually laid on each other the blame of the
       late disasters, prevented their acting cordially in concert
       against him. Suwarroff at length, in a fit of exasperation,
       drew off his troops to winter quarters in Bavaria, and took no
       further share in the war; and a fruitless attempt in November
       against Philipsburg, by Lecourbe, who had been transferred to
       the command on the lower Rhine, closed the operations in that
       quarter."

          Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
          sections 245-251
          (chapter 28, volume 7 of complete work).

       Meantime, the French had been entirely expelled from southern
       Italy. On the withdrawal of Macdonald, with most of his army,
       from Naples, "Cardinal Ruffo, a soldier, churchman, and
       politician, put himself at the head of a numerous body of
       insurgents, and commenced war against such French troops as
       had been left in the south and in the middle of Italy. This
       movement was actively supported by the British fleet. Lord
       Nelson recovered Naples; Rome surrendered to Commodore
       Trowbridge. Thus the Parthenopean and Roman republics were
       extinguished forever. The royal family returned to Naples, and
       that fine city and country were once more a kingdom. Rome, the
       capital of the world, was occupied by Neapolitan troops."

          Sir W. Scott,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 38.

          ALSO IN:
          L. M. P. de Laverne,
          Life of Souvarof,
          chapter 6.

          H. Spalding,
          Suvoroff.

          P. Colletta,
          History of the Kingdom of Naples,
          book 4, chapter 2 and book 5,
          chapters 1-2 (volume 1).

          T. J. Pettigrew,
          Memoirs of Lord Nelson,
          volume 1, chapters 8-9.

    {1329}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (September-October).
       Disastrous ending of the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.
       Capitulation of the Duke of York.
       Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.

       "It is very obvious that the Duke of York was selected in an
       unlucky hour to be the commander-in-chief of this
       Anglo-Russian expedition, when we compare the time in which
       Abercrombie was alone on the marshy promontory of the Helder
       ... with the subsequent period. On the 10th of September
       Abercrombie successfully repulsed the attack of General Brune,
       who had come for the purpose from Haarlem to Alkmar; on the
       19th the Duke of York landed, and soon ruined everything. The
       first division of the Russians had at length arrived on the
       15th, under the command of General Herrmann, for whom it was
       originally destined, although unhappily it afterwards came
       into the hands of General Korsakoff. The duke therefore
       thought he might venture on a general attack on the 19th. In
       this attack Herrmann led the right wing, which was formed by
       the Russians, and Abercrombie, with whom was the Prince of
       Orange, the left, whilst the centre was left to the Duke of
       York, the commander-in-chief. This decisive battle was fought
       at Bergen, a place situated to the north of Alkmar. The
       combined army was victorious on both wings; and Horn, on the
       Zuyder Zee, was occupied; the Duke of York, who was only a
       general for parades and reviews, merely indulged the centre
       with a few manœuvres hither and thither. ... The Russians,
       therefore, who were left alone in impassible marshes,
       traversed by ditches, and unknown to their officers, lost many
       men, and were at length surrounded, and even their general
       taken prisoner. The duke concerned himself very little about
       the Russians, and had long before prudently retired into his
       trenches; and, as the Russians were lost, Abercrombie and the
       Crown Prince were obliged to relinquish Horn." The incapacity
       of the commander-in-chief held the army paralyzed during the
       fortnight following, suffering from sickness and want, while
       it would still have been practicable to push forward to South
       Holland. "A series of bloody engagements took place from the
       2nd till the 6th of October, and the object of the attack upon
       the whole line of the French and Batavian army would have been
       attained had Abercrombie alone commanded. The English and
       Russians, who call this the battle of Alkmar, were
       indisputably victorious in the engagements of the 2nd and 3rd
       of October. They even drove the enemy before them to the
       neighbourhood of Haarlem, after having taken possession of
       Alkmar; but on the 6th, Brune, who owes his otherwise very
       moderate military renown to this engagement alone, having
       received a reinforcement of some thousands on the 4th and 5th,
       renewed the battle. The fighting on this day took place at
       Castricum, on a narrow strip of land between the sea and the
       lake of Haarlem, a position favourable to the French. The
       French report is, as usual, full of the boasts of a splendid
       victory; the English, however, remained in possession of the
       field, and did not retire to their trenches behind Alkmar and
       to the marshes of Zyp till the 7th. ... In not more than eight
       days afterwards, the want in the army and the anxiety of its
       incapable commander-in-chief became so great, the number of
       the sick increased so rapidly, and the fear of the
       difficulties of embarkation in winter so grew and spread, that
       the duke accepted the most shameful capitulation that had ever
       been offered to an English general, except at Saratoga. This
       capitulation, concluded on the 19th of October, was only
       granted because the English, by destroying the dykes, had it
       in their power to ruin the country."

          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the Eighteenth Century,
          volume 7, pages 149-151.

       "For the failure in accomplishing the great objects of
       emancipating Holland and restoring its legitimate ruler; for
       the clamorous joy with which her enemies, foreign and
       domestic, hailed the event; the government of Great Britain
       had many consolations. ... The Dutch fleet, which, in the
       hands of an enterprising enemy, might have been so injuriously
       employed, was a capture of immense importance: if Holland was
       ever to become a friend and ally, we had abundant means of
       promoting her prosperity and re-establishing her greatness; if
       an enemy, her means of injury and hopes of rivalship were
       effectually suppressed. Her East-India Company, ... long the
       rival of our own in power and prosperity, whose dividends in
       some years had risen to the amount of 40 per cent., now
       finally closed its career, making a paltry final payment in
       part of the arrears of dividends for the present and three
       preceding years."

          J. Adolphus,
          History of England: Reign of George III.,
          chapter 109 (volume 7).

          ALSO IN:
          G. R. Gleig,
          Life of General Sir R. Abercromby
          (Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (November).
       Return of Bonaparte from Egypt.
       The first Napoleonic Coup d'État.
       Revolution of the 18th Brumaire.
       End of the First Republic.
       Creation of the Consulate.

       "When Bonaparte, by means of the bundle of papers which Sidney
       Smith caused to find their way through the French lines,
       learned the condition of affairs in Europe, there was but one
       course consistent with his character for him to pursue. There
       was nothing more to be done in Egypt; there was everything to
       be done in France. If he were to lead his army back, even in
       case he should, by some miracle, elude the eager eyes of Lord
       Nelson, the act would be generally regarded as a confession of
       disaster. If he were to remain with the army, he could, at
       best, do nothing but pursue a purely defensive policy; and if
       the army were to be overwhelmed, it was no part of Napoleonism
       to be involved in the disaster. ... It would be far shrewder
       to throw the responsibility of the future of Egypt on another,
       and to transfer himself to the field that was fast ripening
       for the coveted harvest. Of course Bonaparte, under such
       circumstances, did not hesitate as to which course to pursue.
       Robbing the army of such good officers as survived, he left it
       in command of the only one who had dared to raise his voice in
       opposition to the work of the 18th Fructidor ... the heroic
       but indignant Kléber. Was there ever a more exquisite revenge?
       ... On the arrival of Bonaparte in Paris everything seemed
       ready to his hand. ... The policy which, in the seizure of
       Switzerland and the Papal States, he had taken pains to
       inaugurate before his departure for Egypt had borne its
       natural fruit. As never before in the history of Europe,
       England, Holland, Russia, Austria, Naples, and even Turkey had
       joined hands in a common cause, and as a natural consequence
       the Directory had been defeated at every point. Nor was it
       unnatural for the people to attribute all these disasters to
       the inefficiency of the government. The Directory had really
       fallen into general contempt, and at the new election on the
       30th Prairial it had been practically overthrown.
    {1330}
       Rewbell, who by his influence had stood at the head of
       affairs, had been obliged to give way," and Sieyès had been
       put in his place. "By the side of this fantastic statesman ...
       Barras had been retained, probably for no other reason than
       that he was sure to be found with the majority, while the
       other members, Gohier, Moulins, and Roger-Ducos were men from
       whose supposed mediocrity no very decided opposition could be
       anticipated. Thus the popular party was not only revenged for
       the outrages of Fructidor, but it had also made up the new
       Directory of men who seemed likely to be nothing but clay in
       the hands of Bonaparte. ... The manner in which the General
       was received can have left no possible doubt remaining in his
       mind as to the strength of his hold on the hearts of the
       people. It must have been apparent to all that he needed but
       to declare himself, in order to secure a well-nigh unanimous
       support and following of the masses. But with the political
       leaders the case, for obvious reasons, was far different. ...
       His popularity was so overwhelming, that in his enmity the
       leaders could anticipate nothing but annihilation, in his
       friendship nothing but insignificance. ... The member of the
       government who, at the time, wielded most influence, was
       Sieyès, a man to whom personally the General had so
       unconquerable an aversion, that Josephine was accustomed to
       refer to him as her husband's béte noir. It was evident that
       Sieyès was the most formidable obstacle to the General's
       advance." As a first movement, Bonaparte endeavored to bring
       about the removal of Sieyès from the Directory and his own
       election to the place. Failing this, his party attempted the
       immediate creation of a dictatorship. When that, too, was
       found impracticable, Sieyès was persuaded to a reconciliation
       and alliance with the ambitious soldier, and the two, at a
       meeting, planned the proceedings "which led to that dark day
       in French history known as the 18th Brumaire [November 9,
       1799]. It remained only to get absolute control of the
       military forces, a task at that time in no way difficult. The
       officers who had returned with Bonaparte from Egypt were
       impatient to follow wherever their master might lead. Moreau,
       who, since the death of Hoche, was regarded as standing next
       to Bonaparte in military ability, was not reluctant to cast in
       his lot with the others, and Macdonald as well as Serurier
       soon followed his example. Bernadotte alone would yield to
       neither flattery nor intimidation. ... While Bonaparte was
       thus marshalling his forces in the Rue de la Victoire, the way
       was opening in the Councils. A commission of the Ancients,
       made up of the leading conspirators, had worked all night
       drawing up the proposed articles, in order that in the morning
       the Council might have nothing to do but to vote them. The
       meeting was called for seven o'clock, and care was taken not
       to notify those members whose opposition there was reason to
       fear. ... The articles were adopted without discussion. Those
       present voted, first, to remove the sessions of the Councils
       from Paris to Saint Cloud (a privilege which the constitution
       conferred upon the Ancients alone), thus putting them at once
       beyond the power of influencing the populace and of standing
       in the way of Bonaparte. They then passed a decree giving to
       Bonaparte the command of the military forces, at the same time
       inviting him to come to the Assembly for the purpose of taking
       the oath of allegiance to the Constitution." Bonaparte
       appeared, accordingly, before the Council; but instead of
       taking an oath of allegiance to the constitution, he made a
       speech which he closed by declaring: "We want a Republic
       founded on true liberty and national representation. We will
       have it, I swear; I swear it in my own name and that of my
       companions in arms." "Thus the mockery of the oath-taking in
       the Council of Ancients was accomplished. The General had now
       a more difficult part to perform in the Council of Five
       Hundred. As the meeting of the Assembly was not to occur until
       twelve o'clock of the following day, Bonaparte made use of the
       intervening time in posting his forces and in disposing of the
       Directory. ... There was one locality in the city where it was
       probable aggressive force would be required. The Luxembourg
       was the seat of the Directory, and the Directory must at all
       hazards be crushed. ... Bonaparte knew well how to turn all
       such ignominious service to account. In close imitation of
       that policy which had left Kleber in Egypt, he placed the
       Luxembourg in charge of the only man in the nation who could
       now be regarded as his rival for popular favor. Moreau fell
       into the snare, and by so doing lost a popularity which he was
       never afterwards able to regain. Having thus placed his
       military forces, Bonaparte turned his attention to the
       Directors. The resignations of Sieyès and of Roger-Ducos he
       already had upon his table. It remained only to procure the
       others. Barras, without warning, was confronted by Talleyrand
       and Bruix, who asked him without circumlocution to resign his
       office," which he did, after slight hesitation. Gohier and
       Moulins were addressed by Bonaparte in person, but firmly
       resisted his importunities and his threats. They were then
       made prisoners by Moreau. "The night of the 18th passed in
       comparative tranquillity. The fact that there was no organized
       resistance is accounted for by Lanfrey with a single mournful
       statement, that 'nothing of the kind could be expected of a
       nation that had been decapitated. All the men of rank in
       France for the previous ten years, either by character or
       genius or virtue, had been mown down, first by the scaffolds
       and proscriptions, next by war.'" On the morrow, the 19th of
       Brumaire (November 10) the sitting of the two councils began
       at two o'clock. In the Council of Five Hundred the partisans
       of Bonaparte were less numerous than in that of the Ancients,
       and a powerful indignation at the doings of the previous day
       began quickly to show itself. In the midst of a warm debate
       upon the resignation of Barras, which had just been received,
       "the door was opened, and Bonaparte, surrounded by his
       grenadiers, entered the hall. A burst of indignation at once
       arose. Every member sprang to his feet. 'What is this?' they
       cried, 'swords here! armed men! Away! we will have no dictator
       here.' Then some of the deputies, bolder than the others,
       surrounded Bonaparte and overwhelmed him with invectives. 'You
       are violating the sanctity of the laws; what are you doing,
       rash man?' exclaimed Bigonnet. 'Is it for this that you have
       conquered?' demanded Destrem, advancing towards him. Others
       seized him by the collar of his coat, and, shaking him
       violently, reproached him with treason. This reception, though
       the General had come with the purpose of intimidating the
       Assembly, fairly overwhelmed him.
    {1331}
       Eye-witnesses declare that he turned pale, and fell fainting
       into the arms of his soldiers, who drew him out of the hall."
       His brother Lucien, who was President of the Council, showed
       better nerve. By refusing to put motions that were made to
       vote, and finally by resigning his office and quitting the
       chair, he threw the Council into confusion. Then, appearing to
       the troops outside, who supposed him to be still President of
       the Council, he harangued them and summoned them to clear the
       chamber. "The grenadiers poured into the hall. A last cry of
       'Vive la République' was raised, and a moment later the hall
       was empty. Thus the crime of the conspirators was consummated,
       and the First French Republic was at an end. After this action
       it remained only to put into the hands of Bonaparte the
       semblance of regular authority. ... A phantom of the Council
       of Five Hundred--Cornet, one of them, says 30 members--met in
       the evening and voted the measures which had been previously
       agreed upon by the conspirators. Bonaparte, Sieyès, and
       Roger-Ducos were appointed provisional consuls; 57 members of
       the Council who had been most prominent in their opposition
       were excluded from their seats; a list of proscriptions was
       prepared; two commissioners chosen from the assemblies were
       appointed to assist the consuls in their work of organization;
       and, finally, ... they adjourned the legislative body until
       the 20th of February."

          C. K. Adams,
          Democracy and Monarchy in France,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon I.

          A. Thiers,
          History of the French Revolution
          (American edition), volume 4, pages 407-430.

          M. de Bourrienne,
          Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume l, chapter 24-27.

          Count Miot de Melito,
          Memoirs,
          chapter 9.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (November-December).
       The constitution of the consulate.
       Bonaparte as First Consul.

       "During the three months which followed the 18th Brumaire,
       approbation and expectation were general. A provisional
       government had been appointed, composed of three consuls,
       Bonaparte, Siéyes, and Roger-Ducos, with two legislative
       commissioners, entrusted to prepare the constitution and a
       definitive order of things. The consuls and the two
       commissioners were installed on the 21st Brumaire. This
       provisional government abolished the law respecting hostages
       and compulsory loans; it permitted the return of the priests
       proscribed since the 18th Fructidor; it released from prison
       and sent out of the republic the emigrants who had been
       ship-wrecked on the coast of Calais, and who for four years
       were captives in France, and were exposed to the heavy
       punishment of the emigrant army. All these measures were very
       favourably received. But public opinion revolted at a
       proscription put in force against the extreme republicans.
       Thirty-six of them were sentenced to transportation to Guiana,
       and twenty-one were put under serveillance in the department
       of Charante-Inférieure, merely by a decree of the consuls on
       the report of Fouché, minister of police. The public viewed
       unfavourably all who attacked the government, but at the same
       time it exclaimed against an act so arbitrary and unjust. The
       consuls, accordingly, recoiled before their own act; they
       first commuted transportation into surveillance, and soon
       withdrew surveillance itself. It was not long before a rupture
       broke out between the authors of the 18th Brumaire. During
       their provisional authority it did not create much noise,
       because it took place in the legislative commissions. The new
       constitution was the cause of it. Siéyes and Bonaparte could
       not agree on this subject: the former wished to institute
       France, the latter to govern it as a master. ... Bonaparte
       took part in the deliberations of the constituent committee,
       with his instinct of power, he seized upon everything in the
       ideas of Siéyes which was calculated to serve his projects,
       and caused the rest to be rejected. ... On the 24th of
       December, 1799 (Nivose, year VIII.), forty-five days after the
       18th Brumaire, was published the constitution of the year
       VIII.; it was composed of the wrecks of that of Siéyes, now
       become a constitution of servitude."

          F. A. Mignet,
          History of the French Revolution,
          chapter 14.

       "The new constitution was still republic in name and
       appearance, but monarchical in fact, the latter concealed, by
       the government being committed, not to the hand of one
       individual, but of three. The three persons so fixed upon were
       denominated consuls, and appointed for ten years;--one of
       them, however, was really ruler, although he only obtained the
       modest name of First Consul. The rights which Bonaparte caused
       to be given to himself made all the rest nothing more than
       mere deception. The First Consul was to invite the others
       merely to consultation on affairs of state, whilst he himself,
       either immediately or through the senate, was to appoint to
       all places of trust and authority, to decide absolutely upon
       questions of peace or war, and to be assisted by a council of
       state. ... In order to cover and conceal the power of the
       First Consul, especially in reference to the appointment of
       persons to offices of trust and authority, a senate was
       created, which neither belonged to the people nor to the
       government, but immediately from the very beginning was an
       assembly of courtiers and placemen, and at a later period
       became the mere tool of every kind of despotism, by rendering
       it easy to dispense with the legislative body. The senate
       consisted of eighty members, a part of whom were to be
       immediately nominated from the lists of notability, and the
       senate to fill up its own body from persons submitted to them
       by the First Consul, the tribunate, and the legislative body.
       Each senator was to have a salary of 25,000 f.; their meetings
       were not public, and their business very small. From the
       national lists the senate was also to select consuls,
       legislators, tribunes, and judges of the Court of Cassation.
       Large lists were first presented to the communes, on which,
       according to Roederer, there stood some 500,000 names, out of
       which the communes selected 50,000 for the departmental lists,
       from which again 5,000 were to be chosen for the national
       list. From these 5,000 names, selected from the departmental
       list, or from what was termed the national list, the senate
       was afterwards to elect the members of the legislature and the
       high officers of government. The legislature was to consist of
       two chambers, the tribunate and the legislative body--the
       former composed of 100, and the latter of 300 members. The
       chambers had no power of taking the initiative, that is, they
       were obliged to wait till bills were submitted to them, and
       could of themselves originate nothing: they were, however,
       permitted to express wishes of all kinds to the government.
       Each bill (projet de loi) was introduced into the tribunate by
       three members of the council of state, and there defended by
       them, because the tribunate alone had the right of discussion,
       whilst the mere power of saying Yea or Nay was conferred upon
       the members of the legislative body.
    {1332}
       The tribunate, having accepted the bill, sent three of its
       members, accompanied by the members from the council of state,
       to defend the measure in the assembly of the legislative body.
       Every year one-fifth of the members of the legislative body
       was to retire from office, being, however, always re-eligible
       as long as their names remained on the national list. The
       sittings of the legislative body alone were public, because
       they were only permitted to be silent listeners to the
       addresses of the tribunes or councillors of state, and to
       assent to, or dissent from, the proposed law. Not above 100
       persons were, however, allowed to be present as auditors; the
       sittings were not allowed to continue longer than four months;
       both chambers, however, might be summoned to an extraordinary
       sitting. ... When the constitution was ready to be brought
       into operation, Sieyes terminated merely as he had begun, and
       Bonaparte saw with pleasure that he showed himself both
       contemptible and venal. He became a dumb senator, with a
       yearly income of 25,000 f.; and obtained 800,000 f. from the
       directorial treasury, whilst Roger Ducos was obliged to go
       away contented with a douceur of 120,000 f.; and, last of all,
       Sieyes condescended to accept from Bonaparte a present of the
       national domain of Crosne, which he afterwards exchanged for
       another estate. For colleagues in his new dignity Bonaparte
       selected very able and skilful men, but wholly destitute of
       all nobility of mind, and to whom it never once occurred to
       offer him any opposition; these were Cambacérès and Lebrun.
       The former, a celebrated lawyer, although formerly a vehement
       Jacobin, impatiently waited till Bonaparte brought forth again
       all the old plunder; and then, covered with orders, he
       strutted up and down the Palais Royal like a peacock, and
       exhibited himself as a show. Lebrun, who was afterwards
       created a duke, at a later period distinguished himself by
       being the first to revive the use of hair powder; in fact, he
       was completely a child and partisan of the olden times,
       although for a time he had played the part of a Girondist. ...
       As early as the 25th and 26th of December the First Consul took
       up his abode in the Tuileries. There the name of citizen
       altogether disappeared, for the consul's wife caused herself
       again to be addressed as Madame. Everything which concerned
       the government now began to assume full activity, and the
       adjourned legislative councils were summoned for the 1st of
       January, in order that they might be dissolved."

          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the Eighteenth Century,
          volume 7, pages 189-192.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon I.,
          volume 1, chapters 13-14.

          A. Thiers,
          History of the Consulate and Empire,
          books 1-2 (volume 1).

          H. C. Lockwood,
          Constitutional History of France,
          chapter 2 and appendix 4.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1800.
       Convention with the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (January-June).
       Affairs in Egypt.
       The repudiated Treaty of El Arish.
       Kléber's victory at Heliopolis.
       His assassination.

       "Affairs in Egypt had been on the whole unfavourable to the
       French, since that army had lost the presence of the
       commander-in-chief. Kléber, on whom the command devolved, was
       discontented both at the unceremonious and sudden manner in
       which the duty had been imposed upon him, and with the
       scarcity of means left to support his defence. Perceiving
       himself threatened by a large Turkish force, which was
       collecting for the purpose of avenging the defeat of the
       vizier at Aboukir, he became desirous of giving up a
       settlement which he despaired of maintaining. He signed
       accordingly a convention with the Turkish plenipotentiaries,
       and Sir Sidney Smith on the part of the British [at El Arish,
       January 28, 1800], by which it was provided that the French
       should evacuate Egypt, and that Kléber and his army should be
       transported to France in safety, without being molested by the
       British fleet. When the British government received advice of
       this convention they refused to ratify it, on the ground that
       Sir Sidney Smith had exceeded his powers in entering into it.
       The Earl of Elgin having been sent out as plenipotentiary to
       the Porte, it was asserted that Sir Sidney's ministerial
       powers were superseded by his appointment. ... The truth was
       that the arrival of Kléber and his army in the south of
       France, at the very moment when the successes of Suwarrow gave
       strong hopes of making some impression on her frontier, might
       have had a most material effect upon the events of the war.
       ... The treaty of El Arish was in consequence broken off.
       Kléber, disappointed of this mode of extricating himself, had
       recourse to arms. The Vizier Jousseff Pacha, having crossed
       the Desert and entered Egypt, received a bloody and decisive
       defeat from the French general, near the ruins of the ancient
       city of Heliopolis, on the 20th of March, 1800 [following
       which Kléber crushed with great slaughter a revolt that had
       broken out in Cairo]. The measures which Kléber adopted after
       this victory were well calculated to maintain the possession
       of the country, and reconcile the inhabitants to the French
       government. ... While busied in these measures, he was cut
       short by the blow of an assassin. A fanatic Turk, called
       Soliman Haleby, a native of Aleppo, imagined he was inspired
       by Heaven to slay the enemy of the Prophet and the Grand
       Seignior. He concealed himself in a cistern, and springing out
       on Kléber when there was only one man in company with him,
       stabbed him dead [June 14]. ... The Baron Menou, on whom the
       command now devolved, was an inferior person to Kléber. ...
       Menou altered for the worse several of the regulations of
       Kléber, and, carrying into literal execution what Buonaparte
       had only written and spoken of, he became an actual
       Mahommedan."

          Sir W. Scott,
          Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
          chapter 40.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thiers,
          History of the Consulate and Empire,
          book 5 (volume 1).

    {1333}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (May-February).
       Bonaparte's second Italian campaign.
       The crossing of the Alps.
       The Battle of Marengo.
       Moreau in Germany.
       Hohenlinden.
       Austrian siege of Genoa.

       "Preparations for the new campaign in spring were completed.
       Moreau was made commander-in-chief of the army of the Rhine,
       150,000 strong. The plan of the campaign was concerted between
       the First Consul and Carnot, who had superseded Berthier as
       Minister at War. The operations were conducted with the utmost
       secrecy. Napoleon had determined to strike the decisive blow
       against Austria in Italy, and to command there in person. By
       an article in the Constitution the First Consul was forbidden
       to take command of an army. To this interdiction he cheerfully
       assented; but he evaded it, as soon as the occasion was ripe,
       by giving the nominal command of the army of Italy to
       Berthier. He began to collect troops at Dijon, which were, he
       publicly announced, intended to advance upon Italy. They
       consisted chiefly of conscripts and invalids, with a numerous
       staff, and were called 'the army of reserve.' Meantime, while
       caricatures of some ancient men with wooden legs and little
       boys of twelve years old, entitled 'Bonaparte's Army of
       Reserve,' were amusing the Austrian public, the real army of
       Italy was formed in the heart of France, and was marching by
       various roads towards Switzerland. ... The artillery was sent
       piecemeal from different arsenals; the provisions necessary to
       an army about to cross barren mountains were forwarded to
       Geneva, embarked on the lake, and landed at Villeneuve, near
       the entrance to the valley of the Simplon. The situation of
       the French army in Italy had become critical. Massena had
       thrown himself into Genoa with 12,000 men, and was enduring
       all the rigours of a siege, pressed by 30,000 Austrians under
       General Ott, seconded by the British fleet. Suchet, with the
       remainder of the French army, about 10,000 strong, completely
       cut off from communication with Massena, had concentrated his
       forces on the Var, was maintaining an unequal contest with
       Melas, the Austrian commander-in-chief, and strenuously
       defending the French frontier. Napoleon's plan was to
       transport his army across the Alps, plant himself in the rear
       of the Austrians, intercept their communications, then
       manœuvre so as to place his own army and that of Massena on
       the Austrian right and left flanks respectively, cut off their
       retreat, and finally give them battle at the decisive moment.
       While all Europe imagined that the multifarious concerns of
       the Government held the First Consul at Paris, he was
       travelling at a rapid rate towards Geneva, accompanied only by
       his secretary. He left Paris on the 6th of May, at two in the
       morning, leaving Cambacérès to preside until his return, and
       ordering Fouché to announce that he was about to review the
       army at Dijon, and might possibly go as far as Geneva, but
       would return in a fortnight. 'Should anything happen,' he
       significantly added, 'I shall be back like a thunderbolt.' ...
       On the 13th the First Consul reviewed the vanguard of his
       army, commanded by General Lannes, at Lausanne. The whole army
       consisted of nearly 70,000 men. Two columns, each of about
       6,000 men, were put in motion, one under Tureau, the other
       under Chabran, to take the routes of Mont Cenis and the Little
       St. Bernard. A division consisting of 15,000 men, under
       Moncey, detached from the army of the Rhine, was to march by
       St. Gothard. Moreau kept the Austrian army of the Rhine, under
       General Kray, on the defensive before Ulm [to which he had
       forced his way in a series of important engagements, at Engen,
       May 2, at Moeskirch, May 4, at Biberach, May 9, and at
       Hochstadt, June 19], and held himself in readiness to cover
       the operations of the First Consul in Italy. The main body of
       the French army, in numbers about 40,000, nominally commanded
       by Berthier, but in fact by the First Consul himself, marched
       on the 15th from Lausanne to the village of St. Pierre, at the
       foot of the Great St. Bernard, at which all trace of a
       practicable road entirely ceased. General Marescot, the
       engineer who had been sent forward from Geneva to reconnoitre,
       reported the paths to be 'barely passable.' 'Set forward
       immediately!' wrote Napoleon. Field forges were established at
       St. Pierre to dismount the guns, the carriages and wheels were
       slung on poles, and the ammunition-boxes carried by mules. A
       number of trees were felled, then hollowed out, and the
       pieces, being jammed into these rough cases, 100 soldiers were
       attached to each and ordered to drag them up the steeps. ...
       The whole army effected the passage of the Great St. Bernard
       in three days."

          R. H. Horne,
          History of Napoleon Bonaparte,
          chapter 18.

       "From May 16 to May 19, the solitudes of the vast mountain
       track echoed to the din and tumult of war, as the French
       soldiery swept over its heights to reach the valley of the Po
       and the plains of Lombardy. A hill fort, for a time, stopped
       the daring invaders, but the obstacle was passed by an
       ingenious stratagem; and before long Bonaparte, exulting in
       hope, was marching from the verge of Piedmont on Milan, having
       made a demonstration against Turin, in order to hide his real
       purpose. By June 2 the whole French army, joined by the
       reinforcement sent by Moreau, was in possession of the Lombard
       capital, and threatened the line of its enemy's retreat, having
       successfully accomplished the first part of the brilliant
       design of its great leader. While Bonaparte was thus
       descending from the Alps, the Austrian commander had been
       pressing forward the siege of Genoa and his operations on the
       Var. Masséna, however, stubbornly held out in Genoa; and
       Suchet had defended the defiles of Provence with a weak force
       with such marked skill that his adversary had made little
       progress. When first informed of the terrible apparition of a
       hostile army gathering upon his rear, Melas disbelieved what
       he thought impossible; and when he could no longer discredit
       what he heard, the movements by Mont Cenis and against Turin,
       intended to perplex him, had made him hesitate. As soon,
       however, as the real design of the First Consul was fully
       revealed, the brave Austrian chief resolved to force his way
       to the Adige at any cost; and, directing Ott to raise the
       siege of Genoa, and leaving a subordinate to hold Suchet in
       check, he began to draw his divided army together, in order to
       make a desperate attack on the audacious foe upon his line of
       retreat. Ott, however, delayed some days to receive the keys
       of Genoa, which fell [June 4] after a defence memorable in the
       annals of war; and, as the Austrian forces had been widely
       scattered, it was June 12 [after a severe defeat at
       Montebello, on the 9th, by Lannes] before 50,000 men were
       assembled for an offensive movement round the well-known
       fortresses of Alessandria. Meanwhile, the First Consul had
       broken up from Milan; and, whether ill-informed of his enemy's
       operations, or apprehensive that, after the fall of Genoa,
       Melas would escape by a march southwards, he had advanced from
       a strong position he had taken between the Ticino, the Adda,
       and the Po, and had crossed the Scrivia into the plains of
       Marengo, with forces disseminated far too widely. Melas boldly
       seized the opportunity to escape from the weakened meshes of
       the net thrown round him; and attacked Bonaparte on the
       morning of June 14 with a vigor and energy which did him
       honor.
    {1334}
       The battle raged confusedly for several hours; but the French
       had begun to give way and fly, when the arrival of an isolated
       division on the field [that of Desaix, who had been sent
       southward by Bonaparte, and who turned back, on his own
       responsibility, when he heard the sounds of battle] and the
       unexpected charge of a small body of horsemen, suddenly
       changed defeat into a brilliant victory. The importance was
       then seen of the commanding position of Bonaparte on the rear
       of his foe; the Austrian army, its retreat cut off, was
       obliged to come to terms after a single reverse; and within a
       few days an armistice was signed by which Italy to the Mincio
       was restored to the French, and the disasters of 1799 were
       effaced. ... While Italy had been regained at one stroke, the
       campaign in Germany had progressed slowly; and though Moreau
       was largely superior in force, he had met more than one check
       near Ulm, on the Danube. The stand, however, made ably by
       Kray, could not lessen the effects of Marengo; and Austria,
       after that terrible reverse, endeavored to negotiate with the
       dreaded conqueror. Bonaparte, however, following out a purpose
       which he had already made a maxim of policy, and resolved if
       possible to divide the Coalition, refused to treat with
       Austria jointly with England, except on conditions known to be
       futile; and after a pause of a few weeks hostilities were
       resumed with increased energy. By this time, however, the
       French armies had acquired largely preponderating strength;
       and while Brune advanced victoriously to the Adige--the First
       Consul had returned to the seat of government--Moreau in
       Bavaria marched on the rivers which, descending from the Alps
       to the Danube, form one of the bulwarks of the Austrian
       Monarchy. He was attacked incautiously by the Archduke
       John--the Archduke Charles, who ought to have been in command,
       was in temporary disgrace at the Court--and soon afterwards
       [December 3] he won a great battle at Hohenlinden, between the
       Iser and the Inn, the success of the French being complete and
       decisive, though the conduct of their chief has not escaped
       criticism. This last disaster proved overwhelming, and Austria
       and the States of the Empire were forced to submit to the
       terms of Bonaparte. After a brief delay peace was made at
       Luneville in February 1801."

          W. O'C. Morris,
          The French Revolution and First Empire,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Botta,
          Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
          chapters 1-2.

          Baron Jomini,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 6 (volume l).

          C. Adams,
          Great Campaigns in Europe
          from 1796 to 1870, chapter 2.

          Duke de Rovigo,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapters 19-20.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (June-February).
       The King of Naples spared at the intercession of the Russian
       Czar.
       The Czar won away from the Coalition.
       The Pope befriended.

       "Replaced in his richest territories by the allies, the King
       of Naples was bound by every tie to assist them in the
       campaign of 1800. He accordingly sent an army into the march
       of Ancona, under the command of Count Roger de Damas. ...
       Undeterred by the battle of Marengo, the Count de Damas
       marched against the French general Miollis, who commanded in
       Tuscany, and sustained a defeat by him near Sienna. Retreat
       became now necessary, the more especially as the armistice
       which was entered into by General Melas deprived the
       Neapolitans of any assistance from the Austrians, and rendered
       their whole expedition utterly hopeless. They were not even
       included by name in the armistice, and were thus left exposed
       to the whole vengeance of the French. ... At this desperate
       crisis, the Queen of the Two Sicilies took a resolution which
       seemed almost as desperate, and could only have been adopted
       by a woman of a bold and decisive character. She resolved,
       notwithstanding the severity of the season, to repair in
       person to the court of the Emperor Paul, and implore his
       intercession with the First Consul, in behalf of her husband
       and his territories." The Russian autocrat was more than ready
       to accede to her request. Disgusted and enraged at the
       discomfiture of Suwarrow in Switzerland, dissatisfied with the
       conduct of Austria in that unfortunate campaign, and equally
       dissatisfied with England in the joint invasion of the
       Batavian republic, he made prompt preparations to quit the
       coalition and to ally himself with the First Consul of France.
       Bonaparte welcomed his overtures and gave them every
       flattering encouragement, conceding instantly the grace which
       he asked on behalf of the King and Queen of Naples. "The
       respect paid by the First Consul to the wishes of Paul saved
       for the present the royal family of Naples; but Murat [who
       commanded the army sent to central and southern Italy],
       nevertheless, made them experience a full portion of the
       bitter cup which the vanquished are generally doomed to
       swallow. General Damas was commanded in the haughtiest terms
       to evacuate the Roman States, and not to presume to claim any
       benefit from the armistice which had been extended to the
       Austrians. At the same time, while the Neapolitans were thus
       compelled hastily to evacuate the Roman territories, general
       surprise was exhibited when, instead of marching to Rome, and
       re-establishing the authority of the Roman Republic, Murat,
       according to the orders which he had received from the First
       Consul, carefully respected the territory of the Church, and
       reinstalled the officers of the Pope in what had been long
       termed the patrimony of St. Peter's. This unexpected turn of
       circumstances originated in high policy on the part of
       Buonaparte. ... Besides evacuating the Ecclesiastical States,
       the Neapolitans were compelled by Murat to restore various
       paintings, statues, and other objects of art, which they had,
       in imitation of Buonaparte, taken forcibly from the
       Romans,--so captivating is the influence of bad example. A
       French army of about 18,000 men was to be quartered in
       Calabria. ... The harbours of the Neapolitan dominions were of
       course to be closed against the English. A cession of part of
       the isle of Elba, and the relinquishment of all pretensions
       upon Tuscany, summed up the sacrifices of the King of Naples
       [stipulated in the treaty of Foligno, signed in February,
       1801], who, considering how often he had braved Napoleon, had
       great reason to thank the Emperor of Russia for his effectual
       mediation."

          Sir W. Scott,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 38.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1801 (February).
       The Peace of Luneville.
       The Rhine boundary confirmed.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1801 (March).
       Recovery of Louisiana from Spain.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1801.
       Expedition against the Blacks of Hayti.

          See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

    {1335}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
       The import of the Peace of Luneville.
       Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with England.
       The Northern Maritime League.
       English bombardment of Copenhagen and
       summary crushing of the League.
       Murder of the Russian Czar.
       English expedition to Egypt.
       Surrender of the French army.
       Peace of Amiens.

       "The treaty of Luneville was of far greater import than the
       treaties which had ended the struggle of the first coalition.
       ... The significance then of the Peace of Luneville lay in
       this, not only that it was the close of the earlier
       revolutionary struggle for supremacy in Europe, the
       abandonment by France of her effort to 'liberate the peoples,'
       to force new institutions on the nations about her by sheer
       dint of arms; but that it marked the concentration of all her
       energies on a struggle with Britain for the supremacy of the
       world. For England herself the event which accompanied it, the
       sudden withdrawal of William Pitt from office, which took
       place in the very month of the treaty, was hardly less
       significant. ... The bulk of the old Ministry returned in a
       few days to office with Mr. Addington at their head, and his
       administration received the support of the whole Tory party in
       Parliament. ... It was with anxiety that England found itself
       guided by men like these. ... The country stood utterly alone;
       while the peace of Luneville secured France from all hostility
       on the Continent. ... To strike at England's wealth had been
       among the projects of the Directory: it was now the dream of
       the First Consul. It was in vain for England to produce, if he
       shut her out of every market. Her carrying-trade must be
       annihilated if he closed every port against her ships. It was
       this gigantic project of a 'Continental System' that revealed
       itself as soon as Buonaparte became finally master of France.
       From France itself and its dependencies in Holland and the
       Netherlands English trade was already excluded. But Italy also
       was shut against her after the Peace of Luneville [and the
       Treaty of Foligno with the King of Naples], and Spain not only
       closed her own ports but forced Portugal to break with her
       English ally. In the Baltic, Buonaparte was more active than
       even in the Mediterranean. In a treaty with America, which was
       destined to bring this power also in the end into his great
       attack, he had formally recognized the rights of neutral
       vessels which England was hourly disputing. ... The only
       powers which now possessed naval resources were the powers of
       the North. ... Both the Scandinavian states resented the
       severity with which Britain enforced that right of search
       which had brought about their armed neutrality at the close of
       the American war; while Denmark was besides an old ally of
       France; and her sympathies were still believed to be French.
       The First Consul therefore had little trouble in enlisting
       them in a league of Neutrals, which was in effect a
       declaration of war against England, and which Prussia as
       before showed herself ready to join. Russia indeed seemed
       harder to gain." But Paul, the Czar, afraid of the opposition
       of England to his designs upon Turkey, dissatisfied with the
       operations of the coalition, and flattered by Bonaparte, gave
       himself up to the influence of the latter. "It was to check
       the action of Britain in the East that the Czar now turned to
       the French Consul, and seconded his efforts for the formation
       of a naval confederacy in the North, while his minister,
       Rostopchin, planned a division of the Turkish Empire in Europe
       between Russia and her allies. ... A squabble over Malta,
       which had been blockaded since its capture by Buonaparte, and
       which surrendered at last [September, 1800] to a British
       fleet, but whose possession the Czar claimed as his own on the
       ground of an alleged election as Grand Master of the Order of
       St. John, served as a pretext for a quarrel with England; and
       at the close of· 1800 Paul openly prepared for hostilities.
       ... The Danes, who throughout the year had been struggling to
       evade the British right of search, at once joined this neutral
       league, and were followed by Sweden in their course. ... But
       dexterous as the combination was, it was shattered at a blow.
       On the 1st of April, 1801, a British fleet of 18 men-of-war
       [under Sir Hyde Parker, with Nelson second in command] forced
       the passage of the Belt; appeared before Copenhagen, and at
       once attacked the city and its fleet. In spite of a brave
       resistance from the Danish batteries and gunboats six Danish
       ships were taken, and the Crown Prince was forced to conclude
       an armistice which enabled the English ships to enter the
       Baltic. ... But their work was really over. The seizure of
       English goods and the declaration of war had bitterly
       irritated the Russian nobles, whose sole outlet for the sale
       of the produce of their vast estates was thus closed to them;
       and on the 24th of March, nine days before the battle of
       Copenhagen, Paul fell in a midnight attack by conspirators in
       his own palace. With Paul fell the Confederacy of the North.
       ... At the very moment of the attack on Copenhagen, a stroke
       as effective wrecked his projects in the East. ... In March,
       1801, a force of 15,000 men under General Abercrombie anchored
       in Aboukir Bay. Deserted as they were by Buonaparte, the
       French had firmly maintained their hold on Egypt. ... But
       their army was foolishly scattered, and Abercrombie was able
       to force a landing five days after his arrival on the coast.
       The French however rapidly concentrated; and on the 21st of
       March their general attacked the English army on the ground it
       had won, with a force equal to its own. The battle [known as
       the battle of Alexandria] was a stubborn one, and Abercrombie
       fell mortally wounded ere its close; but after six hours'
       fighting the French drew off with heavy loss; and their
       retreat was followed by the investment of Alexandria and
       Cairo. ... At the close of June the capitulation of the 13,000
       soldiers who remained closed the French rule over Egypt."
       Threatening preparations for an invasion of England were kept
       up, and gunboats and flatboats collected at Boulogne, which
       Nelson attacked unsuccessfully in August, 1801. "The First
       Consul opened negotiations for peace at the close of 1801. His
       offers were at once met by the English Government. ... The
       negotiations which went on through the winter between England
       and the three allied Powers of France, Spain, and the Dutch,
       brought about in March, 1802, the Peace of Amiens." The treaty
       secured "a pledge on the part of France to withdraw its forces
       from Southern Italy, and to leave to themselves the republics
       it had set up along its border in Holland, Switzerland, and
       Piedmont. In exchange for this pledge, England recognized the
       French government, restored all the colonies which they had
       lost, save Ceylon and Trinidad, to France and its allies
       [including the restoration to Holland of the Cape of Good Hope
       and Dutch Guiana, and of Minorca and the citadel of Port Mahon
       to Spain, while Turkey regained possession of Egypt],
       acknowledged the Ionian Islands as a free republic, and
       engaged to restore Malta within three months to its old
       masters, the Knights of St. John."

          J. R. Green,
          History of the English People,
          book 9, chapter 5 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          R. Southey,
          Life of Nelson,
          chapter 7 (volume 2).

          J. Gifford,
          Political Life of Pitt,
          chapter 47 (volume 6).

          C. Joyneville,
          Life and Times of Alexander I.,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

          A. Rambaud,
          History of Russia,
          volume 2, chapter 11-12.

          G. R. Gleig,
          Life of General Sir R. Abercromby
          (Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3).

    {1336}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
       Domestic measures of Bonaparte.
       His Legion of Honor.
       His wretched educational scheme.
       He is made First Consul for life.
       His whittling away of the Constitution.
       Revolutions instigated and dictated in the Dutch,
       Swiss, and Cisalpine Republics.
       Bonaparte president of the Italian Republic.

       "The concordat was succeeded by the emigrants' recall, which
       resolution was presented and passed April 26. The
       irrevocability of the sale of national property was again
       established, and amnesty granted to all emigrants but the
       leaders of armed forces, and some few whose offences were
       specially grave. The property of emigrants remaining unsold
       was restored, excepting forests, which Bonaparte reserved to
       be gradually returned as bribes to great families. ... Two
       important projects were presented to the Tribunal and
       Legislative Corps, the Legion of Honor, and free schools. The
       Convention awarded prizes to the troops for special acts of
       daring, and the First Consul increased and arranged the
       distribution, but that was not enough: he wanted a vast system
       of rewards, adapted to excite amour propre, repay service, and
       give him a new and potent means of influencing civilians as
       well as soldiers. He therefore conceived the idea of the
       Legion of Honor, embracing all kinds of service and title to
       public distinction. ... But this plan for forming an order of
       chivalry was contested even by the Council of State as
       offensive to that equality which its members were to defend
       [under the oath prescribed to the Legion], and as a renewal of
       aristocracy. It only passed the Tribunal and Legislative Corps
       by a very small majority, and this after the removal of so
       many of the opposition party. The institution of the Legion of
       Honor was specious, and, despite the opposition it met within
       its early days, suits a people who love distinction, despite
       their passion for equality, provided it be not hereditary. As
       for the educational scheme, it was wretched, doing absolutely
       nothing for the primary schools. The state had no share in it.
       The Commune was to provide the buildings when the pupils could
       pay a teacher, thus forsaking the plans of the great
       assemblies. The wisest statesmen desired to sustain in an
       improved form the central schools founded by the Convention;
       but Bonaparte meant to substitute barracks to educate young
       men for his service. ... He diminished scientific study;
       suppressed history and philosophy, which were incompatible
       with despotism; and completed his system of secondary
       instruction by creating 6,000 scholarships, to be used as
       means of influence, like the ribbon of the Legion of Honor.
       ... All his measures succeeded, and yet he was not content: he
       wanted to extend his power. ... Cambacérès ... , when the
       Amiens treaty was presented to the Tribunal and Legislature,
       ... proposed, through the president of the former, that the
       Senate should be invited to give the First Consul some token
       of national gratitude (May 6, 1802). ... The Senate only voted
       to prolong the First Consul's power for ten years (May 8),
       with but one protesting voice, that of Lanjuinais, who
       denounced the flagrant usurpation that threatened the
       Republic. This was the last echo of the Gironde ringing
       through the tame assemblies of the Consulate. Bonaparte was
       very angry, having expected more; but Cambacérès' calmed him
       and suggested a mode of evading the question, namely, to reply
       that an extension of power could only be granted by the
       people, and then to make the Council of State dictate the
       formula to be submitted to the people, substituting a life
       consulate for ten years. This was accordingly done. ... The
       Council of State even added the First Consul's right to name
       his successor. This he thought premature and likely to make
       trouble, and therefore erased it. ... Registers were opened at
       the record offices and mayoralties to receive votes, and there
       were three million and a half votes in the affirmative; a few
       thousand only daring to refuse, and many abstaining from
       voting. La Fayette registered a 'no' ... and sent the First
       Consul a noble letter. ... La Fayette then ceased the
       relations he had hitherto maintained with the First Consul
       since his return to France. ... The Senate counted the popular
       vote on the proposal they did not make, and carried the result
       to the Tuileries in a body, August 8, 1802; and the result was
       proclaimed in the form of a Senatus-Consultum, in these terms:
       'The French people name and the Senate proclaim Napoleon
       Bonaparte First Consul for life.' This was the first official
       use of the prenomen Napoleon, which was soon, in conformity
       with royal custom, to be substituted for the family name of
       Bonaparte. ... The next day various modifications of the
       Constitution were offered to the Council of State. ... The
       Senate were given the right to interpret and complete the
       Constitution, to dissolve the Legislature and Tribunal, and,
       what was even more, to break the judgment of tribunals, thus
       subordinating justice to policy. But these extravagant
       prerogatives could only be used at the request of the
       government, The Senate was limited to 120 members, 40 of whom
       the First Consul was to elect. The Tribunal was reduced to 50
       members, and condemned to discuss with closed doors, divided
       into sections. ... Despotism concentrated more and more.
       Bonaparte took back his refusal to choose his successor, and
       now claimed that right. He also formed a civil list of six
       millions. ... The Senate agreed to everything, and the
       Senatus-Consultum was published August 5. ... The Republic was
       now but a name; ... Early in 1808 things grew dark on the
       English shore," and "the loss of San Domingo [to which
       Bonaparte had sent an expedition at the beginning of 1801]
       seemed inevitable [see HAYTI: A. D. 1682-1808]. While making
       this expedition, doomed to so fatal an end, Bonaparte
       continued his haughty policy on the European continent. By
       article second of the Luneville treaty France and Austria
       mutually guaranteed the independence of the Dutch, Swiss,
       Cisalpine, and Ligurian republics, and their freedom in the
       adoption of whatever form of government they saw fit to
       choose.
    {1337}
       Bonaparte interpreted this article by substituting for
       independence his own more or less direct rule in those
       republics. ... During the negotiations preceding the Amiens
       treaty he stirred up a revolution in Holland. That country had
       a Directory and two Chambers, as in the French Constitution of
       year III., and he wished to impose a new constitution on the
       Chambers, putting them more into his power; they refused, and
       he expelled them by means of the Directory, whom he had won
       over to his side. The Dutch Directory, in this imitation of
       November 9, was sustained by French troops, occupying Holland
       under Augereau, now reconciled to Bonaparte (September, 1801).
       The new Constitution was put to popular vote. A certain number
       voted against it. The majority did not vote. Silence was taken
       for consent, and the new Constitution was proclaimed October
       17, 1801. ... The English government protested, but did not
       resist. At the same time he [Bonaparte] imposed on the
       Cisalpine republic, but without conflict or opposition, a
       constitution even more anti-liberal than the French one of
       year VIII.; the president who there replaced the First Consul
       having supreme power. But who was to be that President? The
       Cisalpines for an instant were simple enough to think that
       they could choose an Italian: they decided on Count Melzi,
       well known in the Milanese. They were soon undeceived, when
       Bonaparte called Cisalpine delegates to Lyons in midwinter.
       These delegates were landowners, scholars, and merchants, some
       hundreds in number, and his agents explained to them that none
       but Bonaparte 'was worthy to govern their republic or able to
       maintain it.' They eagerly offered him the presidency, which
       he accepted in lofty terms, and took Melzi for vice-president
       (January 25, 1802). Italian patriots were consoled for this
       subjection by the change of name from Cisalpine to Italian
       Republic, which seemed to promise the unity of Italy.
       Bonaparte threw out this hope, never meaning to gratify it.
       ... He acted as master in Switzerland as well as Italy and
       Holland. Since Switzerland had ceased to be the scene of war,
       she had been given over to agitation, fluctuating between
       revolutionary democracy and the old aristocracy joined to the
       retrograde democracy of the small Catholic cantons. Modern
       democracy was at strife with itself. ... Bonaparte encouraged
       the strife, that Switzerland might call him in as arbiter.
       Suddenly, late in July, 1802, he withdrew his troops, which
       had occupied Switzerland ever since 1798. Civil war broke out
       at once; the smaller Catholic cantons and the aristocrats of
       Berne and Zurich overthrew the government established at Berne
       by the moderate democrats. The government retired to Lausanne,
       and the country was thus divided. Bonaparte then announced
       that he would not suffer a Swiss counter-revolution, and that
       if the parties could not agree he must mediate between them.
       He summoned the insurrectional powers of Berne to dissolve,
       and invited all citizens who had held office in the central
       Swiss government within three years, to meet at Paris and
       confer with him, announcing that 30,000 men under General Ney
       were ready to support his mediation. The democratic government
       at Lausanne were willing to receive the French; the
       aristocratic government at Berne, anxious to restore the
       Austrians, appealed to European powers, who replied by
       silence, England only protesting against French interference.
       ... Bonaparte responded to the English protest by so
       extraordinary a letter that his charge d'Affaires at London
       dared not communicate it verbatim. It said that, if England
       succeeded in drawing the continental powers into her cause,
       the result would be to force France to 'conquer Europe! Who
       knows how long it would take the First-Consul to revive the
       Empire of the West?' (October 23, 1802). ... There was slight
       resistance to Ney's troops in Switzerland. All the politicians
       of the new democracy and some of the aristocrats went to Paris
       at the First Consul's summons. He did not treat their country
       as he had Holland and Italy, but gave her, instead, a vain
       show of institutions, a constitution imposing on the different
       parties a specious compromise. ... Switzerland was dependent
       on France in regard to general policy, and was bound to
       furnish her with troops; but, at least, she administered her
       own affairs (January, 1803)."

          H. Martin,
          Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
          volume 2, chapters 8-9.

          ALSO IN:
          F. C. Schlosser,
          History of the 18th Century,
          volume 7, pages 286-302.

          Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
          Story of Switzerland,
          chapters 30-31.

          C. Botta,
          Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
          chapter 3.

          M. Bourrienne,
          Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 2, chapters 20-26.

          Duchess D' Abrantes,
          Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 1, chapter 80.

          Count M. Dumas,
          Memoirs,
          chapter 9 (volume 2).

          H. A. Taine,
          The Modern Regime,
          volume 1, book 3, chapter 3.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.
       The Civil Code and the Concordat.

       "Four years of peace separated the Treaty of Luneville from
       the next outbreak of war between France and any Continental
       Power. They were years of the extension of French influence in
       every neighbouring State; in France itself, years of the
       consolidation of Bonaparte's power, and of the decline of
       everything that checked his personal rule. ... Among the
       institutions which date from this period, two, equally
       associated with the name of Napoleon, have taken a prominent
       place in history, the Civil Code and the Concordat. Since the
       middle of the 18th century the codification of law had been
       pursued with more or less success by almost every Government
       in the western continent. The Constituent Assembly of 1789 had
       ordered the statutes by which it superseded the variety of
       local customs in France to be thus cast into a systematic
       form. ... Bonaparte instinctively threw himself into a task so
       congenial to his own systematizing spirit, and stimulated the
       efforts of the best jurists in France by his own personal
       interest and pride in the work of legislation. A Commission of
       lawyers, appointed by the First Consul, presented the
       successive chapters of a Civil Code to the Council of State.
       In the discussions in the Council of State Bonaparte himself
       took an active, though not always a beneficial, part. ... In
       March, 1804, France received the Code which, with few
       alterations, has formed from that time to the present the
       basis of its civil rights. ... It is probable that a majority
       of the inhabitants of Western Europe believe that Napoleon
       actually invented the laws which bear his name. As a matter of
       fact, the substance of these laws was fixed by the successive
       Assemblies of the Revolution; and, in the final revision which
       produced the Civil Code, Napoleon appears to have originated
       neither more nor less than several of the members of his
       Council whose names have long been forgotten.
    {1338}
       He is unquestionably entitled to the honour of a great
       legislator, not, however, as one who, like Solon or like
       Mahomet, himself created a new body of law. ... Four other
       Codes, appearing at intervals from the year 1804 to the year
       1810, embodied, in a corresponding form, the Law of Commerce,
       the Criminal Law, and the Rules of Civil and of Criminal
       Process. ... Far more distinctively the work of Napoleon
       himself was the reconciliation with the Church of Rome
       effected by the Concordat [July, 1801]. It was a restoration
       of religion similar to that restoration of political order
       which made the public service the engine of a single will. The
       bishops and priests, whose appointment the Concordat
       transferred from their congregations to the Government, were
       as much instruments of the First Consul as his prefects and
       his gensdarmes. ... An alliance with the Pope offered to
       Bonaparte the means of supplanting the popular organisation of
       the Constitutional Church by an imposing hierarchy, rigid in
       its orthodoxy and unquestioning in its devotion to himself. In
       return for the consecration of his own rule, Bonaparte did not
       shrink from inviting the Pope to an exercise of authority such
       as the Holy See had never even claimed in France. The whole of
       the existing French Bishops, both the exiled non-jurors and
       those of the Constitutional Church, were summoned to resign
       their sees into the hands of the Pope; against all who refused
       to do so sentence of deposition was pronounced by the Pontiff.
       ... The sees were reorganised, and filled up by nominees of the
       First Consul. The position of the great body of the clergy was
       substantially altered in its relation to the Bishops.
       Episcopal power was made despotic, like all other powers in
       France. ... In the greater cycle of religious change, the
       Concordat of Bonaparte appears in another light. ... It
       converted the Catholicism of France from a faith already far
       more independent than that of Fénélon and Bossuet into the
       Catholicism which in our day has outstripped the bigotry of
       Spain and Austria in welcoming the dogma of Papal
       infallibility."

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 1, chapter 5.

       "It is ... easy, from the official reports which have been
       preserved, to see what part the First Consul took in the
       framing of the Civil Code. While we recognise that his
       intervention was advantageous on some minor points, ... we
       must say that his views on the subjects of legislation in
       which this intervention was most conspicuous, were most often
       inspired by suggestions of personal interest, or by political
       considerations which ought to have no weight with the
       legislator. ... Bonaparte came by degrees to consider himself
       the principal creator of a collective work to which he
       contributed little more than his name, and which probably
       would have been much better if the suggestions of a man of
       action and executive authority had not been blended with the
       views, necessarily more disinterested, larger and more humane,
       of the eminent jurisconsults whose glory he tried to usurp."

          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          volume 2, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thiers,
          History of the Consulate and the Empire,
          volume 1, books 12-14.

          W. H. Jervis,
          History of the Church of France,
          volume 2, chapter 11.

          J. E. Darras,
          General History of the Catholic Church,
          volume 4, pages 547-554.

          The Code Napoleon, translated by Richards.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1802.
       Fourcroy's education law.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
          FRANCE: A. D. 1565-1802.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (August-September).
       Annexation of Piedmont, Parma, and the Isle of Elba.

       A "flagrant act of the First Consul's at this time was the
       seizure and annexation of Piedmont. Although that country was
       reconquered by the Austro-Russian army in 1799, the-King of
       Sardinia had not been restored when, by the battle of Marengo,
       it came again into the possession of the French. Bonaparte
       then united part of it to the Cisalpine Republic, and promised
       to erect the rest into a separate State; but he afterwards
       changed his mind; and by a decree of April 20th 1801, ordered
       that Piedmont should form a military division of France. ...
       Charles Emanuel, disgusted with the injustice and insults to
       which he was exposed, having abdicated his throne in favour of
       his brother Victor Emanuel, Duke of Aosta, June 4th 1802,
       Bonaparte ... caused that part of Piedmont which had not been
       united to the Italian Republic to be annexed to France, as the
       27th Military Department, by a formal Senatus-Consulte of
       September 11th 1802. A little after, October 11th, on the
       death of Ferdinand de Bourbon, Duke of Parma, father of the
       King of Etruria, that duchy was also seized by the rapacious
       French Republic. The isle of Elba had also been united to
       France by a Senatus-Consulte of August 26th."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 7, chapter 11 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          A. Gallenga,
          History of Piedmont,
          volume 3, chapter 5.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.
       Complaints against the English press.
       The Peltier trial.
       The First Consul's rage.
       War declared by Great Britain.
       Detention of all the English in France, Italy, Switzerland and
       the Netherlands.
       Occupation of Hanover.

       "Mr. Addington was wont to say in after years that the ink was
       scarcely dry, after the signature of the treaty of Amiens,
       when discontents arose which perilled the new peace. On the
       24th of May [1802], M. Otto told Lord Glenbervie that if the
       English press were not controlled from censuring Napoleon,
       there must be a war to the death: and in the course of the
       summer, six requisitions were formally made to the British
       government, the purport of which was that the press must be
       controlled; the royal emigrants sent to Warsaw; the island of
       Jersey cleared of persons disaffected to the French
       government; and all Frenchmen dismissed from Great Britain who
       wore the decorations of the old monarchy. The reply was, that
       the press was free in England; and that if any of the
       emigrants broke the laws, they should be punished; but that
       otherwise they could not be molested. The government, however,
       used its influence in remonstrance with the editors of
       newspapers which were abusive of the French. Cobbet was
       pointed out by name by Napoleon, as a libeller who must be
       punished; and Peltier, a royalist emigrant, who had published
       some incentives to the assassination of the French ruler, or
       prophecies which might at such a crisis be fairly regarded as
       incentives. M. Peltier's object was to use his knowledge of
       the tools of Napoleon, and his great political and literary
       experience, in laying bare the character and policy of
       Napoleon; and he began, in the summer of 1802, a journal, the
       first number of which occasioned the demand for his
       punishment.
    {1339}
       He was prosecuted by the Attorney-General, and defended by Sir
       James Mackintosh, in a speech which was translated into nearly
       all the languages of Europe, and universally considered one of
       the most prodigious efforts of oratory ever listened to in any
       age. The Attorney-General, Mr. Percival, declared in Court,
       that he could hardly hope for an impartial decision from a
       jury whose faculties had been so roused, dazzled and charmed.
       ... M. Peltier was found guilty; but the Attorney-General did
       not call for judgment on the instant. War was then--at the
       close of February [1808]--imminent; and the matter was
       dropped. M: Peltier was regarded as a martyr, and, as far as
       public opinion went, was rather rewarded than punished in
       England. He was wont to say that he was tried in England and
       punished in France. His property was confiscated by the
       consular agents; and his only near relations, his aged father
       and his sister, died at Nantes, through terror at his trial.
       By this time the merchants of Great Britain were thoroughly
       disgusted with France. Not only had Napoleon prevented all
       commercial intercourse between the nations throughout the
       year, but he had begun to, confiscate English merchant
       vessels, driven by stress of weather into his ports. By this
       time, too, the Minister's mind was made up as to the
       impossibility of avoiding war. ... Napoleon had published
       [January 30, 1803] a Report of an official agent of his,
       Sebastiani, who had explored the Levant, striving as he went
       to rouse the Mediterranean States to a desertion of England
       and an alliance with France. He, reported of the British force
       at Alexandria, and of the means of attack and defence there;
       and his employer put forth this statement in the 'Moniteur,'
       his own paper, while complaining of the insults of the English
       press towards himself. Our ambassador at Paris, Lord
       Whitworth, desired an explanation: and the reception of his
       demand by the First Consul ... was characteristic. ... He sent
       for Lord Whitworth to wait on him at nine in the morning of
       the 18th; made him sit down; and then poured out his wrath 'in
       the style of an Italian bully,' as the record has it: and the
       term is not too strong; for he would not allow Lord Whitworth
       to speak. The first impression was, that it was his design to
       terrify England: but Talleyrand's anxiety to smooth matters
       afterwards, and to explain away what his master had said,
       shows that the ebullition was one of mere temper. And this was
       presently confirmed by his behaviour to Lord Whitworth at a
       levee, when the saloon was crowded with foreign ambassadors
       and their suites, as well as with French courtiers. The whole
       scene was set forth in the newspapers of every country.
       Napoleon walked about, transported with passion: asked Lord
       Whitworth if he did not know that a terrible storm had arisen
       between the two governments; declared that England was a
       violator of treaties; took to witness the foreigners present
       that if England did not immediately surrender Malta, war was
       declared; and condescended to appeal to them whether the right
       was not on his side; and, when Lord Whitworth would have
       replied, silenced him by a gesture, and observed that, Lady
       Whitworth being out of health, her native air would be of
       service to her; and she should, have it, sooner than she
       expected.--After this, there could be little hope of peace in
       the most sanguine mind. ... Lord Whitworth left Paris on the
       12th of May; and at Dover met General Andreossi, on his way to
       Paris. On the 16th, it became publicly known that war was
       declared: and on the same day Admiral Cornwallis received
       telegraphic orders which caused him to appear before Brest on
       the 18th. On the 17th, an Order in Council, directing
       reprisals, was issued; and with it the proclamation of an
       embargo being laid on all French and Dutch ships in British
       ports. ... On the next day, May 18th, 1803, the Declaration of
       War was laid before parliament, and the feverish state, called
       peace, which had lasted for one year and sixteen days, passed
       into one of open hostility. The reason why the vessels of the
       Dutch were to be seized with those of the French was that
       Napoleon had filled Holland with French troops, and was
       virtually master of the country. ... In July, the militia
       force amounted to 173,000 men; and the deficiency was in
       officers to command them. The minister proposed, in addition
       to all the forces actually in existence, the formation of an
       army of reserve, amounting to 50,000 men: and this was
       presently agreed to. There was little that the parliament and
       people of England would not have agreed to at this moment,
       under the provocation of Napoleon's treatment of the English
       in France. His first act was to order the detention, as
       prisoners of war, of all the English then in the country,
       between the ages of 18 and 60. The exasperation caused by this
       cruel measure was all that he could have expected or desired.
       Many were the young men thus doomed to lose, in wearing
       expectation or despair, twelve of the best years of their
       lives, cut off from family, profession, marriage,
       citizenship--everything that young men most value. Many were
       the parents separated for twelve long years from the young
       creatures at home, whom they had left for a mere pleasure
       trip: and many were the grey-haired fathers and mothers at
       home who went down to the grave during those twelve years
       without another sight of the son or daughter who was pining in
       some small provincial town in France, without natural
       occupation, and well nigh without hope. In June, the English
       in Rouen were removed to the neighbourhood of Amiens; those in
       Calais to, Lisle; those at Brussels to Valenciennes. Before
       the month was out, all the English in Italy and Switzerland,
       in addition to those in Holland, were made prisoners. How many
       the whole amounted to does not appear to have been
       ascertained: but  it was believed at the time that there were
       11,000 in France, and 1,800 in Holland. The first pretence was
       that these travellers were detained as hostages for the prizes
       which Napoleon accused us of taking before the regular
       declaration of war; but when proposals were made for an
       exchange, he sent a savage answer that he would keep his
       prisoners till the end of the war. It is difficult to conceive
       how there could be two opinions about the nature of the man
       after this act. The naval captures of which Napoleon
       complained, as made prior to a declaration of war, were of two
       merchant Ships taken by English frigates: and we find notices
       of such being brought into port on the 25th of May. Whether
       they were captured before the 18th, there is no record that we
       can find. ... On the sea, our successes seemed a matter of
       course; but meantime a blow was struck at Great Britain, and
       especially at her sovereign, which proved that the national
       exasperation against France was even yet capable of increase.
    {1340}
       On the breaking out of the war; George III. issued a
       proclamation, as Elector of Hanover, declaring to Germany that
       the Germanic states had nothing to fear in regard to the new
       hostilities, as he was entering into war as King of Great
       Britain, and not as Elector of Hanover. Whatever military
       preparations were going forward in Hanover were merely of a
       defensive character. Napoleon, however, set such defence at
       defiance. On the 13th of June, news arrived of the total
       surrender of Hanover to the French. ... Government resolved to
       declare the Elbe and the Weser, and all the ports of Western
       Germany, in a state of blockade; as the French had now command
       over all the intermediate rivers. It was calculated that this
       would annoy and injure Napoleon effectually, as it would cause
       the ruin of foreign merchants trading from the whole series of
       ports. English merchants would suffer deeply; but it was
       calculated that English capital and stock would hold out
       longer than those of foreign merchants. Thus was the sickening
       process of private ruin, as a check to public aggression,
       entered upon, before war had been declared a month."

          H. Martineau,
          History of England, 1800-1815,
          book l, chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          M. de Bourrienne,
          Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 2, chapters 28-30.

          Sir J. Mackintosh,
          Speech in Defense of Jean Peltier
          (Miscellaneous Works).

          J. Ashton,
          English Caricature and Satire on Napoleon I.,
          volume 1, chapters 24-87.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1803 (April-May).
       Sale or Louisiana to the United States of America.

          See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1808;
          and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1803.
       Loss of San Domingo, or Hayti.

          See HAYTI: A. D. 1682-1803.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
       Royalist plots and Bonaparte's use or them.
       The abduction and execution or the Duc d'Enghien.
       The First Consul becomes Emperor.
       His coronation by the Pope.
       His acceptance of the crown or Italy.
       Annexation of Genoa to France.

       The rupture with England furnished Bonaparte "with the
       occasion of throwing off the last disguise and openly
       restoring monarchy. It was a step which required all his
       audacity and cunning. He had crushed Jacobinism, but two great
       parties remained. There was first the more moderate
       republicanism, which might be called Girondism, and was widely
       spread among all classes and particularly in the army.
       Secondly, there was the old royalism, which after many years
       of helpless weakness had revived since Brumaire. These two
       parties, though hostile to each other, were forced into a sort
       of alliance by the new attitude of Bonaparte, who was hurrying
       France at once into a new revolution at home and into an abyss
       of war abroad. England, too, after the rupture, favoured the
       efforts of these parties. Royalism from England began to open
       communications with moderate republicanism in France. Pichegru
       acted for the former, and the great representative of the
       latter was Moreau, who had helped to make Brumaire in the
       tacit expectation probably of rising to the consulate in due
       course when Bonaparte's term should have expired, and was
       therefore hurt in his personal claims as well as in his
       republican principles. Bonaparte watched the movement through
       his ubiquitous police, and with characteristic strategy
       determined not merely to defeat it but to make it his
       stepping-stone to monarchy. He would ruin Moreau by fastening
       on him the stigma of royalism; he would persuade France to
       make him emperor in order to keep out the Bourbons. He
       achieved this with the peculiar mastery which he always showed
       in villainous intrigue. ... Pichegru [who had returned
       secretly to France from England some time in January, 1804]
       brought with him wilder partisans, such as Georges [Cadoudal]
       the Chouan. No doubt Moreau would gladly have seen and gladly
       have helped an insurrection against Bonaparte. ... But
       Bonaparte succeeded in associating him with royalist schemes
       and with schemes of assassination. Controlling the Senate, he
       was able to suppress the jury; controlling every avenue of
       publicity, he was able to suppress opinion; and the army,
       Moreau's fortress, was won through its hatred of royalism. In
       this way Bonaparte's last personal rival was removed. There
       remained the royalists, and Bonaparte hoped to seize their
       leader, the Comte d'Artois, who was expected, as the police
       knew, soon to join Pichegru and Georges at Paris. What
       Bonaparte would have done with him we may judge from the
       course he took when the Comte did not come. On March 15, 1804,
       the Duc d'Enghien, grandson of the Prince de Condé, residing
       at Ettenheim in Baden, was seized at midnight by a party of
       dragoons, brought to Paris, where he arrived on the 20th,
       confined in the castle of Vincennes, brought before a military
       commission at two o'clock the next morning, asked whether he had
       not borne arms against the republic, which he acknowledged
       himself to have done, conducted to a staircase above the moat,
       and there shot and buried in the moat. ... That the Due
       d'Enghien was innocent of the conspiracy, was nothing to the
       purpose; the act was political, not judicial; accordingly he
       was not even charged with complicity. That the execution would
       strike horror into the cabinets, and perhaps bring about a new
       Coalition, belonged to a class of considerations which at this
       time Bonaparte systematically disregarded. This affair led
       immediately to the thought of giving heredity to Bonaparte's
       power. The thought seems to have commended itself irresistibly
       even to strong republicans and to those who were most shocked
       by the murder. To make Bonaparte's position more secure seemed
       the only way of averting a new Reign of Terror or new
       convulsions. He himself felt some embarrassment. Like
       Cromwell, he was afraid of the republicanism of the army, and
       heredity pure and simple brought him face to face with the
       question of divorcing Josephine. To propitiate the army, he
       chose from the titles suggested to him--consul, stadtholder,
       &c.--that of emperor, undoubtedly the most accurate, and
       having a sufficiently military sound. The other difficulty
       after much furious dissension between the two families of
       Bonaparte and Beauharnais, was evaded by giving Napoleon
       himself (but none of his successors) a power of adoption, and
       fixing the succession, in default of a direct heir, natural or
       adoptive, first in Joseph and his descendants, then in Louis
       and his descendants. Except abstaining from the regal title,
       no attempt was made to conceal the abolition of republicanism.
       ... The change was made by the constituent power of the
       Senate, and the Senatus-Consulte is dated May 18, 1804. The
       title of Emperor had an ulterior meaning.
    {1341}
       Adopted at the moment when Napoleon began to feel himself
       master both in Italy and Germany, it revived the memory of
       Charles the Great. To himself it was the more satisfactory on
       that account, and, strange to say, it gave satisfaction rather
       than offence to the Head of the Holy Roman Empire, Francis II.
       Since Joseph, the Habsburg Emperors had been tired of their
       title, which, being elective, was precarious. They were
       desirous of becoming hereditary emperors in Austria, and they
       now took this title (though without as yet giving up the
       other). Francis II. bartered his acknowledgement of Napoleon's
       new title against Napoleon's acknowledgement of his own. It
       required some impudence to condemn Moreau for royalism at the
       very moment that his rival was re-establishing monarchy. Yet
       his trial began on May 15th. The death of Pichegru, nominally
       by suicide, on April 6th, had already furnished the rising
       sultanism with its first dark mystery. Moreau was condemned to
       two years' imprisonment, but was allowed to retire to the
       United States."

          J. R. Seeley,
          Short History of Napoleon I.,
          chapter 8, section 4.

          C. C. Fauriel,
          The Last Days of the Consulate.

       Chancellor Pasquier, in his Memoirs, narrates the
       circumstances of the seizure of the Duc d'Enghien at
       considerable length, and says: "This is what really occurred,
       according to what I have been told by those better situated to
       know. A council was held on the 9th of March: It is almost
       certain that previous to this council, which was a kind of
       official affair, a more secret one had been held at the house
       of Joseph Bonaparte. At the first council, to which were
       convened only a few persons, all on a footing of family
       intimacy, it was discussed by order of the First Consul, what
       would be proper to do with a prince of the House of Bourbon,
       in case one should have him in one's power, and the decision
       reached was that if he was captured on French territory, one
       had the right to take his life, but not otherwise. At the
       council held on the 9th, and which was composed of the three
       Consuls, the Chief Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
       and M. Fouché, although the latter had not then resumed the
       post of Minister of Police, the two men who expressed contrary
       opinions were M. de Talleyrand and M. de Cambacérès. M. de
       Talleyrand declared that the prince should be sent to his
       death. M. Lebrun, the Third Consul, contented himself with
       saying that such an event would have a terrible echo
       throughout the world. M. de Cambacérès contended earnestly
       that it would be sufficient to hold the prince as hostage for
       the safety of the First Consul. The latter sided with M. de
       Talleyrand, whose counsels then prevailed. The discussion was
       a heated one, and when the meeting of the council was over, M.
       de Cambacérès thought it his duty to make a last attempt, so
       he followed Bonaparte into his study, and laid before him with
       perhaps more strength than might be expected from his
       character, the consequences of the deed he was about to
       perpetrate, and the universal horror it would excite. ... He
       spoke in vain. In the privacy of his study, Bonaparte
       expressed himself even with greater violence than he had done
       at the council. He answered that the death of the duke would
       seem to the world but a just reprisal for what was being
       attempted against him personally; that it was necessary to
       teach the House of Bourbon that the blows struck with its
       sanction were liable to recoil on its own head; that this was
       the only way of compelling it to abstain from its dastardly
       schemes, and lastly, that matters had gone too far to retrace
       one's steps. M. de Talleyrand supplied this last argument."

          Chancellor Pasquier,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, pages 190-191.

       "Bonaparte's accession to the Empire was proclaimed with the
       greatest pomp, without waiting to inquire whether the people
       approved of his promotion or otherwise. The proclamation was
       coldly received, even by the populace, and excited little
       enthusiasm. ... The Emperor was recognised by the soldiery
       with more warmth. He visited the encampments at Boulogne,"
       and, afterwards, "accompanied with his Empress, who bore her
       honours both gracefully and meekly, visited Aix-la-Chapelle
       and the frontiers of Germany. They received the
       congratulations of all the powers of Europe, excepting
       England, Russia, and Sweden, upon their new exaltation. ...
       But the most splendid and public recognition of his new rank
       was yet to be made, by the formal act of coronation, which,
       therefore, Napoleon determined should take place with
       circumstances of solemnity which had been beyond the reach of
       any temporal prince, however powerful, for many ages. ...
       Though Charlemagne had repaired to Rome to receive
       inauguration from the hands of the Pontiff of that day,
       Napoleon resolved that he who now owned the proud, and in
       Protestant eyes profane, title of Vicar of Christ, should
       travel to France to perform the coronation. ... The Pope, and
       the cardinals whom he consulted, implored the illumination of
       Heaven upon their councils; but it was the stern voice of
       necessity which assured them that, except at the risk of
       dividing the Church by a schism, they could not refuse to
       comply with Buonaparte's requisition. The Pope left Rome on
       the 5th November. ... On the 2d December [1804] the coronation
       took place in the ancient cathedral of Notre Dame. ... The
       crown having been blessed by the Pope, Napoleon took it from
       the altar with his own hands, and placed it on his brows. He
       then put the diadem on the head of his Empress, as if
       determined to show that his authority was the child of his own
       actions. ... The northern states of Italy had followed the
       example of France through all her change of models. ... The
       authorities of the Italian (late Cisalpine) Republic, had a
       prescient guess of what was expected of them. A deputation
       appeared at Paris to declare the absolute necessity which they
       felt, that their government should assume a monarchical and
       hereditary form. On the 17th March [1805], they obtained an
       audience of the Emperor, to whom they intimated the unanimous
       desire of their countrymen that Napoleon, founder of the
       Italian Republic, should be monarch of the Italian Kingdom.
       ... Buonaparte granted the petition of the Italian States, and
       ... upon the 11th April, ... with his Empress, set off to go
       through the form of coronation as King of Italy. ... The new
       kingdom was, in all respects, modeled on the same plan with
       the French Empire. An order, called 'of the Iron Crown,' was
       established on the footing of that of the Legion of Honour. A
       large French force was taken into Italian pay, and Eugene
       Beauharnais, the son of Josephine by her former marriage, who
       enjoyed and merited the confidence of his father-in-law, was
       created viceroy, and appointed to represent, in that
       character, the dignity of Napoleon. Napoleon did not leave
       Italy without further extension of his empire. Genoa, once the
       proud and the powerful, resigned her independence, and her
       Doge presented to the Emperor a request that the Ligurian
       Republic ... should be considered in future as a part of the
       French nation."

          Sir W. Scott,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 48 (Paris edition, 1828).

    {1342}

       "Genoa and the Ligurian Republic were incorporated with
       France, June 3d 1805. ... The Duchies of Parma and Piacenza,
       which, together with Guastalla, had been already seized, were
       declared dependencies of the French Empire by an imperial
       decree of July 21st. The principality of Piombino was bestowed
       on Napoleon's sister Eliza, wife of the Senator Bacciocchi,
       but on conditions which retained it under the Emperor's
       suzerainty: and the little state was increased by the addition
       of the Republic of Lucca."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 1, chapter 11 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          C. Botta,
          Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
          chapters 3-4.

          Memoirs dictated by Napoleon to his
          Generals at St. Helena,
          volume 6, pages 219-225.

          J. Fouché,
          Memoirs,
          pages 260-274.

          Count Miot de Melito,
          Memoirs,
          chapters 16-17.

          W. Hazlitt,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapters 38-34 (volume 2).

          Madame de Rémusat,
          Memoirs,
          book 1, chapters 4-10 (volume 1).

          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          volume 2, chapters 9-10.

          M. de Bourrienne,
          Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 3, chapters 1-12.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (January-April).
       The Third European Coalition.

       "In England Pitt returned to office in May, 1804, and this in
       itself was an evil omen for France. He enjoyed the confidence,
       not only of his own nation but of Europe, and he at once set
       to work to resume the threads of that coalition of which
       England had formerly directed the resources. Alexander I. of
       Russia had begun to see through the designs of Napoleon; he
       found that he had been duped in the joint mediation in
       Germany, he resented the occupation of Hanover and he ordered
       his court to put on mourning for the duke of Enghien. Before
       long he broke off diplomatic relations with France (September
       1804), and a Russian war was now only a question of time.
       Austria was the power most closely affected by Napoleon's
       assumption of the imperial title. ... While hastening to
       acknowledge Napoleon, Austria was busied in military
       preparations and began to resume its old connection with
       England. Prussia was the power on which France was accustomed
       to rely with implicit confidence. But the occupation of
       Hanover and the interference with the commerce of the Elbe had
       weakened Frederick William III.'s belief in the advantages of
       a neutral policy, and, though he could not make up his mind to
       definite action, he began to open negotiations with Russia in
       view of a rupture with France. The fluctuations of Prussian
       policy may be followed in the alternating influence of the two
       ministers of foreign affairs, Haugwitz and Hardenberg.
       Meanwhile Napoleon, ignorant or reckless of the growing
       hostility of the great powers, continued his aggressions at
       the expense of the lesser states. ... These acts gave the
       final impulse to the hostile powers, and before Napoleon
       quitted Italy the Coalition had been formed. On the 11th of
       April, 1805, a final treaty was signed between Russia and
       England. The two powers pledged themselves to form an European
       league against France, to conclude no peace without mutual
       consent, to settle disputed points in a congress at the end of
       the war, and to form a federal tribunal for the maintenance of
       the system which should, then be established. The immediate
       objects of the allies were the abolition of French rule in
       Italy, Holland, Switzerland, and Hanover; the restoration of
       Piedmont to the king of Sardinia; the protection of Naples;
       and the erection of a permanent barrier against France by the
       union of Holland and Belgium under the House of Orange. The
       coalition was at once joined by Gustavus IV. of Sweden, who
       inherited his father's devotion to the cause of legitimate
       monarchy, and who hoped to recover power in Pomerania.
       Austria, terrified for its Italian possessions by Bonaparte's
       evident intention to subdue the whole peninsula, was driven
       into the league. Prussia, in spite of the attraction of
       recovering honour and independence, refused to listen to the
       solicitations of England and Russia, and adhered to its feeble
       neutrality. Of the other German states Bavaria, Baden, and
       Wurtemberg were allies of France. As far as effective
       operations were concerned, the coalition consisted only of
       Austria and Russia. Sweden and Naples, which had joined
       secretly, could not make efforts on a great scale, and England
       was as yet content with providing subsidies and the invaluable
       services of its fleet. It was arranged that, one Austrian army
       under the archduke Charles should invade Lombardy, while Mack,
       with a second army and the aid of Russia, should occupy
       Bavaria and advance upon the Rhine."

          R. Lodge,
          History of Modern Europe,
          chapter 24, sections 13-15.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 39 (volume 9).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (March-December).
       Napoleon's plans and preparations for the invasion of England.
       Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleets.
       His victory and death at Trafalgar.
       Napoleon's rapid march to the Danube.
       Capitulation of Mack at Ulm.
       The French in Vienna.
       The great battle of Austerlitz.

       "While the coalition was forming, and Napoleon seemed wantonly
       to be insulting Europe and ignoring the danger of exciting
       fresh enemies, he was in fact urging on with all rapidity his
       schemes for the invasion of England, which he probably hoped
       might be so successful as to paralyse all action on the part
       of the European powers. The constantly repeated
       representations of his naval officers had forced him, much
       against his will, to believe that his descent upon England
       would be impracticable unless secured by the presence of his
       fleet. In spite of the general voice of those who knew the
       condition of the French navy, he determined to act with his
       fleet on the same principles as he would have acted with his
       army; a gigantic combination of various squadrons was to be
       effected, and a fleet great enough to destroy all hope of
       opposition to sweep the Channel. For this purpose the 18 ships
       of the line at Brest under Admiral Gantheaume, the squadron at
       Rochefort under Villeneuve, and the Toulon fleet under
       Latouche-Tréville, were to unite. The last mentioned admiral
       was intrusted with the chief command. Sailing up the coast of
       France, he was to liberate from their blockade the squadrons
       of Rochefort and Brest, and with their combined fleets appear
       before Boulogne. But Latouche-Tréville died, and Napoleon
       intrusted his plans to Villeneuve.
    {1343}
       Those plans, all of them arranged without regard to the bad
       condition of the French ships, or to the uncertainty of the
       weather, were frequently changed; at one time Villeneuve from
       Toulon, and Missiessy, his successor, at Rochefort, were to
       proceed to the West Indies, drawing the English fleet thither;
       then Gantheaume was to appear from Brest, throw troops into
       Ireland, and thus cover the flotilla. At another time, all the
       fleets were to assemble at the West Indies, and, joining with
       the Spanish fleet at Ferrol, appear in the Straits of Calais.
       To complete this last measure Villeneuve set sail from Toulon
       on the 30th of March 1805, joined Gravina at Cadiz, and
       reached Martinique on the 13th of May with 20 ships of the
       line, and 7 frigates. His voyage was so slow that Missiessy
       had returned from the West Indies to France, and the junction
       failed. In hot pursuit of Villeneuve, Nelson, who had at
       length found out his destination, had hurried. At Martinique
       Gantheaume, with the Brest fleet, should have joined
       Villeneuve; unfortunately for him, Admiral Cornwallis
       blockaded his fleet. Villeneuve therefore had to return to
       Europe alone, sailing for Ferrol to pick up a squadron of 15
       ships. He was then, at the head of 35 ships, ordered to appear
       before Brest, liberate Gantheaume, and appear in the Channel.
       Back again in pursuit of him Nelson sailed, but supposed that
       he would return to the Mediterranean and not to Ferrol; he
       therefore again missed him; but as he had found means to
       inform the English Government that Villeneuve was returning to
       Europe, Calder, with a fleet of 15 ships, was sent to
       intercept him. The fleets encountered off Cape Finisterre
       [Northwest corner of Spain]. The French had 27 vessels, Calder
       but 18, and after an indecisive battle, in which two Spanish
       ships were taken, he was afraid to renew the engagement; and
       Villeneuve was thus enabled to reach Ferrol in safety.
       However, all the operations towards concentration had led to
       absolutely nothing, and the English fleets, which the
       movements towards the West Indies were to have decoyed from
       the Channel, were either still off the coast of France or in
       immediate pursuit of the fleet of Villeneuve. Nelson returned
       to Gibralter, and as soon as he found out where Villeneuve
       was, he joined his fleet to that of Cornwallis before Brest,
       and himself returned to England. ... Meanwhile Villeneuve had
       not been able to get ready for sea till the 11th of August.
       ... He was afraid to venture northwards, and with the full
       approbation of his Spanish colleague Gravina, determined to
       avail himself of a last alternative which Napoleon had
       suggested, and sailed to Cadiz. This was a fatal blow to the
       gigantic schemes of Napoleon. Up till the 22nd of August he
       still believed that Villeneuve would make his appearance, and
       in fact wrote to him that day at Brest, closing his letter
       with the words, 'England is ours.' As the time for his great
       stroke drew near he grew nervously anxious, constantly
       watching the Channel for the approach of the fleet, and at
       last, when his Minister of Marine, Decrès, told him that the
       fleet had gone to Cadiz, he broke forth in bitter wrath
       against both his Minister and Villeneuve, whom he accused of
       the most shameful weakness. But Napoleon was not a man who let
       his success be staked upon one plan alone. Though studiously
       hiding from his people the existence of the coalition, and not
       scrupling to have recourse to forged letters and fabricated
       news for the purpose, he was fully aware of its existence. ...
       Without much difficulty, therefore, he at once resigned his
       great plans upon England, and directed his army towards the
       eastern frontier."

          J. F. Bright,
          History of England, period 3,
          pages 1261-1264.

       "In the first days of September, 1805, Napoleon's great army
       was in full march across France and Germany, to attain the
       Danube. ... The Allies ... had projected four separate and
       ill-combined attacks; the first on Hanover and Holland by a
       Russian and British force; the second, on Lower Italy by a
       similar body; the third, by a great Austrian army on Upper
       Italy; and the fourth, by a United Austrian and Russian army,
       moving across Southern Germany to the Rhine. ... By this time,
       the Austrian Mack had drawn close to the Inn, in order to
       compel Bavaria to join the Allies, and was even making his way
       to the Iller, but his army was far distant from that of the
       Russian chief, Kutusoff, and still further from that of
       Buxhöwden, the one in Galicia, the other in Poland. ...
       Napoleon had seized this position of affairs, with the
       comprehensive knowledge of the theatre of war, and the skill
       of arranging armies upon it, in which he has no equals among
       modern captains. He opposed Masséna to the Archdukes, with a
       much weaker force, confident that his great lieutenant could
       hold them in check. He neglected the attacks from the North
       Sea, and the South; but he resolved to strike down Mack, in
       overwhelming strength, should he advance without his Russian
       supports. ... The great mass of the Grand Army had reached the
       Main and Rhine by the last week of September. The left wing,
       joined by the Bavarian forces, and commanded by Bernadotte and
       Marmont, had marched from Hanover and Holland, and was around
       Würtzburg; the centre, the corps of Soult, and Davoust, moved
       from the channel, was at Spire and Mannheim, and the right
       wing, formed of the corps of Ney and Lannes, with the Imperial
       Guard, and the horse of Murat, filled the region between
       Carlsruhe and Strasburg, the extreme right under Augereau,
       which had advanced from Brittany, being still behind but
       drawing towards Huningen. By this time Mack was upon the
       Iller, holding the fortress of Ulm on the upper Danube, and
       extending his forces thence to Memmingen. ... By the first
       days of October the great French masses ... were in full march
       from the Rhine to the Main, across Würtemberg and the
       Franconian plains; and cavalry filled the approaches to the
       Black Forest, in order to deceive and perplex Mack. ... The
       Danube ere long was reached and crossed, at Donauwörth,
       Ingolstadt, and other points; and Napoleon already stood on
       the rear of his enemy, interposing between him and Vienna, and
       cut him off from the Russians, even now distant. The net was
       quickly drawn round the ill-fated Mack. ... By the third week
       of October, the Grand Army had encompassed the Austrians on
       every side, and Napoleon held his quarry in his grasp. Mack
       ... had not the heart to strike a desperate stroke, and to
       risk a battle; and he capitulated at Ulm on the 19th of
       October. Two divisions of his army had contrived to break out;
       but one was pursued and nearly destroyed by Murat, and the
       other was compelled by Augereau to lay down its arms, as it
       was on its way to the hills of the Tyrol. An army of 85,000
       men had thus, so to speak, been well-nigh effaced; and not
       20,000 had effected their escape. France meanwhile had met a
       crushing disaster on the element which England had made her
       own.
    {1344}
       We have seen how Villeneuve had put into Cadiz, afraid to face
       the hostile fleets off Brest; and how this had baffled the
       project of the descent. Napoleon was indignant with his
       ill-fated admiral. ... At a hint of disgrace the susceptible
       Frenchman made up his mind, at any risk, to fight. By this
       time Nelson had left England, and was off Cadiz with a
       powerful fleet; and he actually weakened his force by four
       sail-of-the-line, in order to lure his adversary out. On the
       20th of October, 1805, the allied fleet was in the open sea;
       it had been declared at a council of war, that a lost battle
       was almost certain, so bad was the condition of many of the
       crews; but Villeneuve was bent on challenging Fate; and almost
       courted defeat, in his despair. ... On the morning of the
       21st, the allied fleet, 33 war ships, and a number of
       frigates, was off Cape Trafalgar [25 miles west of Gibraltar
       on the coast of Spain], making for the Straits. ... Nelson
       advanced slowly against his doomed enemy, with 27 ships and
       their attendant frigates; the famous signal floated from his
       mast, 'England expects every man to do his duty'; and, at
       about noon, Collingwood pierced Villeneuve's centre; nearly
       destroying the Santa Anna with a single broadside. Ere long
       Nelson had, broken Villeneuve's line, with the Victory,
       causing frightful destruction; and as other British ships came
       up by degrees they relieved the leading ships from the
       pressure of their foes, and completed the ruin already begun.
       At about one, Nelson met his death wound, struck by a shot
       from the tops of the Redoutable. ... Pierced through and
       through, the shattered allied centre was soon a collection of
       captured wrecks. ... Only 11 ships out of 33 escaped; and the
       burning Achille, like the Orient at the Nile, added to the
       grandeur and horrors of an appalling scene. Villeneuve, who
       had fought most honourably in the Bucentaure, was compelled to
       strike his flag before the death of Nelson. The van of the
       allies that had fled at Trafalgar, was soon afterwards
       captured by a British squadron. Though dearly bought by the
       death of Nelson, the victory may be compared to Lepanto; and
       it blotted France out as a great Power on the ocean; Napoleon
       ... never tried afterwards to meet England at sea. ... His
       success, at this moment, had been so wonderful, that what he
       called 'the loss of a few ships at sea,' seemed a trifling and
       passing rebuff of fortune. ... He had discomfitted the whole
       plan of the Allies; and the failure of the attack on the main
       scene of the theatre had caused all the secondary attacks to
       fail. ... Napoleon, throwing out detachments to protect his
       flanks, had entered Vienna on the 14th of November. ... The
       House of Hapsburg and its chief had fled. ... Extraordinary as
       his success had been, the position of the Emperor had, in a
       few days, become grave. ... Napoleon had not one hundred
       thousand men in hand--apart from the bodies that covered his
       flanks--to make head against his converging enemies. Always
       daring, however, he resolved to attack the Allies before they
       could receive aid from Prussia; and he marched from Vienna
       towards the close of November; having taken careful
       precautions to guard his rear. ... By this time the Allies
       were around Olmütz, the Archdukes were not many marches away,
       and a Prussian army was nearly ready to move. Had the Russians
       and Austrians fallen back from Olmütz and effected their
       junction with the Archdukes, they could, therefore, have.
       opposed the French with a force more than two-fold in numbers.
       ... But the folly and presumption which reigned among the young
       nobles surrounding the Czar--Alexander was now at the head of
       his army--brought on the Coalition deserved punishment, and
       pedantry had its part in an immense disaster. The force of
       Napoleon appeared small, his natural line of retreat was
       exposed, and a theorist in the Austrian camp persuaded the
       Czar and the Austrian Emperor, who was at the head of his
       troops at Olmütz, to consent to a magnificent plan of
       assailing Napoleon by the well-known method of Frederick the
       Great, in the Seven Years' War, of turning his right wing, by
       an attack made, in the oblique order, in great force, and of
       cutting him off from his base at Vienna, and driving him,
       routed, into, Bohemia. This grand project on paper, which
       involved a march across the front of the hostile army within
       reach of the greatest of masters of war, was hailed with
       exultation. ... The Allies were soon in full march from
       Olmütz, and preparations were made for the decisive movement
       in the night of the 1st December, 1805. Napoleon had watched
       the reckless false step being made by his foes with unfeigned
       delight; 'that army is mine,' he proudly exclaimed. ... The
       sun of Austerlitz rose on the 2nd, the light of victory often
       invoked by Napoleon. ... The dawn of the winter's day revealed
       three large columns, succeeded by a fourth at no great
       distance, toiling through a tract of marshes and frozen lakes,
       to outflank Napoleon's right on the Goldbach, the allied
       centre, on the tableland of Prätzen, immediately before the
       French front, having been dangerously weakened by this great
       turning movement. The assailants were opposed by a small force
       only, under Davoust, one of the best of the marshals. ... Ere
       long Napoleon, who, like a beast of prey, had reserved his
       strength until it was time to spring, launched Soult in force
       against the Russian and Austrian centre, enfeebled by the
       detachment against the French right and exposed to the whole
       weight of Napoleon's attacks; and Prätzen was stormed after a
       fierce struggle, in which Bernadotte gave the required aid to
       Soult. The allied centre was thus rent asunder. Lannes
       meanwhile had defeated the allied right. ... Napoleon now
       turned with terrible energy and in overwhelming strength
       against the four columns, that had assailed his right, but had
       begun to retreat. His victorious centre was aided by his
       right, now set free; the Russians and Austrians were struck
       with panic, a horrible scene of destruction followed, the
       flying troops were slain or captured in thousands; and
       multitudes perished, engulfed in the lakes, the French
       artillery shattering their icy surface. The rout was decisive,
       complete, and appalling; about 80,000 of the Allies were
       engaged; they lost all their guns and nearly half their
       numbers, and the remains of their army were a worthless wreck.
       Napoleon had only 60,000 men in the fight. ... The memorable
       campaign of 1805 is, perhaps, the grandest of Napoleon's
       exploits in war."

          W. O'C. Morris,
          Napoleon,
          chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thiers,
          History of the Consulate and Empire,
          book 22 (volume 2).

          R. Southey,
          Life of Nelson,
          chapters 8-9 (volume 2).

          W. C. Russell,
          Nelson and the Naval Supremacy of England,
          chapters 17-20.

          Lord Nelson,
          Dispatches and Letters,
          volumes 6-7.

          Capt. E. J. de la Gravière,
          Sketches of the last Naval War,
          part 6 (volume 2).

          C. Adams,
          Great Campaigns in Europe, from 1796 to 1870,
          chapter 3.

          Baron de Marbot,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapters 20-23.

          A. T. Mahan,
          Influences of Sea Power upon the French Revolution,
          chapters 15-16 (volume 2).

    {1345}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (December-August).
       The Peace of Presburg.
       Humiliation of Austria.
       Formation of the Confederation of the Rhine.
       Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire.
       The goading of Prussia to war.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806;
          and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (December-September).
       Dethronement of the dynasty of Naples.
       Bestowal of the crown upon Joseph Bonaparte.

       The treaty of Presburg was "immediately followed by a measure
       hitherto unprecedented in European history--the pronouncing a
       sentence of dethronement against an independent, sovereign,
       for no other cause than his having contemplated hostilities
       against the French Emperor; On the 26th December [1805] a
       menacing proclamation proceeded from Presburg ... which
       evidently bore marks of Napoleon's composition, against the
       house of Naples. The conqueror announced that Marshal St. Cyr
       would advance by rapid strides to Naples, 'to punish the
       treason of a criminal queen, and precipitate her from the
       throne. We have pardoned that infatuated king, who thrice has
       done everything to ruin himself. Shall we pardon him a fourth
       time? ... No! The dynasty of Naples has ceased to reign--its
       existence is incompatible with the repose of Europe and the
       honour of my crown.' ... The ominous announcement, made from
       the depths of Moravia, that the dynasty of Naples had ceased
       to reign, was not long allowed to remain a dead letter.
       Massena was busily employed, in January, in collecting his
       forces in the centre of Italy, and before the end of that
       month 50,000 men, under the command of Joseph Buonaparte, had
       crossed the Pontifical States and entered the Neapolitan
       territory in three columns, which marched on Gaeta, Capua, and
       Itri. Resistance was impossible; the feeble Russian and
       English forces which had disembarked to support the Italian
       levies, finding the whole weight of the war likely to be
       directed against them, withdrew to Sicily; the court,
       thunderstruck by the menacing proclamation of 27th December,
       speedily followed their example. ... In vain the intrepid
       Queen Caroline, who still remained at Naples, armed the
       lazzaroni, and sought to infuse into the troops a portion of
       her own indomitable courage; she was seconded by none; Capua
       opened its gates; Gaeta was invested; the Campagna filled with
       the invaders; she, vanquished but not subdued, compelled to
       yield to necessity, followed her timid consort to Sicily; and,
       on the 15th February, Naples beheld its future sovereign,
       Joseph Buonaparte, enter its walls. ... During the first
       tumult of invasion, the peasantry of Calabria ... submitted to
       the enemy. ... But the protraction of the siege of Gaeta,
       which occupied Massena with the principal army of the French,
       gave them time to recover from their consternation. ... A
       general insurrection took place in the beginning of March, and
       the peasants stood firm in more than one position; but they
       were unable to withstand the shock of the veterans of France,
       and in a decisive action in the plain of Campo-Tenese their
       tumultuary levies, though 15,000 strong, were entirely
       dispersed. The victorious Reynier penetrated even to Reggio,
       and the standards of Napoleon waved on its towers, in sight of
       the English videtts on the shores of Sicily. When hostilities
       had subsided, Joseph repaired in person to the theatre of war.
       ... He received at Savigliano, the principal town of the
       province, the decree, by which Napoleon created him king of
       the two Sicilies. By so doing, however, he was declared not to
       lose his contingent right of succession to the throne of
       France; but the two crowns were never to be united."

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 40, section 150,
          and chapter 42, sections 21-23,(volume 9).

       "Joseph's tenure of his new dominion was yet incomplete. The
       fortress of Gaeta still held out, ... and the British in
       Sicily (who had already taken the Isle of Capri, close to the
       capital) sent 5,000 men to their aid under Sir John Stuart,
       who encountered at Maida (July 6) a French corps of 7.500,
       under Reynier. The battle presented one of the rare instances
       in which French and British troops have actually crossed
       bayonets; but French enthusiasm sank before British
       intrepidity, and the enemy were driven from the field with the
       loss of half their number. The victory of Maida had a
       prodigious moral effect in raising the spirits and
       self-confidence of the British soldiery; but its immediate
       results were less considerable. The French were indeed driven
       from Calabria, but the fall of Gaeta (July 18th), after the
       loss of its brave governor, the Prince of Hesse-Philipsthal,
       released the main army under Massena: the British exposed to
       be attacked by overwhelming numbers, re-embarked (September 5)
       for Palermo, and the Calabrian insurrection was suppressed with
       great bloodshed. But an amnesty was at length ... published by
       Joseph, who devoted himself with great zeal and admirable
       judgment to heal the wounds of his distracted kingdom."

          Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
          section 398.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Colletta,
          History of the Kingdom of Naples,
          book 5, chapter 4, and book 6, chapters 1-3.

          C. Botta,
          Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
          chapter 4.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (January-October).
       Napoleon's triumphant return to Paris.
       Death of Pitt.
       Peace negotiations with England.
       King making and prince making by the Corsican Cæsar.

       ON the 27th of December, the day after the signing of the
       Treaty of Presburg, Napoleon left Vienna for Paris. "En route
       for Paris he remained a week at Munich to be present at the
       marriage of Eugene Beauharnais to the Princess Augusta,
       daughter of the King of Bavaria. Josephine joined him, and the
       whole time was passed in fêtes and rejoicings. On this
       occasion he proclaimed Eugene his adopted son, and, in default
       of issue of his own, his successor in the kingdom of Italy.
       Accompanied by Josephine, Napoleon re-entered Paris on the
       26th of January, 1806, amidst the most enthusiastic
       acclamations. The national vanity was raised to the highest
       pitch by the glory and extent of territory he had acquired.
       The Senate at a solemn audience besought him to accept the
       title of 'the Great'; and public rejoicings lasting many days
       attested his popularity. An important political event in
       England opened new views of security and peace to the empire,
       William Pitt, the implacable enemy of the Revolution, had died
       on the 23rd of January, at the early age of 47; and the
       Government was entrusted to the hands of his great opponent,
       Charles James Fox.
    {1346}
       The disastrous results of the war of which Pitt had been the
       mainstay probably hastened his death. After the capitulation
       of Ulm he never rallied. The well-known friendship of Fox for
       Napoleon, added to his avowed principles, afforded the
       strongest hopes that England and France were at length
       destined to cement the peace of the world by entering into
       friendly relations. Aided by Talleyrand, who earnestly
       counselled peace, Napoleon made overtures to the English
       Government through Lord Yarmouth, who was among the détenus.
       He offered to yield the long-contested point of
       Malta--consenting to the continued possession of that island,
       the Cape of Good Hope, and other conquests in the East and
       West Indies by Great Britain, and proposing generally that the
       treaty should be conducted on the uti possidetis principle:
       that is, allowing each party to retain whatever it had
       acquired in the course of the war. Turkey acknowledged
       Napoleon as Emperor and entered into amicable relations with
       the French nation; and what was still more important, Russia
       signed a treaty of peace in July, influenced by the pacific
       inclinations of the English Minister. Napoleon resolved to
       surround his throne with an order of nobles, and to place
       members of his family on the thrones of the conquered
       countries adjoining France in order that they might become
       parts of his system and co-operate in his plans. Two decrees
       of the 31st of March declared Joseph Bonaparte King of Naples,
       and Murat Grand Duke of Berg and Cleves. Louis Bonaparte was
       made King of Holland a few months afterwards, and Jerome King
       of Westphalia in the following year. The Princess Pauline
       received the principality of Guastalla, and Talleyrand,
       Bernadotte, and Berthier those of Benevento, Ponte-Corvo, and
       Neufchâtel. Fifteen dukedoms were created and bestowed on the
       most distinguished statesmen and generals of the empire, each
       with an income amounting to a fifteenth part of the revenue of
       the province attached to it. These became grand fiefs of the
       empire. Cambacérès and Lebrun were made Dukes of Parma and
       Placenza; Savary, Duke of Rovigo; Junot, of Abrantes; Lannes,
       of Montebello, &c. The manners of some of these Republican
       soldiers were ill adapted to courtly forms, and afforded
       amusement to the members of the ancient and legitimate order.
       ... Napoleon's desire to conciliate and form alliances with
       the established dynasties and aristocracies of Europe kept
       pace with his daring encroachments on their hitherto exclusive
       dignity. Besides the marriage of Eugene Beauharnais to a
       Princess of Bavaria, an alliance was concluded between the
       hereditary Prince of Baden and Mademoiselle Stephanie
       Beauharnais, a niece of the Empress. The old French noblesse
       were also encouraged to appear at the Tuileries. During the
       Emperor's visit at Munich the Republican calendar was
       abolished and the usual mode of computing time restored in
       France. ... The negotiations with England went on tardily, and
       the news of Fox's alarming state of health excited the gravest
       fears in the French Government. Lord Lauderdale arrived in
       Paris, on the part of England, in the month of August; but
       difficulties were continually started, and before anything was
       decided the death of Fox gave the finishing blow to all hope
       of peace. Lord Lauderdale demanded his passports and left
       Paris in October. Napoleon wished to add Sicily to his
       brother's new kingdom of Naples; but British ships were able
       to protect the King and Queen of Naples in that insular
       position, and the English Government refused to desert their
       allies on this occasion or to consent to any compensation or
       adjustment offered. On this point principally turned the
       failure of the attempt at peace as far as can be discovered
       from the account of the negotiations."

          R. H. Horne,
          History of Napoleon,
          chapter 26.

          ALSO IN:
          Madame de Rémusat,
          Memoirs,
          chapters 16-21 (volume 2).

          Duke of Rovigo,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, part 2, chapters 18-21.

          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          volume 2, chapter 15.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (October).
       The subjugation of Prussia at Jena.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1807.
       Napoleon's campaign against the Russians.
       Eylau and Friedland.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807;
          and 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

    FRANCE: A.D. 1806-1810.
       Commercial warfare with England.
       British Orders in Council and Napoleon's Berlin and Milan
       Decrees.
       The "Continental System."

       "As the war advanced, after the Peace of Amiens, the neutrals
       became bolder and more aggressive. "American ships were
       constantly arriving at Dutch and French ports with sugar,
       coffee, and other productions of the French and Spanish West
       Indies. And East India goods were imported by them into Spain,
       Holland, and France. ... By the rivers and canals of Germany
       and Flanders goods were floated into the warehouses of the
       enemy, or circulated far the supply of his customers in
       neutral countries. ... It was a general complaint, therefore,
       that the enemy carried on colonial commerce under the neutral
       flag, cheaply as well as safely; that he was enabled not only
       to elude British hostilities, but to rival British merchants
       and planters in the European markets; that by the same means
       the hostile treasuries were filled with a copious stream of
       revenue; and that by this licentious use of the neutral flag,
       the enemy was enabled to employ his whole military marine for
       purposes of offensive war, without being obliged to maintain a
       squadron or a ship for the defence of his colonial ports. ...
       Such complaints made against neutral states found a powerful
       exposition in a work entitled 'War in Disguise and the Frauds
       of the Neutral Flag,' supposed to have been written by Mr.
       James Stephen, the real author of the orders in Council. The
       British Government did not see its way at once to proceed in
       the direction of prohibiting to neutral ships the colonial
       trade, which they had enjoyed for a considerable time; but the
       first step was taken to paralyse the resources of the enemy,
       and to restrict the trade of neutrals, by the issue of an
       order in Council in May 1806, declaring that all the coasts,
       ports, and rivers from the Elbe to Brest should be considered
       blockaded, though the only portion of those coasts rigorously
       blockaded was that included between the Ostend and the mouth
       of the Seine, in the ports of which preparations were made for
       the invasion of England. The northern ports of Germany and
       Holland were left partly open, and the navigation of the
       Baltic altogether free. Napoleon, then in the zenith of his
       power, saw, in this order in Council, a fresh act of
       wantonness, and he met it by the issue of the Berlin decree of
       November 21, 1806. In that document, remarkable for its
       boldness and vigour, Napoleon charged England with having set
       at nought the dictates of international law, with having made
       prisoners of war of private individuals, and with having taken
       the crews out of merchant ships.
    {1347}
       He charged this country with having captured private property
       at sea extended to commercial parts the restrictions of
       blockade applicable only to fortified places, declared as
       blockaded places which were not invested by naval forces, and
       abused the right of blockade in order to benefit her own trade
       at the expense of the commerce of Continental states. He
       asserted the right of combating the enemy with the same arms
       used against himself, especially when such enemy ignored all
       ideas of justice and every liberal sentiment which
       civilisation imposes. He announced his resolution to apply to
       England the same usages which she had established in her
       maritime legislation. He laid dawn the principles which France
       was resolved to act upon until England should recognise that
       the rights of war are the same on land as on sea. ... And upon
       these premises the decree ordered,

          1st, That the British islands should be declared in a state
          of blockade.

          2nd, That all commerce and correspondence with the British
          islands should be prohibited; and that letters addressed to
          England or Englishmen, written in the English language,
          should be detained and taken.

          3rd, That every British subject found in a country occupied
          by French troops, or by those of their allies, should be
          made a prisoner of war.

          4th, That all merchandise and property belonging to British
          subjects should be deemed a good prize.

          5th, That all commerce in English merchandise should be
          prohibited, and that all merchandise belonging to England
          or her colonies, and of British manufacture, should be
          deemed a good prize. And

          6th, That no vessel coming direct from England or her
          colonies be allowed to enter any French port, or any port
          subject to French authority; and that every vessel which,
          by means of a false declaration, should evade such
          regulations, should at once be captured.

       The British Government lost no time in retaliating against
       France far so bald a course; and, on January 7, 1807, an order
       in Council was issued, which, after reference to the orders
       issued by France, enjoined that no vessel should be allowed to
       trade from one enemy's port to another, or from one port to
       another of a French ally's coast shut against English vessels;
       and ordered the commanders of the ships of war and privateers
       to warn every neutral vessel coming from any such port, and
       destined to another such port, to discontinue her voyage, and
       that any vessel, after being so warned, which should be found
       proceeding to another such port should be captured and
       considered as lawful prize. This order in Council having
       reached Napoleon at Warsaw, he immediately ordered the
       confiscation of all English merchandise and colonial produce
       found in the Hanseatic Towns. ... But Britain, in return, went
       a step further, and, by order in Council of November 11, 1807,
       declared all the ports and places of France, and those of her
       allies, and of all countries where the English flag was
       excluded, even though they were not at war with Britain,
       should be placed under the same restrictions for commerce and
       navigation as if they were blockaded, and consequently that
       ships destined to those ports should be liable to the visit of
       British cruisers at a British station, and there subjected to
       a tax to be imposed by the British Parliament. Napoleon was at
       Milan when this order in Council was issued, and forthwith, on
       December 17, the famous decree appeared, by which he imposed
       on neutrals just the contrary of what was prescribed to them
       by England, and further declared that every vessel, of
       whatever nation, that submitted to the order in Council of
       November 11, should by that very act become denationalised,
       considered as British property, and condemned as a good prize.
       The decree placed the British islands in a state of blockade,
       and ordered that every ship, of whatever nation, and with
       whatever cargo, proceeding from English ports or English
       colonies to countries occupied by English troops, or going to
       England, should be a good prize. This England answered by the
       order in Council of April 26, 1809, which revoked the order of
       1807 as regards America, but confirmed the blockade of all the
       parts of France and Holland, their colonies and dependencies.
       And then France, still further incensed against England,
       issued the tariff of Trianon, dated August 5, 1810, completed
       by the decree of St. Cloud of September 12, and of
       Fontainebleau of October 19, which went the length of ordering
       the seizure and burning of all British goods found in France,
       Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, and in every place occupied by
       French troops. ... The princes of the Rhenish Confederation
       hastened to execute it, same for the purpose of enriching
       themselves by the wicked deed, same out of hatred towards the
       English, and some to show their devotion towards their master.
       From Carlsruhe to Munich, from Cassel to Dresden and Hamburg,
       everywhere, bonfires were made of English goods. And so
       exacting were the French that when Frankfort exhibited the
       least hesitation in carrying out the decree, French troops
       were sent to execute the order. By means such as these [known
       as the Continental System of Napoleon] the commerce of the
       world was greatly deranged, if not destroyed altogether, and
       none suffered more from them than England herself."

          L. Levi,
          History of British Commerce,
          part 2, chapter 4
          (with appended text of Orders and Decrees).

       "The object of the Orders in Council was ... twofold: to
       embarrass France and Napoleon by the prohibition of direct
       import and export trade, of all external commerce, which for
       them could only be carried on by neutrals; and at the same
       time to force into the Continent all the British products or
       manufactures that it could take. ... The whole system was
       then, and has since been, roundly abused as being in no sense
       a military measure, but merely a gigantic exhibition of
       commercial greed; but this simply begs the question. To win
       her fight Great Britain was obliged not only to weaken
       Napoleon, but to increase her own strength. The battle between
       the sea and the land was to be fought out on Commerce. England
       had no army wherewith to meet Napo lean; Napoleon had no navy
       to cope with that of his enemy. As in the case of an
       impregnable fortress, the only alternative for either of these
       contestants was to reduce the other by starvation. On the
       common frontier, the coast line, they met in a deadly strife
       in which no weapon was drawn. The imperial soldiers were
       turned into coast-guards-men to shut out Great Britain from
       her markets; the British ships became revenue cutters to
       prohibit the trade of France. The neutral carrier, pocketing
       his pride, offered his service to either for pay, and the
       other then regarded him as taking part in hostilities.
    {1348}
       The ministry, in the exigencies of debate, betrayed some lack
       of definite conviction as to their precise aim. Sometimes the
       Orders were justified as a military measure of retaliation;
       sometimes the need of supporting British commerce as essential
       to her life and to her naval strength was alleged; and, their,
       opponents in either case taunted them with inconsistency.
       Napoleon, with despotic simplicity, announced clearly his
       purpose of ruining England through her trade, and the ministry
       really needed no other arguments than his avowals. 'Salus
       civitatis suprema lex.' To call the measures of either not
       military, is as inaccurate as it would be to call the ancient
       practice of circumvallation, unmilitary, because the only
       weapon used for it was the spade. ... The Orders in Council
       received various modifications, due largely to the importance
       to Great Britain of the American market, which absorbed a
       great part of her manufactures; but these modifications,
       though sensibly lightening the burden upon neutrals and
       introducing some changes of form, in no sense departed from
       the spirit of the originals. The entire series was finally
       withdrawn in June, 1812, but too late to avert the war with
       the United States, which was declared in the same month.
       Napoleon never revoked his Berlin and Milan decrees, although
       by a trick he induced an over-eager President of the United
       States to believe that he had done so. ... The true function
       of Great Britain in this long struggle can scarcely be
       recognized unless there be a clear appreciation of the fact
       that a really great national movement, like the French
       Revolution, or a really great military power under an
       incomparable general, like the French Empire under Napoleon,
       is not to be brought to terms by ordinary military successes,
       which simply destroy the organized force opposed. ... If the
       course of aggression which Bonaparte had inherited from the
       Revolution was to continue, there were needed, not the
       resources of the Continent only, but of the world. There was
       needed also a diminution of ultimate resistance below the
       stored-up aggressive strength of France; otherwise, however
       procrastinated, the time must come when the latter should
       fail. On both these points Great Britain withstood Napoleon.
       She shut him off from the world, and by the same act prolonged
       her own powers of endurance beyond his power of aggression.
       This in the retrospect of history was the function of Great
       Britain, in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period; and that
       the successive ministries of Pitt and his followers pursued
       the course best fitted, upon the whole, to discharge that
       function, is their justification to posterity."

          Capt. A. T. Mahan,
          The Influence of Sea Power upon the
          French Revolution and Empire,
          chapters 18-19 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          H. Adams,
          History of the United States,
          volume 3, chapters 4 and 16,
          and volume 4, chapter 4.

          Lord Brougham,
          Life and Times, by himself,
          chapter 10 (volume 2).

          See also:
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (February-September).
       The Turkish alliance.
       Ineffective attempts of England against Constantinople
       and in Egypt.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (June-July).
       The Treaties of Tilsit with Russia and Prussia.
       The latter shorn of half her territory.
       Formation of the kingdom of Westphalia.
       Secret understandings between Napoleon and the Czar.

          See GERMANY. A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (July-December).
       The seeming power and real weakness of Napoleon's empire.

       "The dangers ... that lay hid under the new arrangement of the
       map of Europe [by, the Treaty of Tilsit], and in the results
       of French conquests, were as yet withdrawn from almost every
       eye; and the power of Napoleon was now at its height, though
       his empire was afterwards somewhat enlarged. ... If England
       still stood in arms against it, she was without an avowed ally
       on the Continent; and, drawing to itself the great Power of
       the North, it appeared to threaten the civilized world with
       that universal and settled domination which had not been seen
       since the fall of Rome. The Sovereign of France from the
       Scheldt to the Pyrenees, and of Italy from the Alps to the
       Tiber, Napoleon held under his immediate sway the fairest and
       most favored part of the Continent; and yet this was only the
       seat and centre of that far-spreading and immense authority.
       One of his brothers, Louis, governed the Batavian Republic,
       converted into the kingdom of Holland; another, Joseph wore
       the old Crown of Naples; and a third, Jerome, sat on the new
       throne of Westphalia; and he had reduced Spain to a simple
       dependency, while, with Austria humbled and Prussia crushed,
       he was supreme in Germany from the Rhine to the Vistula,
       through his confederate, subject, or allied States. This
       enormous Empire, with its vassal appendages, rested on great
       and victorious armies in possession of every point of vantage
       from the Niemen to the Adige and the Garonne, and proved as
       yet to be irresistible; and as Germany, Holland, Poland, and
       Italy swelled the forces of France with large contingents, the
       whole fabric of conquest seemed firmly cemented. Nor was the
       Empire the mere creation of brute force and the spoil of the
       sword; its author endeavoured, in some measure, to consolidate
       it through better and more lasting influences. Napoleon,
       indeed, suppressed the ideas of 1789 everywhere, but he
       introduced his Code and large social reforms into most of the
       vassal or allied States; he completed the work of destroying
       Feudalism which the Revolution had daringly begun and he left
       a permanent mark on the face of Europe, far beyond the limit
       of Republican France, in innumerable monuments of material
       splendour. ... Nor did the Empire at this time appear more
       firmly established abroad than within the limits of the
       dominant State which had become mistress of Continental
       Europe. The prosperity of the greater part of France was
       immense; the finances, fed by the contributions of war, seemed
       overflowing and on the increase; and if sounds of discontent
       were occasionally heard, they were lost in the universal
       acclaim which greeted the author of the national greatness,
       and the restorer of social order and welfare. ... In the
       splendour and success of the Imperial era, the animosities and
       divisions of the past disappeared, and France seemed to form a
       united people. If, too, the cost of conquest was great, and
       exacted a tribute of French blood, the military power of the
       Empire shone with the brightest radiance of martial renown;
       Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena, and Friedland could in part console
       even thinned households. ...
    {1349}
       The magnificent public works with which Napoleon adorned this
       part of his reign increased this sentiment of national
       grandeur; it was now that the Madeleine raised its front, and
       the Column, moulded from captured cannon; ... and Paris,
       decked out with triumphal arches, with temples of glory, and
       with stately streets, put on the aspect of ancient Rome,
       gathering into her lap the gorgeous spoils of subjugated and
       dependent races. ... Yet, notwithstanding its apparent
       strength, this structure of conquest and domination was
       essentially weak, and liable to decay. The work of the sword,
       and of new-made power, it was in opposition to the nature of
       things. ... The material and even social benefits conferred by
       the Code, and reform of abuses, could not compensate
       vanquished but martial races for the misery and disgrace of
       subjection; and, apart from the commercial oppression [of the
       Continental System, which destroyed commerce in order to do
       injury to England], ... the exasperating pressure of French
       officials, the exactions of the victorious French armies, and
       the severities of the conscription introduced among them,
       provoked discontent in the vassal States on which the yoke of
       the Empire weighed. ... The prostration, too, of Austria and
       Prussia ... had a direct tendency to make these powers forget
       their old discords in common suffering, and to bring to an end
       the internal divisions through which France had become supreme
       in Germany. ... The triumphant policy of Tilsit contained the
       germs of a Coalition against France more formidable than she
       had yet experienced. At the same time, the real strength of
       the instrument by which Napoleon maintained his power was
       being gradually but surely impaired; the imperial armies were
       more and more filled with raw conscripts and ill-affected
       allies, as their size increased with the extension of his
       rule; and the French element in them, on which alone reliance
       could be placed in possible defeat, was being dissipated,
       exhausted, and wasted. ... Nor was the Empire, within France
       itself, free from elements of instability and decline. The
       finances, well administered as they were, were so burdened by
       the charges of war that they were only sustained by conquest;
       and flourishing as their condition seemed, they had been often
       cruelly strained of late, and were unable to bear the shock of
       disaster. The seaports were beginning to suffer from the
       policy adopted to subdue England. ... Meanwhile, the continual
       demands on the youth of the nation for never-ceasing wars were
       gradually telling on its military power; Napoleon, after
       Eylau, had had recourse to the ruinous expedient of taking
       beforehand the levies which the conscription raised; and
       though complaints were as yet rare, the anticipation of the
       resources of France, which filled the armies with feeble boys,
       unequal to the hardships of a rude campaign, had been noticed
       at home as well as abroad. Nor were the moral ills of this
       splendid despotism less certain than its bad material results.
       ... The inevitable tendency of the Empire, even at the time of
       its highest glory, was to lessen manliness and self-reliance,
       to fetter and demoralize the human mind, and to weaken
       whatever public virtue and mental independence France
       possessed; and its authority had already begun to disclose
       some of the harsher features of Cæsarian despotism."

          W. O'C. Morris,
          The French Revolution and First Empire,
          chapter 12.

       "Notwithstanding so many brilliant and specious appearances,
       France did not possess either true prosperity or true
       greatness. She was not really prosperous; for not only was
       there no feeling of security, a necessary condition for the
       welfare of nations, but all the evils produced by so many
       years of war still weighed heavily on her. ... She was not
       really great, for all her great men had either been banished
       or put to silence. She could still point with pride to her
       generals and soldiers, although the army, which, if brave as
       ever, had gradually sunk from the worship of the country and
       liberty to that of glory, and from the worship of glory to
       that of riches, was corrupt and degenerate; but where were her
       great citizens? Where were her great orators, her great
       politicians, her great philosophers, her great writers of
       every kind? Where, at least, were their descendants? All who
       had shown a spark of genius or pride had been sacrificed for
       the benefit of a single man. They had disappeared; some
       crushed under the wheels of his chariot, others forced to live
       obscurely in some unknown retreat, and, what was graver still,
       their race seemed extinct. ... France was imprisoned, as it
       were, in an iron net, and the issues were closed to all the
       generous and ardent youth that had either intellectual or
       moral activity."

          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          volume 3, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          H. A. Taine;
          The Modern Regime,
          book 1, chapter 2,
          and book 3, chapter 3 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (September-November).
       Forcible seizure of the Danish fleet by the English.
       Frustration of Napoleon's plans.
       Alliance with Denmark.
       War with Sweden.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (October-November).
       French invasion and occupation of Portugal.
       Flight of the royal family to Brazil.
       Delusive treaty of partition with Spain.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.
       Napoleon's alienation of Talleyrand and others.

       Charles Maurice Talleyrand de Perigord, made Bishop of Autun
       by King Louis XVI:, in 1789, and Prince of Benevento by
       Napoleon, in 1806, had made his first appearance in public
       life as one of the clerical deputies in the States-General of
       1789, and had taken the popular side. He was the only bishop
       having a benefice in France who took the new oath required of
       the clergy, and he proposed the appropriation of church
       property to the wants of the public treasury. He subsequently
       consecrated the first French bishops appointed under the new
       constitution, and was excommunicated therefor by the Pope. On
       the approach of the Terror he escaped from France and took
       refuge first in England, afterwards in the United States. In
       1795 he was permitted to return to Paris, and he took an
       important part in the revolution of the 18th Brumaire which
       overthrew the Directory and made Napoleon First Consul. In the
       new government he received the post of Minister of Foreign
       Affairs, which he retained under the Empire, until 1807, when
       he obtained permission to retire, with the title of
       "vice-grand electeur." "M. de Talleyrand, the Empire once
       established and fortunate, had attached himself to it with a
       sort of enthusiasm. The poesy of victory, and the eloquence of
       an exalted imagination, subdued for a time the usual
       nonchalance and moderation of his character. He entered into
       all Napoleon's plans for reconstituting an empire of the
       Francs, and reviving the system of fiefs and feudal
       dignitaries. ...
    {1350}
       'Any other system,' he said, 'but a military one, is in our
       circumstances at present impossible. I am, then, for making
       that system splendid, and compensating France for her liberty
       by her grandeur.' The principality he enjoyed, though it by no
       means satisfied him, was a link between him and the policy
       under which he held it. ... But he had a strong instinct for
       the practical; all governments, according to his theory, might
       be made good, except an impossible one. A government depending
       on constant success in difficult undertakings, at home and
       abroad, was, according to his notions, impossible. This idea,
       after the Peace of Tilsit, more or less haunted him. It made
       him, in spite of himself, bitter against his chief--bitter at
       first, more because he liked him than because he disliked him.
       He would still have aided to save the Empire, but he was
       irritated because he thought he saw the Empire drifting into a
       system which would not admit of its being saved. A sentiment of
       this kind, however, is as little likely to be pardoned by one
       who is accustomed to consider that his will must be law, as a
       sentiment of a more hostile nature. Napoleon began little by
       little to hate the man for whom he had felt at one time a
       predilection, and if he disliked anyone, he did that which it
       is most dangerous to do, and most useless; that is, he wounded
       his pride without diminishing his importance. It is true that
       M. de Talleyrand never gave any visible sign of being
       irritated. But few, whatever the philosophy with which they
       forgive an injury, pardon an humiliation; and thus, stronger
       and stronger grew by degrees that mutual dissatisfaction which
       the one vented at times in furious reproaches, and the other
       disguised under a studiously respectful indifference. This
       carelessness as to the feelings of those whom it would have
       been wiser not to offend, was one of the most fatal errors of
       the conqueror. ... He had become at this time equally
       indifferent to the hatred and affection of his adherents; and
       ... fancied that everything depended on his own merits, and
       nothing on the merits of his agents. The victory of Wagram,
       and the marriage with Marie-Louise, commenced, indeed, a new
       era in his history. Fouché was dismissed, though not without
       meriting a reprimand for his intrigues; and Talleyrand fell
       into unequivocal disgrace, in some degree provoked by his
       witticisms; whilst round these two men gathered a quiet and
       observant opposition, descending with the clever adventurer to
       the lowest classes, and ascending with the dissatisfied noble
       to the highest. ... M. de Talleyrand's house then (the only
       place, perhaps, open to all persons, where the government of
       the day was treated without reserve) became a sort of
       'rendezvous' for a circle which replied to a victory by a bon
       mot, and confronted the borrowed ceremonies of a new court by
       the natural graces and acknowledged fashions of an old one."

          Sir H. L. Bulwer,
          Historical Characters,
          volume 1: Talleyrand, part 4, sections 9-10.

          ALSO IN:
          C. K. McHarg,
          Life of Prince Talleyrand,
          chapters 1-13.

          Memoirs of Talleyrand,
          volume 1.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.
       Napoleon's over-ingenious plottings in Spain
       for the theft of the crown.
       The popular rising.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (November-February).
       Napoleon in Italy.
       His arbitrary changes in the Italian constitution.
       His annexation of Tuscany to France.
       His quarrel with the Pope and seizure of the Papal States.

       "Napoleon ... set out for Italy, where great political changes
       were in progress. Destined, like all the subordinate thrones
       which surrounded the great nation, to share in the rapid
       mutations which its government underwent, the kingdom of Italy
       was soon called upon to accept a change in its constitution.
       Napoleon, in consequence, suppressed the legislative body, and
       substituted in its room a Senate, which was exclusively
       intrusted with the power of submitting observations to
       government on the public wants, and of superintending the
       budget and public expenditure. As the members of this Senate
       were nominated and paid by government; this last shadow of
       representative institutions became a perfect mockery.
       Nevertheless Napoleon was received with unbounded adulation by
       all the towns of Italy; their deputies, who waited upon him at
       Milan, vied with each other in elegant flattery. He was the
       Redeemer of France, but the Creator of Italy: they had
       supplicated heaven for his safety, for his victories; they
       offered him the tribute of their eternal love and fidelity.
       Napoleon received their adulation in the most gracious manner;
       but he was careful not to lose sight of the main object of his
       policy, the consolidation of his dominions, the rendering them
       all dependent on his imperial crown, and the fostering of a
       military spirit among his subjects. ... From Milan the Emperor
       travelled by Verona and Padua to Venice; he there admired the
       marble palaces, varied scenery, and gorgeous architecture of
       the Queen of the Adriatic, which appeared to extraordinary
       advantage amidst illuminations, fireworks, and rejoicings; and
       returning to Milan, arranged, with an authoritative hand, all
       the affairs of the peninsula. The discontent of Melzi, who
       still retained a lingering partiality for the democratic
       institutions which he had vainly hoped to see established in
       his country, was stifled by the title of Duke of Lodi. Tuscany
       was taken from the King of Etruria, on whom Napoleon had
       settled it, and united to France by the title of the
       department of Taro; while magnificent public works were set on
       foot at Milan to dazzle the ardent imagination of the
       Italians, and console them for the entire loss of their
       national independence and civil liberty. The cathedral was
       daily adorned with fresh works of sculpture; its exterior
       decorated and restored to its original purity, while thousands
       of pinnacles and statues rose on all sides, glittering in
       spotless brilliancy in the blue vault of heaven. The Forum of
       Buonaparte was rapidly advancing; the beautiful basso-relievos
       of the arch of the Simplon already entranced the admiring gaze
       of thousands; the roads of the Simplon and Mount Cenis were
       kept in the finest order, and daily attracted fresh crowds of
       strangers to the Italian plains. But in the midst of all this
       external splendour, the remains of which still throw a halo
       round the recollection of the French domination in Italy, the
       finances of all the states were involved in hopeless
       embarrassment, and suffering of the most grinding kind
       pervaded all classes of the people. ... The encroachments thus
       made on the Italian peninsula were not the only ones which
       Napoleon effected, in consequence of the liberty to dispose of
       western Europe acquired by him at the treaty of Tilsit. The
       territory of the great nation was rounded also on the side of
       Germany and Holland.
    {1351}
       On the 11th of November, the important town and territory of
       Flushing were ceded to France by the King of Holland, who
       obtained, in return, merely an elusory equivalent in East
       Friesland. On the 21st of January following, a decree of the
       senate united to the French empire, besides these places, the
       important towns of Kehl Cassel, and Wesel, on the right bank
       of the Rhine. Shortly after, the French troops, who had
       already taken possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of
       the resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the
       Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient
       capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of
       St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely
       dispossessed the papal troops [see PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814].
       ... France now, without disguise, assumed the right of
       annexing neutral and independent states to its already
       extensive dominions, by no other authority than the decree of
       its own legislature."

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 51, sections 51-53 (volume 11).

          ALSO IN:
          C. Botta,
          Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
          chapter 5.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1809.
       The American embargo and non-intercourse laws.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.

    FRANCE: A.D. 1808 (May-September).
       Bestowal of the Spanish crown on Joseph Bonaparte.
       The national revolt.
       French reverses.
       Flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.
       Landing of British forces in the Peninsula.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (September-October).
       Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.
       The assemblage of kings.

       "Napoleon's relations with the Court of Russia, at one time
       very formal, became far more amicable, according as Spanish
       affairs grew complicated. After the capitulation of Baylen
       they became positively affectionate. The Czar was too
       clear-sighted not to understand the meaning of this gradation.
       He quickly understood that the more difficulties Napoleon
       might create for himself in Spain, the more would he be forced
       to make concessions to Russia. ... The Russian alliance, which
       at Tilsit had only been an arrangement to flatter Napoleon's
       ambition, had now become a necessity to him. Each side felt
       this; hence the two sovereigns were equally impatient to meet
       again; the one to strengthen an alliance so indispensable to
       the success of his plans, the other to derive from it all the
       promised advantages. It was settled, therefore, that the
       desired interview should take place at Erfurt towards the end
       of September, 1808. ... The two Emperors met on the 27th of
       September, on the road between Weimar and Erfurt. They
       embraced each other with that air of perfect cordiality of
       which kings alone possess the secret, especially when their
       intention is rather to stifle than to embrace. They made their
       entry into the town on horseback together, amidst an immense
       concourse of people. Napoleon had wished by its magnificence
       to render the reception worthy of the illustrious guests who
       had agreed to meet at Erfurt. He had sent thither from the
       storehouses of the crown, bronzes, porcelain, the richest
       hangings, and the most sumptuous furniture. He desired that
       the Comédie-Française should heighten the brilliant effects of
       these fêtes by performing the chief masterpieces of our stage,
       from 'Cinna' down to 'La Mort de César,' before this royal
       audience. ... All the natural adherents of Napoleon hastened
       to answer his appeal by flocking to Erfurt, for he did not
       lose sight of his principal object, and his desire was to
       appear before Europe surrounded by a court composed of kings.
       In this cortege were to be seen those of Bavaria, of
       Wurtemburg, of Saxony, of Westphalia, and Prince William of
       Prussia; and beside these stars of first magnitude twinkled
       the obscure Pleiades of the Rhenish Confederation. The
       reunion, almost exclusively German, was meant to prove to
       German idealists the vanity of their dreams. Were not all
       present who had any weight in Germany from their power, rank,
       or riches? Was it not even hinted that the Emperor of Austria
       had implored the favour, without being able to obtain it, of
       admission to the conferences of Erfurt? This report was most
       improbable. ... The kings of intellect came in their turn to
       bow down before Cæsar. Goethe and Wieland were presented to
       Napoleon; they appeared at his court, and by their glory
       adorned his triumph. German patriotism was severely tried at
       Erfurt; but it may be said that of all its humiliations the
       one which the Germans most deeply resented was that of
       beholding their greatest literary genius decking himself out
       with Napoleon's favours [the decoration of the Legion of
       Honour, which Goethe accepted]. ... The theatrical effect
       which Napoleon had in view in this solemn show at Erfurt
       having once been produced, his principal object was attained,
       for the political questions which remained for settlement with
       Alexander could not raise any serious difficulty. In view of
       the immediate and certain session of two such important
       provinces as those of Wallachia and Moldavia, the Czar,
       without much trouble, renounced that division of the Ottoman
       Empire with which he had been tantalised for more than a year.
       ... He bound himself ... by the Treaty of Erfurt to continue his
       co-operation with Napoleon in the war against England (Article
       2), and, should it so befall, also against Austria (Article
       10); but the affairs in Spain threw every attack upon England
       into the background. ... The only very distinct engagement
       which the treaty imposed on Alexander was the recognition of
       the new order of things established by France in Spain.'"

          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          volume 3, chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          Prince Talleyrand,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1808-1809.
       Reverses in Portugal.
       Napoleon in the field.
       French victories resumed.
       The check at Corunna.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (January-September).
       Reopened war with Austria.
       Napoleon's advance to Vienna.
       His defeat at Aspern and victory at Wagram.
       The Peace of Schönbrunn.
       Fresh acquisitions of territory.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE),
          and (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (February-July).
       Wellington's check to the French in Spain and Portugal.
       His passage of the Douro.
       Battle of Talavera.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (May).
       Annexation of the States of the Church.
       Removal of the Pope to Savona.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (December).
       Withdrawal of the English from Spain into Portugal.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

    {1352}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (February-December).
       Annexations of territory to the empire.
       Holland, the Hanse Towns, and the Valais in Switzerland.
       Other reconstructions of the map of Germany.

       "It was not till December 10th 1810 [after the abdication of
       King Louis--see NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1806-1810] that
       Holland was united to France by a formal senatus-consulte. By
       the first article of the same law, the Hanse Towns [Hamburg,
       Bremen, and Lubeck], the Duchy of Lauenburg, and the countries
       situated between the North Sea and a line drawn from the
       confluence of the Lippe with the Rhine to Halteren, from
       Halteren to the Ems above Telgte, from the Ems to the
       confluence of the Werra with the Weser, and from Stolzenau on
       that river to the Elbe, above the confluence of the Stecknitz,
       were at the same time incorporated with the French Empire. ...
       The line described would include the northern part of
       Westphalia and Hanover, and the duchy of Oldenburg. ... The
       Duke of Oldenburg having appealed to the Emperor of Russia,
       the head of his house, against this spoliation, Napoleon
       offered to compensate him with the town and territory of
       Erfurt and the lordship of Blankenheim, which had remained
       under French administration since the Peace of Tilsit. But
       this offer was at once rejected, and Alexander reserved, by a
       formal protest, the rights of his relative. This annexation
       was only the complement of other incorporations with the
       French Empire during the year 1810. Early in the year, the
       Electorate of Hanover had been annexed to the Kingdom of
       Westphalia. On February 16th Napoleon had erected the Grand
       Duchy of Frankfort, and presented it to the Prince Primate of
       the Confederation of the Rhine, with a reversal in favour of
       Eugene Beauharnais. On November 12th the Valais in Switzerland
       was also annexed to France, with the view of securing the road
       over the Simplon. Of all these annexations, that of the Hanse
       Towns and the districts on the North Sea was the most
       important, and one of the principal causes of the war that
       ensued between France and Russia. These annexations were made
       without the slightest negociation with any European cabinet,
       and it would be superfluous to add, without even a pretext of
       right, though the necessity of them from the war with England
       was alleged as the motive."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 7, chapter 15, with foot-note (volume 4).

       "'The English,' said Napoleon, 'have torn asunder the public
       rights of Europe; a new order of things governs the universe.
       Fresh guarantees having become necessary to me, the annexation
       of the mouths of the Scheldt, of the Meuse, of the Rhine, of
       the Ems, of the Weser, and of the Elbe to the Empire appears
       to me to be the first and the most important. ... The
       annexation of the Valais is the anticipated result of the
       immense works that I have been making for the past ten years
       in that part of the Alps.' And this was all. To justify such
       violence he did not condescend to allege any pretext--to urge
       forward opportunities that were too long in developing, or to
       make trickery subserve the use of force--he consulted nothing
       but his policy; in other words, his good pleasure. To take
       possession of a country, it was sufficient that the country
       suited him: he said so openly, as the simplest thing in the
       world, and thought proper to add that these new usurpations
       were but a beginning, the first, according to his own
       expression, of those which seemed to him still necessary. And
       it was Europe, discontented, humbled, driven wild by the
       barbarous follies of the continental system, that he thus
       defied, as though he wished at any cost to convince every one
       that no amicable arrangement or conciliation was possible; and
       that there was but one course for governments or men of spirit
       to adopt, that of fighting unto death."

          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          volume 4, chapter 2.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
       Continued hostile attitude towards
       the United States of America.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
       The War in the Peninsula.
       Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
       French retreat from Portugal.
       English advance into Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
          and 1810-1812.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
       Napoleon's divorce from Josephine and marriage to
       Marie-Louise of Austria.
       His rupture with the Czar and
       preparations for war with Russia.

       "Napoleon now revived the idea which he had often entertained
       before, of allying himself with one of the great ruling
       families. A compliant senate and a packed ecclesiastical
       council pronounced his separation from Josephine Beauharnais,
       who retired with a magnificent pension to Malmaison, where she
       died. As previous marriage proposals to the Russian court had
       not been cordially received, Napoleon now turned to Austria.
       The matter was speedily arranged with Metternich, and in
       March, 1810, the archduchess Maria Louisa arrived in France as
       the emperor's wife. The great importance of the marriage was
       that it broke the last links which bound Russia to France, and
       thus overthrew the alliance of Tilsit. Alexander had been
       exasperated by the addition of Western Galicia to the
       grand-duchy of Warsaw, which he regarded as a step towards the
       restoration of Poland, and therefore as a breach of the
       engagement made at Tilsit. The annexation of Oldenburg, whose
       duke was a relative of the Czar, was a distinct personal
       insult. Alexander showed his irritation by formally deserting
       the continental system, which was more ruinous to Russia than
       to almost any other country, and by throwing his ports open to
       British commerce (December 1810). ... The chief grievance to
       Russia was the apparent intention of Napoleon to do something
       for the Poles. The increase of the grand-duchy of Warsaw by
       the treaty of Vienna was so annoying to Alexander, that he
       began to meditate on the possibility of restoring Poland
       himself, and making it a dependent kingdom for the Czar, in
       the same way as Napoleon had treated Italy. He even went so
       far as to sound the Poles on the subject; but he found that
       they had not forgotten the three partitions of their country,
       and that their sympathies were rather with France than with
       Russia. At the same time Napoleon was convinced that until
       Russia was subdued his empire was unsafe, and all hopes of
       avenging himself upon England were at an end. All through the
       year 1811 it was known that war was inevitable, but neither
       power was in a hurry to take the initiative. Meanwhile the
       various powers that retained nominal independence had to make
       up their minds as to the policy they would pursue. For no
       country was the decision harder than for Prussia. Neutrality
       was out of the question, as the Prussian territories, lying
       between the two combatants, must be occupied by one or the
       other.
    {1353}
       The friends and former Colleagues of Stein were unanimous for
       a Russian alliance and a desperate struggle for liberty. But
       Hardenberg, who had become chancellor in 1810, was too prudent
       to embark in a contest, which at the time was hopeless. The
       Czar had not been so consistent in his policy as to be a very
       desirable ally; and, even with Russian assistance, it was
       certain that the Prussian frontiers could not be defended
       against the French, who had already garrisons in the chief
       fortresses. Hardenberg fully sympathised with the patriots,
       but he sacrificed enthusiasm to prudence, and offered the
       support of Prussia to France. The treaty was arranged on the
       24th of February, 1812. Frederick William gave the French a
       free passage through his territories, and undertook to furnish
       20,000 men for service in the field, and as many more for
       garrison duty. In return for this Napoleon guaranteed the
       security of the Prussian kingdom as it stood, and held out the
       prospect of additions to it. It was an unnatural and hollow
       alliance, and was understood to be so by the Czar.
       Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and other friends of Stein resigned
       their posts, and many Prussian officers entered the service of
       the Czar. Austria, actuated by similar motives, adopted the same
       policy, but with less reluctance. After this example had been
       set by the two great powers, none of the lesser states of
       Germany dared to disobey the peremptory orders of Napoleon.
       But Turkey and Sweden, both of them old allies of France, were
       at this crisis in the opposition. ... The Swedes were
       threatened with starvation by Napoleon's stern command to
       close their ports not only against English, but against all
       German vessels. Bernadotte, who had just been adopted as the
       heir of the childless Charles XIII.; determined to throw in
       his lot with his new country, rather than with his old
       commander. He had also hopes of compensating Sweden for the
       loss of Finland by wresting Norway from the Danes, and this
       would never be agreed to by France. Accordingly Sweden
       prepared to support the cause of Alexander."

          R. Lodge,
          History of Modern Europe,
          chapter 24, sections 88 and 41.

       "Napoleon's Russian expedition should not be regarded as an
       isolated freak of insane pride. He himself regarded it as the
       unfortunate effect of a fatality, and he betrayed throughout
       an unwonted reluctance and perplexity. 'The war must take
       place,' he said, 'it lies in the nature of things.' That is,
       it arose naturally, like the other Napoleonic wars, out of the
       quarrel with England. Upon the Continental system he had
       staked everything. He had united all Europe in the crusade
       against England, and no state, least of all such a state as
       Russia, could withdraw from the system without practically
       joining England. Nevertheless, we may wonder that, if he felt
       obliged to make war on Russia, he should have chosen to wage
       it in the manner he did, by an overwhelming invasion. For an
       ordinary war his resources were greatly superior to those of
       Russia. A campaign on the Lithuanian frontier would no doubt
       have been unfavourable to Alexander, and might have forced him
       to concede the points at issue. Napoleon had already
       experienced in Spain the danger of rousing national spirit. It
       seems, however, that this lesson had been lost on him."

          J. R. Seeley,
          Short History of Napoleon,
          chapter 5, section 3.

       "Warnings and cautions were not ... wanting to him. He had
       been at several different times informed of the desperate
       plans of Russia and her savage resolve to destroy all around
       him, provided he could be involved in the destruction of the
       Empire. He was cautioned, with even more earnestness, of the
       German conspiracies. Alquier transmitted to him from Stockholm
       a significant remark of Alexander's: 'If the Emperor Napoleon
       should experience a reverse, the whole of Germany will rise to
       oppose his retreat, or to prevent the arrival of his
       reinforcements.' His brother Jerome, who was still better
       situated for knowing what was going on in Germany, informed
       him, in the month of January, 1811, of the proposal that had
       been made to him to enter into a secret league against France,
       but the only thanks he received from Napoleon was reproach for
       having encouraged such overtures by his equivocal conduct. ...
       Marshal Davout and General Rapp transmitted him identically
       the same information from Hamburg and Dantzig. But far from
       encouraging such confidential communications, Napoleon was
       irritated by them. ... 'I do not know why Rapp meddles in what
       does not concern him [he wrote]. ... I beg you will not place
       such rhapsodies under my eyes. My time is too precious to
       waste on such twaddle.' ... In presence of such hallucination,
       caused by pride and infatuation, we seem to hear Macbeth in
       his delirium insulting the messengers who announced to him the
       approach· of the enemy's armies."

          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          volume 4, chapter 6.

       "That period ought to have been esteemed the happiest of
       Napoleon's life. What more could the wildest ambition desire?
       ... All obeyed him. Nothing was wanting to make him happy!
       Nothing, if he could be happy who possessed not a love of
       justice. ... The being never existed who possessed ampler
       means for promoting the happiness of mankind. Nothing was
       required but justice and prudence. The nation expected these
       from him, and granted him that unlimited confidence which he
       afterwards so cruelly abused. ... Instead of considering with
       calmness and moderation how he might best employ his vast
       resources, he ruminated on projects beyond the power of man to
       execute; forgetting what innumerable victims must be
       sacrificed in the vain attempt. ... He aspired at universal
       despotism, for no other reason than because a nation, isolated
       from the continent and profiting by its happy situation, had
       refused to submit to his intolerable·yoke. ... In the hope of
       conquering that invincible enemy, he vainly endeavoured to
       grasp the extremities of Europe. ... Misled by his rash and
       hasty temper, he adopted a false line of politics, and
       converted in the north, as he had done before in the south,
       the most useful and powerful of his allies into a dangerous
       enemy."

          E. Labaume,
          Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,
          part 1, book 1.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Joyneville,
          Life and Times of Alexander I.,
          volume 2, chapter 3.

          Imbert de Saint Amand,
          Memoirs of the Empress Marie Louise.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June).
       The captive Pope brought to Fontainebleau.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June-August).
       Defeat by the English in Spain at Salamanca.
       Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

    {1354}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June-December).
       Napoleon's Russian campaign.
       The advance to Moscow.
       The burning of the city.
       The retreat and its horrors.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1812-1813 (December-March)
       Napoleon's return from Russia.
       His measures for creating a new army.

       "Whilst Europe, agitated at once by hope, by fear, and by
       hatred, was inquiring what had become of Napoleon, whether he
       had perished or had been saved, he was crossing in a
       sledge--accompanied by the Duke of Vicenza, the Grand Marshal
       Duroc, Count Lobau, General Lefevre-Desnouettes, and the
       Mameluke Rustan--the vast, plains of Lithuania, of Poland, and
       of Saxony, concealed by thick furs; for if his name had been
       imprudently uttered, or his countenance recognised, a tragical
       catastrophe would have instantly ensued. The man who had so
       greatly excited the admiration of nations, who was the object
       of their ... superstition, would not at that moment have
       escaped their fury. In two places only did he allow himself to
       be known, Warsaw and Dresden.  ... That he might not occasion
       too great surprise, he caused himself to be preceded by an
       officer with a few lines for the 'Moniteur,' saying that on
       December 5 he had assembled his generals at Smorgoni, had
       delegated  the command to King Murat, only so long as military
       operations were interrupted by the cold, that he had traversed
       Warsaw and Dresden, and that he was about to arrive in Paris
       to take in hand the affairs of the Empire. ... Napoleon
       followed close on the steps of the officer who was to announce
       his arrival. On December 18, at half-past 11 P. M., he entered
       the Tuileries. ... On the next morning, the 19th, he received
       the ministers and grandees of the court ... with extreme
       hauteur, maintaining a tranquil but severe aspect, appearing
       to expect explanations instead of affording them himself,
       treating foreign affairs as of minor consequence, and those of
       a domestic nature as of principal import, demanding some light
       upon these last,--in short, questioning others in order to
       avoid being questioned himself. ... On Sunday, the 20th of
       December, the second day after his arrival, Napoleon received
       the Senate, the Council of State, and the principal branches
       of the administration," which severally addressed to him the
       most fulsome flatteries and assurances of support. "After an
       infuriated populace basely outraging vanquished princes,
       nothing can be seen more melancholy than these great bodies
       prostrating themselves at the feet of a power, bestowing upon
       it a degree of admiration which increases with its errors,
       speaking with ardour of their fidelity, already about to
       expire, and swearing to die in its cause when they are on the
       eve of hailing the accession of another. Happy are those
       countries whose established Constitutions spare them these
       humiliating spectacles!" As speedily as possible, Napoleon
       applied himself to the recreation of his lost army, by
       anticipating the conscription for 1814, and by making new
       calls upon the classes which had already furnished their
       contingents. All his measures were submissively sanctioned by
       the obsequious Senate; but many murmurs of discontent were
       heard among the people, and some movements of resistance
       needed to be put down. "However, when the enlightened classes
       of a country approve a measure, their support is extremely
       efficacious. In France, all those classes perceiving that it
       was necessary energetically to defend the country against a
       foreign enemy, though the Government had been still more in
       the wrong than they were, the levies were effected, and the
       high functionaries, sustained by a moral acquiescence which
       they had not always obtained, fulfilled their duty, though in
       heart full of sad and sinister forebodings."

          A. Thiers,
          History of the Consulate and the Empire,
          book 47 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          Duchess d'Abrantes, Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 2, chapter 43.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1812-1813.
       Germanic rising against Napoleon.
       War of Liberation.
       Lützen.
       Bautzen.
       Dresden.
       Leipsic.
       The retreat of the French from beyond the Rhine.

             See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813,
             to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (February-March).
       The new Concordat signed and retracted by the Pope.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (June-November).
       Defeat at Vittoria and in the Pyrenees.
       Retreat from Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (November-December).
       Dutch independence regained.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1813.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January).
       The Pope set free to return to Rome.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January-March).
       The allied invasion.
       Napoleon's campaign of defense.
       His cause lost.
       Surrender of Paris.

       "The battle of Leipzig was the overthrow of the French rule in
       Germany; there only remained, as evidence of what they had
       lost, 150,000 men, garrisons of the fortresses of the Vistula,
       the Oder, and the Elbe. Each success of the allies had been
       marked by the desertion of one of the peoples that had
       furnished its contingent to the Grand Army of 1812: after
       Prussia, Austria; at Leipzig the Saxons: the French had not
       been able to regain the Rhine except by passing over the
       bodies of the Bavarians at Hanau. Baden, Wurtemberg, Hesse,
       and Darmstadt declared their defection at nearly the same
       time; the sovereigns were still hesitating whether to separate
       themselves from Napoleon, when their people and regiments,
       worked upon by the German patriots, had already passed into
       the allied camp. Jerome Bonaparte had again quitted Cassel;
       Denmark found Itself forced to adhere to the Coalition.
       Napoleon had retired to the left bank of the Rhine. Would
       Alexander cross this natural frontier of revolutionary France?
       'Convinced,' says M. Bogdanovitch, 'by the experience of many
       years, that neither losses inflicted on Napoleon, nor treaties
       concluded with him, could check his insatiable ambition,
       Alexander would not stop at setting free the involuntary
       allies of France, and resolved to pursue the war till he had
       overthrown his enemy.' The allied sovereigns found themselves
       reunited at Frankfort, and an immediate march to Paris was
       discussed. Alexander, Stein. Blücher, Gneisenau, and all the
       Prussians were on the side of decisive action. The Emperor
       Francis and Metternich only desired Napoleon to be weakened,
       as his downfall would expose Austria to another danger, the
       preponderance of Russia on the Continent. Bernadotte insisted
       on Napoleon's dethronement, with the ridiculous design of
       appropriating the crown of France, traitor as he was to her
       cause. England would have preferred a solid and immediate
       peace to a war which would exhaust her in subsidies, and
       augment her already enormous debt. These divergencies, these
       hesitations, gave Napoleon time to strengthen his position.
    {1355}
       After Hanau, in the opinion of Ney, 'the allies might have
       counted their stages to Paris.' Napoleon had re-opened the
       negotiations. The relinquishment of Italy (when Murat on his
       side negotiated the preservation of his kingdom of Naples), of
       Holland, of Germany, and of Spain, and the confinement of
       France between her natural boundaries of the Rhine and the
       Alps; such were the 'Conditions of Frankfort.' Napoleon sent
       an answer to Metternich, 'that he consented to the opening of
       a congress at Mannheim: that the conclusion of a peace which
       would insure the independence of all the nations of the earth
       had always been the aim of his policy.' This reply seems
       evasive, but could the proposals of the allies have been
       serious? Encouraged by disloyal Frenchmen, they published the
       declaration of Frankfort, by which they affirmed 'that they
       did not make war with France, but against the preponderance
       which Napoleon had long exercised beyond the limits of his
       empire.' Deceitful assurance, too obvious snare, which could
       only take in a nation weary of war, enervated by twenty-two
       years of sterile victories, and at the end of its resources!
       During this time Alexander, with the deputies of the Helvetian
       Diet summoned at Frankfort, discussed the basis of a new Swiss
       Confederation. Holland was already raised by the partisans of
       the house of Orange, and entered by the Prussians. The
       campaign of France began. Alexander issued at Freiburg a
       proclamation to his troops. ... He refused to receive
       Caulaincourt at Freiburg, declaring that he would only treat
       in France. 'Let us spare the French negotiator the trouble of
       the journey,' he said to Metternich. 'It does not seem to me a
       matter of indifference to the allied sovereigns, whether the
       peace with France is signed on this side of the Rhine, or on
       the other, in the very heart of France. Such an historical
       event is well worth a change of quarters.' Without counting
       the armies of Italy and the Pyrenees, Napoleon had now a mere
       handful of troops, 80,000 men, spread from Nimeguen to Bâle,
       to resist 500,000 allies. The army of the North
       (Wintzingerode) invaded Holland, Belgium, and the Rhenish
       provinces; the army of Silesia (Blücher) crossed the Rhine
       between Mannheim and Coblentz and entered Nancy; the army of
       Bohemia (Schwartzenberg) passed through Switzerland, and
       advanced on Troyes, where the Royalists demanded the
       restoration of the Bourbons. Napoleon was still able to bar
       for some time the way to his capital. He first attacked the
       army of Silesia; he defeated the vanguard, the Russians of
       Sacken, at St. Didier, and Blücher at Brienne; but at La
       Rothière he encountered the formidable masses of the Silesian
       and Bohemian armies, and after a fierce battle (1st February,
       1814) had to fall back on Troyes. After this victory had
       secured their junction, the two armies separated again, the
       one to go down the Marne, the other the Seine, with the
       intention of reuniting at Paris. Napoleon profited by this
       mistake. He threw himself on the left flank of the army of
       Silesia, near Champeaubert, where he dispersed the troops of
       Olsoufief and Poltaratski, inflicting on them a loss of 2,500
       men, and took the generals prisoners. At Montmirail, in spite
       of the heroism of Zigrote and Lapoukhine, he defeated Sacken;
       the Russians alone lost 2,800 men and five guns (11th
       February). At Château Thierry, he defeated Sacken and York
       reunited, and again the Russians lost 1,500 men and five guns.
       At Vauchamp it was the turn of Blücher, who lost 2,000
       Russians, 4,000 Prussians, and fifteen guns. The army of
       Silesia was in terrible disorder. 'The peasants, exasperated
       by the disorder inseparable from a retreat, and excited by
       exaggerated rumours of French successes, took up arms, and
       refused supplies. The soldiers suffered both from cold and
       hunger, Champagne affording no wood for bivouac fires. When
       the weather became milder, their shoes wore out, and the men,
       obliged to make forced marches with bare feet, were carried by
       hundreds into the hospitals of the country' (Bogdanovitch).
       Whilst the army of Silesia retreated in disorder on the army
       of the North, Napoleon, with 50,000 soldiers full of
       enthusiasm, turned on that of Bohemia, crushed the Bavarians
       and Russians at Mormans, the Wurtembergers at Montereau, the
       Prussians at Méry: these Prussians made part of the army of
       Blücher, who had detached a corps to hang on the rear of
       Napoleon. This campaign made a profound impression on the
       allies. Castlereagh expressed, in Alexander's presence, the
       opinion that peace should be made before they were driven
       across the Rhine. The military chiefs began to feel uneasy.
       Sesslavine sent news from Joigny that Napoleon had 180,000 men
       at Troyes. A general insurrection of the eastern provinces was
       expected in the rear of the allies. It was the firmness of
       Alexander which maintained the Coalition, it was the military
       energy of Blücher which saved it. Soon after his disasters he
       received reinforcements from the army of the North, and took
       the offensive against the marshals; then, hearing of the
       arrival of Napoleon at La Ferté Gaucher, he retreated in great
       haste, finding an unexpected refuge at Soissons, which had
       just been taken by the army of the North. At Craonne (March 7)
       and at Laon (10th to 12th March), with 100,000 men against
       80,000, and with strong positions, he managed to repulse all
       the attacks of Napoleon. At Craonne, however, the Russian loss
       amounted to 5,000 men, the third of their effective force. The
       battle of Laon cost them 4,000 men. Meanwhile, De Saint
       Priest, a general in Alexander's service, had taken Rheims by
       assault, but was dislodged by Napoleon after a fierce
       struggle, where the émigré commander was badly wounded, and
       4,000 of his men were killed (13th, March). The Congress of
       Châtillon-sur-Seine was opened on the 28th of February. Russia
       was represented by Razoumovski and Nesselrode, Napoleon by
       Caulaincourt, Austria by Stadion and Metternich. The
       conditions proposed to Napoleon were the reduction of France
       to its frontiers of 1792, and the right of the allies to
       dispose, without reference to him, of the reconquered
       countries. Germany was to be a confederation of independent
       States, Italy to be divided into free States, Spain to be
       restored to Ferdinand, and Holland to the house of Orange.
       Leave France smaller than I found her? Never!' said Napoleon.
       Alexander and the Prussians would not hear of a peace which
       left Napoleon on the throne. Still, however, they negotiated.
       Austria and England were both agreed not to push him to
       extremities, and many times proposed to treat. After
       Napoleon's great success against Blücher, Castlereagh declared
       for peace.  'It would not be a peace,' cried the Emperor of
       Russia; 'it would be a truce which would not allow us to
       disarm one moment. I cannot come 400 leagues every day to your
       assistance.
    {1356}
       No peace, as long as Napoleon is on the throne.' Napoleon, in
       his turn, intoxicated by his success, enjoined Caulaincourt
       only to treat on the basis of Frankfort--natural frontiers.
       ... As fortune returned· to the allies, the congress was
       dissolved (19th of March). The Bourbon princes were already in
       France; Louis XVIII. was on the point of being proclaimed.
       Alexander, tired of seeing the armies of Bohemia and Silesia
       fly in turn before thirty or forty thousand French, caused the
       allies to adopt the fatal plan of a march on Paris, which was
       executed in eight days. Blücher and Schwartzenberg united,
       with 200,000 men, were to bear down all opposition on their
       passage. The first act in the drama was the battle of
       Arcissur-Aube, where the Russians took six guns from Napoleon.
       The latter conceived a bold scheme, which perhaps might have
       saved him if Paris could have resisted, but which was his
       ruin. He threw himself on the rear of the allied army,
       abandoning to them the route to Paris, but reckoning on
       raising Eastern France, and cutting off their retreat to the
       Rhine. The allies, uneasy for one moment, were reassured by an
       intercepted letter of Napoleon's, and by the letters of the
       Parisian royalists, which revealed to them the weakness of the
       capital. 'Dare all!' writes Talleyrand to them. They, in their
       turn, deceived Napoleon, by causing him to be followed by a
       troop of cavalry, continued their march, defeated Marmont and
       Mortier, crushed the National Guards of Pacthod (battle of La
       Fère-Champenoise); and arrived in sight of Paris. Barclay de
       Tolly, forming the centre, first attacked the plateau of
       Romainville, defended by Marmont; on his left, the Prince of
       Wurtemberg threatened Vincennes; and on his right, Blücher
       deployed before Montmartre, which was defended by Mortier. The
       heights of Chaumont and those of Montmartre were taken;
       Marmont and Mortier with Moncey were thrown back on the
       ramparts. Marmont obtained an armistice from Colonel Orlof, to
       treat for the capitulation of Paris. King Joseph, the Empress
       Marie-Louise, and all the Imperial Government had already fled
       to the Loire. Paris was recommended to the generosity of the
       allied monarchs'; the army could retire on the road to
       Orleans. Such was the battle of Paris; it had cost, according
       to M. Bogdanovitch, 8,400 men to the allies, and 4,000 to the
       French (30th March).  ... The allied troops maintained a
       strict discipline, and were not quartered on the inhabitants.
       Alexander had not come as a friend of the Bourbons--the
       fiercest enemy of Napoleon, was least bitter against the
       French; he intended leaving them the choice of their
       government. He had not favoured any of the intrigues of the
       émigrés, and had scornfully remarked to Jomini, 'What are the
       Bourbons to me?'"

          A. Rambaud,
          History of Russia,
          volume 2, chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Joyneville,
          Life and Times of Alexander I.,
          volume 3, chapter 1.

          M. de Beauchamp,
          Narrative of the Invasions of France, 1814-15.

          Duke de Rovigo,
          Memoirs,
          volume 3, part 2, chapters 20-32.

          J. Philippart,
          Campaign in Germany and France, 1818,
          volume 1, pages 279 and after, and volume 2.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January-May).
       Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
       Murat's treaty with the allies.
       French evacuation of Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (February-April).
       Reverses in the south.
       Wellington's invasion.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (March-April).
       Friendly reception of the Allies in Paris.
       Collapse of the empire.
       Abdication of Napoleon.
       Treaty of Fontainebleau.

       "At an early hour in the morning [of the 31st of March], the
       Allied troops had taken possession of the barriers, and
       occupied the principal avenues leading to the city. Picquets
       of the Cossacks of the Guard were stationed at the corners of
       the principal streets. Vast multitudes thronged the
       Boulevards, in anxious and silent expectation of pending
       events. The royalists alone were active. The leaders, a small
       band indeed, had early assembled in the Place Louis XV.,
       whence, with Bourbon banners displayed, they proceeded along
       the principal streets, haranguing the people and National
       Guard; but though not interfered with by the police,--for all
       seemed to feel that the Imperial government was at an
       end,--they were listened to with such perfect indifference,
       that many began to think their cause absolutely hopeless. It
       was between ten and eleven o'clock when the procession began
       to enter the city. Light horsemen of the Russian Guard opened
       the march; at the head of the main column rode the Emperor of
       Russia and the King of Prussia. ... Then followed 35,000 men,
       cavalry, infantry, and artillery, the elite of the armies, in
       all the pride and circumstance of war and conquest. At first
       the multitude looked on in silent amazement; but the
       affability of the officers, above all, the condescending
       manner of the Czar, dispelled any fear they might still
       entertain; and shouts of 'Vive Alexander!' began to be heard;
       cries of 'Vive le Roi de Prusse!' were soon added. ... The
       shouts of welcome increased at every step. The conquerors were
       now hailed as liberators; 'Vivent les Allies!' 'Vivent nos
       liberateurs!' sounded through the air, mingled at last with
       the long-forgotten cry of 'Vive le Roi!' 'Vivent les
       Bourbons!' ... The Emperor Alexander had no sooner seen the
       troops file past on the Place Louis XV., than he repaired to
       the hôtel of Talleyrand, where in the evening, a council was
       assembled to deliberate on the important step next to be
       taken, and, on the best mode of turning the glorious victories
       achieved to an honourable and beneficial account. ... The
       points discussed were:

          I. The possibility, on sufficient guarantees, of a peace
          with Napoleon;

          II. The plan of regency under Marie Louise; and,

          III. The restoration of the Bourbons.

       The choice was not without difficulties. The first plan was
       easily dismissed; as the reception of the Allies proved
       clearly that the power of Napoleon was broken. The second
       seemed more likely to find favour, as promising to please the
       Emperor of Austria; but was finally rejected, as being, in
       fact, nothing more than a continuance of the Imperial reign
       under a different title. Against the restoration of the
       Bourbons, it was urged that the nation at large had evinced no
       desire for their recall, and seemed to have almost forgotten
       them. This, Talleyrand said, was owing entirely to the
       Congress of Chatillon, and the negotiations carried on with
       Napoleon; introducing at the same time, the Abbé de Pradt and
       Baron Louis, who fully confirmed the assertion. On being asked
       how he expected to obtain a declaration in favour of the
       exiled family, Talleyrand replied, that he was certain of the
       Senate; and that their vote would influence Paris, the example
       of which would be followed by all France.
    {1357}
       Alexander having on this assurance taken the opinion of the
       King of Prussia and Prince Schwarzenberg, signed a declaration
       to the effect that 'the Allies would treat no more with
       Napoleon Bonaparte, or with any member of his family.' A
       proclamation was issued at the same time, calling on the
       conservative Senate to assemble and form a provisional
       government, for the purpose of drawing up a constitution
       suitable to the wishes of the French people. This the Allies
       promised to guarantee; as it was their wish, they said, to see
       France 'powerful, happy, and prosperous.' A printer was ready
       in attendance; and before dark, this memorable decree was seen
       placarded in all the streets of Paris. The inconstant populace
       had not even waited for such a sig   nal, and had been already
       engaged in destroying the emblems of the Imperial government; an
       attempt had even been made to pull down the statue of Napoleon
       from the summit of the column of Austerlitz, in the Place
       Vendome! The decisive impulse thus given, events moved rapidly
       forward. Caulaincourt's zealous efforts in favour of his
       master could effect nothing after the declaration already
       noticed. On the 2d, he took his departure for Fontainbleau;
       having, however, received the assurance that Napoleon would be
       suitably provided for. ... The funds rose five per cent., and all
       other public securities in proportion, on the very day after
       the occupation of the capital; and wherever the Allied
       Sovereigns appeared in public, they were loudly cheered and
       hailed as liberators. From the first, officers of the Allied
       armies filled the public walks, theatres, and coffee-houses,
       and mixed with the people as welcome guests rather than as
       conquering invaders. The press, so long enslaved by Napoleon,
       took the most decided part against its oppressor; and from
       every quarter injurious pamphlets, epigrams, and satires, now
       poured upon the fallen ruler. Madame de Staël had
       characterised him as 'Robespierre on horseback'; De Pradt had
       more wittily termed him 'Jupiter Scapin'; and these sayings
       were not forgotten. But by far the most vivid sensation was
       produced by Chateaubriand's tract of 'Bonaparte and the
       Bourbons'; 30,000 copies of which are said to have been sold
       in two days. In proportion as the popular hatred of the
       Emperor evinced itself, grew the boldness of his adversaries.
       On the first of April, the Municipal Council of Paris met and
       already declared the throne vacant; on the next day, the
       Conservative Senate formed a Provisional Government, and
       issued a decree, declaring, first,'That Napoleon Bonaparte had
       forfeited the throne and the right of inheritance established in
       his family; 2d, That the people and army of France were
       disengaged and freed from the oath of fidelity which they had
       taken to him and his constitution.' ... The members of the
       Legislative Assembly who happened to be in Paris, followed the
       example of the Senate. The Assembly had been dissolved in
       January, and could not meet constitutionally unless summoned
       by the Sovereign; this objection was, however, set aside, and
       the Assembly having met, ratified the act of deposition passed
       by the Senate. All the public functionaries, authorities and
       constituted bodies in and near Paris, hastened to send in
       their submission to the new powers: it was a general race in
       which honour was not always the prize of speed; for every
       address, every act of submission sent in to the new
       government, teemed with invectives against the deposed ruler.
       ... It was in the night between the 2d and 3d, that
       Caulaincourt returned from his mission, and informed Napoleon
       of the events which had passed. ... In what manner the Emperor
       received these fatal tidings we are not told. ... At first it
       would seem that he entertained, or affected to entertain,
       thoughts of resorting to arms; for in the morning he reviewed
       his Guard, and addressed them in the following
       terms:--'Officers and soldiers of my Old Guard, the enemy has
       gained three marches on us, and outstripped us at Paris. Some
       factious men, emigrants whom I had pardoned, have surrounded
       the Emperor Alexander; they have mounted the white cockade,
       and would force us to do the same. In a few days I shall
       attack the enemy, and force them to quit the capital. I rely
       on you: am I right?' The troops readily replied with loud
       cheers to this address, calling out 'To Paris! 'to Paris!' but
       the Marshals and senior officers were by no means so zealous
       in the cause. ... The Generals and Marshals ... followed the
       Emperor to his apartments after the review; and having advised
       him to negotiate with the Allies, on the principle of a
       personal abdication, ended by informing him, that they would
       not accompany him if he persisted in the proposed attack on
       Paris. The scene which followed seems to have been of a very
       undignified description. Napoleon was almost convulsed with
       rage; he tore and trampled under foot the decree of the
       Senate; vowed vengeance against the whole body, who should
       yet, he said, be made to pay for their deed of 'felony'; but
       ended, nevertheless, by ignobly signing the abdication
       demanded of him. We say ignobly; for nothing can be more
       debasing in character, than to sink down from a very tempest
       of passion to tame submission. ... The act of abdication was
       worded in the following terms: 'The Allied powers having
       proclaimed that the Emperor Napoleon is the sole obstacle to
       the re-establishment of peace in Europe, the Emperor Napoleon,
       faithful to his oath, declares that he is ready to descend
       from the throne, to quit France, and even to relinquish life,
       for the good of the country, which is inseparable from the
       rights of his son, from those of the regency in the person of
       the Empress, and from the maintenance of the laws of the
       empire. Done at our Palace of Fontainbleau, 4th April 1814.
       Napoleon.' Caulaincourt, Marshals Ney and M'Donald, were
       appointed to carry this conditional abdication to Paris. ...
       The commissioners on returning to Fontainbleau found the
       Emperor in his cabinet, impatiently awaiting the result of
       their mission. Marshal Ney was the first to speak; and in that
       abrupt, harsh and not very respectful tone which he had lately
       assumed towards his falling sovereign, told him at once, that
       'France, the army and the cause of peace, demanded his
       unconditional abdication.' Caulaincourt added, that the full
       sovereignty of the Isle of Elba, with a suitable
       establishment, had been offered by the Emperor Alexander; and
       Marshal M'Donald, who had so zealously defended the cause of
       his master, confirmed the statement,--declaring also that, 'in
       his opinion, the Imperial cause was completely lost, as they
       had all three'--the commissioners--'failed against a
       resolution irrevocably fixed.' 'What!' exclaimed Napoleon,
       'not only my own abdication, but that of Marie Louise, and of
       my son? This is rather too much at once.'
    {1358}
       And with these words he delayed the answer till next day,
       intending, he said, to consider the subject, and consult the
       army; ... Words ran high between the fallen chieftain and his
       former subordinates; there were altercations, recriminations,
       and painful scenes, and it was only when Napoleon had signed
       the following unconditional abdication that perfect calm was
       restored:--'The Allied Sovereigns having declared that the
       Emperor Napoleon is the only obstacle to the re-establishment
       of a general peace, the Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his
       oath, declares, that he renounces, for himself and his heirs,
       the throne of France and Italy; and that there is no personal
       sacrifice, not even that of life itself, which he is not
       willing to make for the interest of France. Napoleon.
       Fontainbleau, 6th April 1814.' This deplorable document is
       written in so agitated and faltering a hand as to be almost
       illegible. ... According to the treaty signed at Paris on the
       10th, and usually called the Treaty of Fontainbleau, Napoleon,
       from being Emperor of France and King of Italy, became Emperor
       of Elba! He was to have a guard and a navy suited to the
       extent of his dominions, and to receive from France a pension
       of six millions of francs annually. The Duchies of Parma,
       Placentia and Guastala, were to be conferred in sovereignty on
       Marie Louise and her heirs. Two millions and a half of francs
       were further to be paid annually by the French government to
       the Empress Josephine and other members of the Bonaparte
       family. Splendid as these terms were for a dethroned and
       defenceless monarch, Napoleon ratified the treaty with
       reluctance, and delayed the signature as long as possible;
       still clinging, it would seem, to some vague hope of returning
       fortune. It is even related by Fain, Norvins, Constant, and in
       the pretended Memoirs of Caulaincourt, that he attempted to
       commit suicide by taking poison, 'and was only saved by the
       weakness of the dose, and the remedies administered by his
       attendants, who, hearing his groans, hastened to his bedside.
       It is certain that he was very unwell on the following
       morning, the 18th April, a circumstance easily accounted for
       by the anxiety he had undergone; but there can be little
       difficulty in rejecting the tale of poison, for, it is
       mentioned in none of the St. Helena Memoirs."

          Lieutenant-Colonel J. Mitchell,
          The Fall of Napoleon,
          book 8, chapter 8 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          M. de Bourrienne,
          Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 4, chapters 20-23.

          Duke of Rovigo,
          Memoirs,
          volume 4, part 1, chapters 4-10.

          Prince Talleyrand,
          Memoirs,
          part 7 (volume 2).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (April-June).
       Departure of Napoleon for Elba.
       Louis XVIII. called to the throne.
       Settlement of the constitution.
       Evacuation of France by the Allies.
       The Treaty of Paris.
       Determination of the new boundaries of the kingdom.

       "April 20, everything being ready for Napoleon's journey, and
       the commissioners of the four great powers who were to
       accompany him having arrived, the former drew up the imperial
       guard in the grand courtyard at Fontainebleau to take leave of
       them. 'Soldiers,' said he, 'I have one mission left to fulfil
       in life,--to recount to posterity the glorious deeds we have
       done together.' Would to Heaven he had kept his word and done
       nothing else! He kissed the flag, and his brave soldiers, who
       only saw the man who so often led them on to victory, burst
       into tears. Seven or eight hundred of them were to form the
       army left to him who had had a million soldiers at his
       command, and they were sent in advance, Napoleon going by
       another road, unescorted save by General Drouot, Bertrand, and
       the four foreign commissioners with their people. In the first
       departments through which they passed ... the people who had
       been eye-witnesses of the invasion forgot the evil wrought by
       Napoleon, and only saw the defender of his country. They
       shouted 'Long live the Emperor! Down with foreigners!' But
       beyond Lyons, where the foe never penetrated, the population
       became hostile: old royalist and Catholic passions were
       revived in proportion as they went farther south; the mob
       cried 'Long live the King! down with the tyrant!' and others
       howled 'Long live the allies!' At Avignon and Organ a furious
       rabble attacked the carriages, demanding that the tyrant
       should be handed over to them to be hung or thrown into the
       Rhone. The man who braved the storm of shot and shell with
       utter indifference gave way before these ignoble perils, and
       disguised himself; otherwise the commissioners could scarcely
       have saved his life at Orgon. The sad journey closed at the
       Gulf of St. Raphael, on the coast of Provence. ... An English
       frigate awaited him and bore him to Elba, where he landed at
       Porto-Ferraio, May 4. While the Empire was crumbling to dust
       ... and the fallen Emperor went into exile, the new government
       was working hard to hold its own at Paris. The royalists were
       at sword's points with the national sovereignty party in the
       commission chosen by the senate to draw up a constitution. The
       pretender's agent, Abbé de Montesquiou, failed to win
       acceptance of the principle that royal right is superior to
       the nation's will; and the formula adopted was as follows:
       'The French people freely call to the throne of France, Louis
       Stanislas Xavier de France, brother of the late king, and,
       after him, the other members of the house of Bourbon.' Thus
       they did not recognize in the king whom they elected the title
       of Louis XVIII., and did not admit that between him and his
       brother, Louis XVI., there had been a rightful king, the poor
       child who died in the Temple and whom royalists called Louis
       XVII. The reign of Louis Stanislas Xavier was to date from the
       day when he swore allegiance to the Constitution: the
       executive power was vested in the king, who shared the
       legislative power with the Senate and a Chamber of Deputies.
       The Constitution sanctioned individual liberty, freedom of
       worship and the press, the sale of national goods, the public
       debt, and proclaimed oblivion of all acts committed since the
       beginning of the Revolution. The principles of 1789 were
       maintained, and in the sad state of France there was nothing
       better to be done than to rally round this Constitution, which
       was voted by the Senate, April 6, and accepted by the
       Legislature. ... The Senate's lack of popularity gave the
       royalist party hope that the act of April 6 might be
       retracted, and at this time that party won a faint success in
       a matter on which they laid great stress. Count d' Artois was
       on his way to Paris, and declared that he would not lay aside
       the white cockade on entering. The temporary government
       ordered the national guard to assume the white cockade, and
       let Count d'Artois in without conditions (April 12), He was
       received in solemn state, the marshals marching before him,
       still wearing their tri-colored cockades and plumes, which the
       government dared not attack.
    {1359}
       The rabble was cold, but the middle classes received the
       prince favorably and he proved gracious to every one. ...
       D'Artois ... insisted on being recognized, unconditionally, as
       lieutenant-general of the kingdom, as he had entered Paris
       without making terms; but this time the Senate and temporary
       government did not yield. They intended that the prince should
       make a solemn promise, in his brother's name, in regard to the
       Constitution. The czar interfered and explained to D' Artois
       that the allies were pledged to the Senate and the nation, and
       he was forced to submit and receive the lieutenant-generalcy
       of the kingdom from the Senate, 'until Louis Stanislas Xavier
       of France should accept the Constitutional Charter.' ... The
       day after his proclamation as lieutenant-general, the white
       cockade was finally adopted, and ... imposed upon the army and
       various public buildings, though the national cockade was
       still worn by many French soldiers from the Garonne to the
       Elbe, and many warlike deeds still signalized the final
       efforts of their arms, even after Napoleon had laid aside his
       sword. ... By degrees the truce became universal, and the next
       question was to fix the terms of peace. ... The enemy held
       nothing but Paris and the unfortified towns, French garrisons
       still occupying all the strongholds of France, old and new,
       and several important places far beyond the Rhine. ... This
       was a powerful means of gaining, not the preservation of the
       natural frontiers, which could no longer be hoped for, but at
       least an important advance on the limits of the ancient
       monarchy. Unluckily a movement, natural but hasty, broke out
       all over France, to claim the immediate evacuation of her soil
       by foreign armies;"--an impatience which allowed no time for
       bargaining in the matter, and which precipitated an agreement
       (April 23) with the allied powers "to leave the French
       dominion as it had been on the 1st of January, 1792, in
       proportion as the places still occupied beyond those limits by
       French troops should be evacuated and restored to the allies.
       ... This compact surrendered to the allies, without any
       compensation, 58 strongholds, 12,600 pieces of ordnance,
       arsenals and magazines filled with vast supplies." The new
       king, calling himself Louis XVIII., arrived in Paris on the 3d
       of May, from England, where he had latterly resided. He had
       offended the czar, ruffled public feeling in France, even
       before he arrived, by saying publicly to the English people
       that he owed his restoration, under Providence, to them.
       Negotiations for a definite treaty of peace were opened at
       once. "At Metternich's suggestion, the allies decided to
       conclude their arrangements with France in Paris, and to
       reserve general arrangements with Europe for a congress at
       Vienna.

          See VIENNA: THE CONGRESS OF.

       Talleyrand did not object, although this plan was evidently
       unfavorable to France. ... The royal council directed
       Talleyrand to try to win for the northern frontier those
       million people promised beyond the old limits; but Louis X
       VIII., by angering the czar, completed the sad work of April
       23. Alexander thought of renewing with the Bourbons the
       alliance that he had planned with Napoleon, and marrying to
       the Duke de Berri, Louis's nephew, that one of his sisters to
       whom Napoleon preferred Marie Louise. Louis ... responded
       churlishly to the czar's advances. Accordingly, when France
       demanded a solid frontier, including the South of Belgium, ...
       Lord Castlereagh absolutely refused, and was supported by
       Prussia, hostile to France, and by Austria, indifferent on
       that score, but disposed to follow England in everything.
       Russia did not side with France. ... The allies were willing
       to grant, in place of the old dominion of the monarchy, on the
       Rhine side, the line of the Queich, which opened communication
       with Landau, and to the southeast the department of Vaucluse
       (once County Venaissin) given up by the Pope, besides Chambéry
       and a part of Savoy; finally, in the Jura region, Montbéliard.
       This made nearly 600,000 people. As for the colonies, England
       reluctantly returned Martinique, Guadeloupe, and the Isle of
       Bourbon, but refused to restore the Isle de France [or
       Mauritius, captured in 1810], that great military post which
       is to the Indian Ocean what Malta is to the Mediterranean.
       This island was bravely defended for some years by its
       governor. ... The English declared that they would also keep
       Malta, taken from France, and the Cape of Good Hope, wrested
       from Holland, saying that all these belonged to them, being on
       the road to India. ... Secret articles provided that Holland,
       under the rule of the House of Orange, should be increased by
       the countries ceded by France, between the sea, the French
       frontier of 1790, and the Meuse (Austrian Netherlands and
       Liége). The countries ceded by France on the left bank of the
       Rhine were to be divided as 'compensation' among the German
       states. Austria was to have the country bounded by the Po,
       Ticino, and Lake Maggiore, that is, the old Venetian states,
       Milan, and Mantua. The territory of the former Republic of
       Genoa was to be given to the King of Sardinia. Such was the
       end of the wars of the Empire. Republican France reached the
       goal of the old monarchy, the natural limits of ancient Gaul;
       the Empire lost them."

          H. Martin,
          Popular History of France,
          volume 2, chapter 17.

       "The Peace of Paris [signed May 30] was followed by some
       subsidiary treaties. ... By a Convention of June 3rd between
       Austria and Bavaria, Maximilian Joseph restored to Austria the
       Tyrol with the Vorarlberg, the principality of Salzburg, the
       district of the Inn and the Hausrück. During the visit of the
       Emperor Alexander and the King of Prussia to London in June,
       it was agreed that the Article of the Peace of Paris
       stipulating the aggrandisement of Holland, should, be carried
       out by the annexation of Belgium to that country, an
       arrangement which was accepted by the Sovereign of the
       Netherlands, July 21st 1814."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 7, chapter 16.

          ALSO IN:
          A. de Lamartine,
          History of the Restoration,
          books 13-14 and 16 (volumes 1-2).

          E. E. Crowe,
          History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

    {1360}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
       Ten months of Bourbon rule and its follies.
       Return of Napoleon from Elba.
       Flight of the King.
       The Hundred Days.
       Preparations for war.

       "The peace of Paris did not endure a year. Ten months of
       Bourbon rule, vengeful, implacable, stupid; alike violent in
       act and in language; sufficed to bring France once more to the
       brink of revolution. Two acts alone are sufficient to
       demonstrate the folly of the royalists--the resumption of the
       white flag, and the changing of the numbers of the regiments.
       A prudent king would have adopted the tricolour when he agreed
       to a constitutional charter, and would have refrained from
       wounding military sensibility by destroying the numbers of the
       regiments. But more stupid than these acts was the political
       policy pursued, a policy which aroused on all sides suspicions
       of what was worse than the grinding but gilded despotism of
       Napoleon--namely, that the Government favoured a forcible
       resumption of the confiscated lands, the restoration of
       tithes, and of the abolished exactions and imposts of
       feudalism. It has been surmised, and with much reason, that
       had Napoleon not reappeared a popular movement would have
       extorted from the king a really constitutional government. In
       that case France might have taken some real steps towards a
       free government, and the bases of liberty rather than of
       equality might have been laid. But while the Powers were
       wrangling at Vienna, and the Bourbons were irritating France,
       Napoleon was watching from Elba for the opportunity of
       resuming empire. It was not in the nature of the man to yield
       passively to anything, even to the inevitable. So long as a
       chance remained he looked out keenly for the propitious hour.
       He selected Elba as a residence because thence 'he could keep
       an eye upon France and upon the Bourbons.' It was his duty, he
       said, to guard the throne of France for his family and for his
       son. Thus, in making peace at Fontainebleau, he only bowed to
       a storm he could not then resist, and cherished in his mind
       the project of an imperial restoration. The hour for which he
       waited came at length. February, 1815, he had arrived at the
       conclusion that with the aid of the army he could overthrow
       the Bourbons, whose government, he said, was good for priests,
       nobles, and countesses of the old time, but worth nothing to
       the living generation. The army, he knew, was still, and would
       be always, devoted to him. ... He had weighed all the chances
       for and against the success of his enterprise, and he had
       arrived at the conclusion that he should succeed; for,
       'Fortune had never deserted him on great occasions.' It has
       been said that his departure was precipitated by a report of
       the dissolution of the Congress of Vienna. ... It is possible,
       indeed, that the rumour of an intention to confine him upon an
       island in the Atlantic may have exercised some influence over
       him; but the real reasons for the selection of the 26th of
       February were that he was tired of inactivity, and convinced
       that the favourable moment had arrived. Therefore, instructing
       Murat to second him by assuming a strong position in front of
       Ancona, he embarked his faithful Thousand, and set sail for
       France. On the 1st of March he landed on the shores of the
       Gulf of Juan, and on the 20th he entered the Tuileries. As he
       had predicted, the army rallied to the tricolour; the generals
       could neither restrain nor guide their soldiers; the Bourbon
       dukes and princes, and the brave Duchess of Angoulême--'the
       only man of the family'--were utterly powerless before the
       universal military disaffection; and one after the other they
       were chased out of France. The army had restored Napoleon.
       Louis XVIII. drove out of Paris by the road to St. Denis on
       the 19th, a few hours before Napoleon, on the 20th, drove in
       by the Barrier of Italy; and on the 23rd, after a short stay
       at Lille, the King was safe in Ghent. 'The great question is,'
       wrote Lord Castlereagh to the Duke of Wellington three days
       afterwards, while yet in ignorance of the event, 'can the
       Bourbons get Frenchmen to fight for them against Frenchmen?'
       The result showed that they could not. In the then state of
       France the army was master of France. Louis and his ministers
       had done nothing to conciliate, and almost everything to
       irritate, the people; and even so early as November, 1814,
       Wellington did not see what means the King had of resisting
       the attack of a few hundred officers determined to risk
       everything. During the period occupied by Napoleon in passing
       from Elba to Paris, the conduct of' the sovereigns and
       diplomatists assembled at Vienna offered a striking contrast
       to the weakness and inaptitude of the Bourbons. ... That there
       was fear in Vienna is manifest, but the acts of the Allied
       Powers show that fear speedily gave place to resolution. For,
       as early as the 12th of' March, before the Allies knew where
       Napoleon was, or anything about him, except that he was
       somewhere at large in France, they drew up that famous
       declaration, and signed it the next day, in which they
       declared that he had broken the sole legal tie to which his
       existence was attached, and that it was possible to keep with
       him 'neither peace nor truce.' 'The Powers, in consequence,'
       so runs this document, 'declare that Napoleon Buonaparte is
       placed beyond the pale of civil and social relations, and
       that, as a common enemy and disturber of the peace of the
       world, he has delivered himself over to public justice.' This
       declaration, which has been the subject of vehement criticism,
       was the natural consequence of the prevailing and correct
       appreciation of Napoleon's character. There was not a nation
       in Europe which felt the slightest particle of confidence or
       trust in him. Hence this declaration, made so promptly, was
       drawn up in ignorance of any professions he might make,
       because, beforehand, Europe felt that no professions of his
       could be relied on. The news of his success was followed by a
       treaty, adopted on the 25th of March, renewing the alliance of
       Chaumont, whereby Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia
       bound themselves to provide each 150,000 men; to employ, in
       addition, all their resources, and to work together for the
       common end--the maintenance of the Treaty of Paris, and of the
       stipulations determined on and signed at the Congress of
       Vienna. Further, they engaged not to lay down their arms but
       by common consent; nor before the object of the war should
       have been attained; nor, continues the document, 'until
       Buonaparte shall have been rendered absolutely unable to
       create disturbance, and to renew attempts for possessing
       himself of supreme power in France.' All the Powers of Europe
       generally, and Louis XVIII. specially, were invited to accede
       to the treaty; but, at the instance of Lord Castlereagh, the
       Four Great Powers declared in the most solemn manner that,
       although they desired to see his Most Christian Majesty
       restored to the throne, and also to contribute to that
       'auspicious result,' yet that their 'principles' would not
       permit them to prosecute the war 'with a view of imposing any
       particular Government on France.' With Napoleon they refused
       to hold any communication whatever; and when he sent couriers
       to announce that he intended to observe existing treaties,
       they were stopped on the frontiers. ...
    {1361}
       Wellington, on his own responsibility, acted for England,
       signed treaties, undertook heavy engagements in her name, and
       agreed to command an army to be assembled in Belgium; and
       having satisfied, as well as he could, the clamour of 'all'
       for subsidies from England, he took his departure from Vienna
       on the 29th of March, and arrived in Brussels on the 4th of
       April. The British Parliament and nation confirmed readily the
       proceedings of the Government and of the Duke of Wellington at
       Vienna. ... Napoleon had formed a Ministry on the very evening
       of his return to the Tuileries. ... He felt certain that war
       would ensue. Knowing that at the moment when he returned from
       Elba a large part of the best troops of England were in
       America, that the German force on the Rhine was weak, and that
       the Russian armies were in Poland, he calculated that the
       Allied Powers would not be in a position to open the campaign,
       at the earliest, until the middle of July; and, for a moment,
       he hoped that, by working on the feelings of his
       father-in-law, the Emperor of Austria, and by rousing the
       anger of the Emperor Alexander against his allies, he would be
       able, if not to reduce his enemies to two, England and
       Prussia, at least to defer the period of hostilities until the
       autumn. ... Before his great schemes of military preparation
       were half complete he found himself compelled by events to
       begin the war. What he actually did accomplish between March
       and June has been the subject of fierce controversy. His
       friends exaggerate, his enemies undervalue, his exertions and
       their results. But no candid inquirer can fail to see, that if
       his energetic activity during this period is far below that of
       the Convention when threatened by Europe, it is far above the
       standard fixed by his passionate crimes. The real reason why
       he failed to raise a larger military force during the hundred
       days was that his genius worked upon exhausted materials. The
       nation, to use an expressive vulgarism, was 'used up.' ... The
       proper conscription for 1815 had been levied in the autumn of
       1813. The drafts on the rising generation had been
       anticipated, and hence there remained little available except
       the old soldiers. ... The result of Napoleon's prodigious
       exertions to augment the military force of France appears to
       be this: Napoleon found ready to his hand a force of 228,972
       men of all arms, officers included, giving a disposable
       effective of 155,000 men ready to take the field. By the 18th
       of June he had raised this force to 276,982 men, officers
       included: that is 247,609 of the line, and 29,373 of the
       Imperial Guard. The number disposable for war was 198,180; and
       it therefore follows that Napoleon had increased the general
       effective by 53,010 men, and that part of it disposable for
       war by 48, 180."

          G. Hooper,
          Waterloo,
          book 1, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Imbert de Saint-Amand,
          The Duchess of Angouléme and the two Restorations,
          part 1.

          F. P. Guizot,
          Memoirs of My Time,
          volume 1, chapter 3.

          J. C. Ropes,
          The First Napoleon,
          lecture 6.

          E. E. Crowe,
          History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
          volume 1, chapters 4-6.

          R. H. Horne,
          Life of Napoleon, chapters 41-42.

          General Sir N. Campbell,
          Napoleon at Fontainebleau and Elba.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
       The Congress of Vienna and the fruits of its labors.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (June).
       Napoleon's last campaign.
       His final defeat and overthrow at Waterloo.

       "The nearest troops of the allies were the Prussian army in
       the Rhenish provinces, and the army of British, Dutch,
       Belgians, Bunswickers, and Hanoverians, occupying Belgium.
       Napoleon's scheme, the best in his desperate circumstances,
       was to expel the British and Prussians, who were moving west,
       from Belgium, win the Rhine frontier--to arouse the enthusiasm
       of all France--before the Austrians were ready, and carry the
       war out of France. The Duke of Wellington proceeded to
       Belgium, for the first and last time to measure his skill with
       Napoleon's, and Marshal Blücher took over from Kleist the
       command of the Prussians. The two armies, the Prussian and the
       British, took up a line extending from Liege to the sea. The
       country on this line was open along the west, affording by
       nature little means of resisting an invasion, but most of the
       fortresses commanding the roads had been put in a state of
       moderate repair. The Prussians held the line of the Meuse and
       Sambre to beyond Charleroi, the head-quarters being at Namur.
       They numbered about 117,000 men ... with 312 guns. ... The
       motley mass of the British and their allies numbered 106,000
       men ... with 196 guns. ... So entirely ignorant were the
       allies of Napoleon's movements, that on the very day on which
       he burst across the frontier, Wellington wrote to the Czar,
       who was at Vienna, respecting the general invasion of France.
       At that time the frontier of France approached within six
       miles of Charleroi (which is itself but 34 miles by the main
       road from Brussels). The Charleroi road was not only the most
       direct to Brussels, but was unprotected by fortresses; and the
       line of the allied armies was weakest here at the point of
       junction between them. ... It was against the central weak
       point that Napoleon resolved to move, down the basins of the
       Sambre and the Meuse. ... The mass of the troops was being
       assembled within a league of the frontier, but behind some
       small hills which completely screened them from the enemy's
       outposts. To conceal his designs to the last moment, the line
       of sentries along the frontier was tripled, and any attempt to
       pass the line was forbidden under pain of death. The
       arrangements were being carried out by Soult, who on the 2nd
       June had been appointed chief of the staff. ... The army
       concentrated on the frontier consisted (according to Colonel
       Chesney) of 90,000 infantry and 22,000 cavalry--in all 112,000
       men--344 guns. ... Napoleon, accompanied by his brother
       Jerome, arrived in the camp, and in the evening of the 14th
       his soldiers, already elated by his presence, were excited to
       the highest pitch of enthusiasm by an address from Napoleon.
       ... A general order fixed the attack upon the allies' position
       for three o'clock in the following morning (15th)." At the
       appointed time "the French left was in motion, Reille
       proceeding from Solre down the right bank of the Sambre. He
       was soon brought into collision with the Prussian outposts
       near Thuin: he drove them back and secured at ten o'clock the
       bridge of Marchiennes." The movements of other corps were
       delayed by various causes. Nevertheless, "of the Prussians
       only Ziethen's corps, and of Wellington's army only
       Perponcher's Dutch-Belgians, were as yet near the menaced
       position; while 40,000 French had passed the Sambre at
       Marchiennes and 70,000 more were entering Charleroi. When
       Reille deployed in front of Gosselies, the Prussians called in
       their detachments and retired from it, upon Fleurus, ...
       leaving open the road through Quatre Bras to Brussels.
    {1362}
       Ney, who had just come up, then took command of the left, ...
       which was now directed upon Quatre Bras; and Napoleon galloped
       off to the road between Charleroi and Fleurus, where the
       retiring Prussians were concentrating. ... At dark Ziethen
       [with the First Prussian corps] still held Fleurus with his
       advanced guard, and the wood on its south, the bulk of his
       troops lay for the night upon the hill of Ligny, above the
       village of Bry. His loss during the day's manœuvring has been
       estimated at 2,000. On the French left, Ney... had come in
       contact with the advance guard of Wellington's army, a
       battalion of Nassauers and a light battery, in front of the
       village of Frasnes, two miles from Quatre Bras, the name
       applied to the farm-buildings at the intersection of the four
       main roads,--Brussels, Nivelles, Charleroi, Namur. ... After a
       few cannon-shots the outpost fell back from Frasnes to Quatre
       Bras." Ney, after a reconnoissance, postponed attack until
       morning. "It had been intended by Napoleon that the whole army
       should have crossed the Sambre before noon; but from the
       several delays ... when night fell on the 15th, half of the
       cavalry of the guard, two of Grouchy's reserve divisions,
       Lobau's corps, and one-half of Gérard's corps were still on
       the south of the river. Apparently relying on secret
       information from Paris--which contradicted the rumours that
       Napoleon was about to join the army--Wellington had been
       lulled into a false security, and the reports as to the
       concentration had been neglected. News of the enemy's advance
       across the Sambre did not reach him till three o'clock in the
       afternoon of the 15th, when the Prince of Orange in person
       reported the skirmish at Thuin. As he did not yet know the
       point of concentration, the British general, 'never
       precipitate or nervous' (Hooper), merely issued orders for all
       the troops to be in readiness. ... At night intelligence was
       received from Mons that the French concentration was at
       Charleroi, and orders were issued for the immediate movement
       of the troops. ... Wellington and the Prince of Orange, with
       several of the staff' officers, went--it is said, to prevent a
       panic in Brussels--to the Duchess of Richmond's ball, where
       'Belgium's capital had gathered then her beauty and her
       chivalry,' and, 'while all went merry as a marriage bell,' the
       staff officers stole away one by one. The Duke himself,
       'throwing away golden minutes' (Hamley), as if to show his
       confidence in his fortunes, remained to a late hour to return
       thanks after supper for the health of the Prince Regent of
       Great Britain, which the Prince of Orange proposed. ...
       Blücher had received, at his head-quarters at Namur, news on
       the morning of the 14th of the French concentration, and he
       had ordered forward the corps of Pirch and Thielemann. ...
       Napoleon did not foresee Blücher's promptitude, and nothing
       was done in the early morning of the 16th to proceed with the
       execution of the intended surprise. . . .... No orders were
       issued by the Emperor till eight, when Napoleon's resolution
       was taken,--to strike at the Prussians, who would, he
       believed, if defeated, retire upon their natural base of
       communications, through Namur and Liege, and he would thus be
       left to deal separately with the British, who could not move
       from their base, the sea. The French army was to advance in
       two wings, the left under Ney, the right under Grouchy, with
       the reserve under the Emperor himself. Ney was to capture
       Quatre Bras, reconnoitre the Brussels road, and hold himself
       in readiness to march to Brussels, which Napoleon hoped to be
       able to enter the following morning. ... Napoleon had 64,000
       men to attack the position at Ligny; Ney on the left wing had
       45,000 for Quatre Bras; Lobau had 10,000 to support either
       wing of the Grand Army; 5,000 troops were in the rear; and the
       victorious wing, whether Ney's or Grouchy's, was to wheel
       round and manœuvre in the direction of the other. Thielemann
       having come up before the French delivered their attack,
       Blücher had 85,000 men on the field. Wellington arrived at
       Quatre Bras (which is 20 miles from Brussels) at 11 o'clock in
       the forenoon. As Marshal Ney gave no sign of an imminent
       attack, Wellington galloped over, about seven miles, to confer
       with Blücher. ... Wellington, after some discussion, in which
       he expressed his disapproval of Blücher's position, agreed to
       move to the rear of the Prussians, to act as a reserve, if his
       own position at Quatre Bras were not attacked. ... He reached
       Quatre Bras when his own position was being assailed, and no
       help could be sent to Blücher. ... At about three o'clock,
       when the heavy cannonade a few miles to the west intimated
       that a desperate battle was in progress at Quatre Bras, the
       signal for attack [on the Prussians, at Ligny] was given. The
       French left sped forward with impetuosity; the resistance was
       vigorous but futile, and the enemy streamed through the
       village. Blücher immediately moved forward fresh troops and
       re-took the village, but was unable to retain it. ... Thrice
       the Grenadiers forced their way into and through the village,
       but only to be driven back again." But "Blücher gradually
       exhausted his reserves, and when, in the dusk, Napoleon saw
       the last battalion moved forward and the ground behind Ligny
       vacant, he exclaimed, 'they are lost!' The Guards and the
       Cuirassiers were immediately ordered to attack," and the
       wearied Prussian infantry were broken by their onset. "The
       fugitives led precipitately over the fields and along the
       roads to the east, and the order for the whole to retire was
       immediately given. ... Blücher himself gathered a few of his
       squadrons to check the hot pursuit near Sombreffe, and thrice
       led them to the charge. His squadrons were broken, and after
       the last charge his horse fell dead, and the veteran marshal
       lay under it. His aid-de-camp, Nostitz, stood by him, and
       covered him with a cloak; the Cuirassiers galloped past
       without noticing him. ... Gneisenau, who took temporary
       command from the accident to Blücher, ordered a retreat upon
       Wavre, with the view of joining Bülow's corps and keeping open
       the communications with Wellington. ... The loss on each side
       has been very variously estimated. Napoleon put his own loss
       at 7,000 men, Charras puts it at 11,000, and the loss of the
       Prussians at 18,000. The retreat upon Wavre abandoned the
       communications with Namur and Liege, through which the
       Prussian supplies came from the lower Rhine, for a new line by
       Louvain, but it kept the Prussians on a line parallel to the
       road on which Wellington must retreat, and thus still enabled
       the two armies to aid each other. 'This noble daring at once
       snatched from Napoleon the hoped-for fruits of his victory,
       and the danger Ligny had for a few hours averted was left
       impending over him' (Chesney)."

          H. R. Clinton,
          The War in the Peninsula and Wellington's Campaigns
          in France and Belgium, chapter 12.

    {1363}

       On Wellington's return to Quatre Bras from his interview with
       Blücher, he found, as stated above, that the Prince of Orange
       had already became desperately engaged with the superior
       forces of Ney. "The Duke's presence gave new life to the
       battle, and when Picton's division, followed by the
       Brunswickers and Van Merle's Belgian horse, arrived, he took
       the offensive, pushing forward right up to the edge of the
       farm of Gemioncourt. Ney, reinforced by the rest of Reille's
       corps and part of Kellerman's cavalry, violently retorted, and
       in the charge, which partially broke into spray before the
       squares, Wellington ran the risk of death or capture. But he
       leaped his horse over the 92d Highlanders lining the ditch on
       the Namur road, while his gallant pursuers, cut up by the
       infantry fire, were killed or driven off. Ney was further
       reinforced by more guns and cavalry, and Wellington's brigades
       continued to arrive in parcels. The Marshal was always
       superior in horsemen and cannon, but after 5 o'clock his
       opponent had larger numbers of foot. Holding firmly to the
       cross-roads and, the highway to Namur, Wellington became the
       stronger as the day waned; and when the Guards emerged from
       the Nivelles road and the Allies pressed forward, Ney, who had
       no fresh troops, was driven back, and his antagonist remained
       at sundown master of the whole field of battle. The position
       was maintained, but the cost was great, for there were no
       fewer than 4,600 killed and wounded, more than half being
       British soldiers. The thunder of cannon to the eastward had
       also died away, but none knew as yet at Quatre Bras how
       Blücher had fared at the hands of his redoubtable foe.
       Wellington, who slept at his head-quarters in Genappe, was on
       the field and scrutinising his outposts at daybreak an the
       17th. Soon after came a report, confirmed a little later, that
       the Prussians had retreated on Wavre. ... Napoleon had a
       belief that Blücher would retreat upon Liège, which caused him
       at a late hour in the day to despatch Grouchy to that side,
       and thus touch was lost. While the French were cooking and
       Napoleon was pondering, definite intelligence was brought to
       Wellington, who, learning for certain that Blücher was at
       Wavre, promised to stand fast himself at Mont St. Jean and
       fight, if Blücher would support him with two corps. The
       intrepid Marshal replied that he would came with his whole
       army, and Wellington got the famous answer before night. Thus
       was made, between generals who thoroughly trusted each other,
       that combination which led to the Battle of Waterloo. It was
       no chance combat, but the result of a deliberate design,
       rendered capable of execution, even when Blücher was wounded,
       by his resolve to retreat upon Wavre, and by Napoleon, who
       acted on conjecture that the Prussians would hurry towards
       their base at Liege. The morning at Quatre Bras was peaceful;
       the Allies cooked their food before starting rearward.
       Wellington, it is said, lay down for a moment, and snatched
       perhaps a little sleep. There was no stir in front or on the
       exposed left flank; and, covered by a strong display of
       horsemen, the Allied divisions tramped steadily towards Mont
       St. Jean. ... The retreat continued all day. A thunderstorm,
       so often a precursor of Wellington's battles, deluged the
       fields with rain, and pursuer and pursued struggling through
       the mire, were drenched to the skin by nightfall. ... The
       results of two days' warfare may be thus summed up. Napoleon
       had inflicted a defeat, yet not a decisive defeat, upon the
       Prussians, who escaped from his ken to Wavre. He had then, at
       a late hour on the 17th, detached Grouchy with 33,000 men to
       follow them, and Grouchy at night from Gembloux reported that
       they had retired in three directions. Moving himself in the
       afternoon, Napoleon, uniting with Ney, had pursued Wellington
       to Mont St. Jean, and slept in the comfortable belief that he
       had separated the Allies. At that very time Wellington, who
       had assembled his whole force except 17,000 men, ... was in
       close communication with Blücher, and intended on the 18th to
       stop Napoleon by delivering battle, and to hold him fast until
       Blücher could cut in on his right flank and rear. Thus it was
       the Allies who were united practically, and the French army
       which was separated into two groups unable to support each
       other. ... The tempest which burst over the retreating columns
       on the 17th followed them to their bivouacs and raged all
       night, and did not cease until late on the fateful Sunday.
       Wellington, mounting his faithful Copenhagen at break of day,
       rode from the village of Waterloo to the field, where the
       armies on both sides, protected by watchful sentries, were
       still contending with the mischiefs inflicted by the storm.
       The position was the crest of a gentle slope stretching from
       Smohain to the Nivelles road, having upon and in advance of
       its right the château, garden, and wood of Hougoumont, and in
       the centre, where the Charleroi road cut through the little
       ridge, the farm of La Haye Sainte. Both these posts were
       occupied, but the latter, unfortunately, not so solidly as
       Hougoumont. ... The position was well filled by the 69,000 men
       of all arms and 156 guns which were present that day.
       Napoleon, who slept at the farm of Caillou, and who had been
       out on foot to the front during the night, was also early in
       the field, and glad of the gift which he thought fortune had
       placed in his hands. When Reille had joined him from Genappe,
       he had 72,000 men, all admirable soldiers, and 240 guns, with
       which to engage in combat, and he reckoned that the chances
       were ninety to ten in his favour. He mounted his charger,
       reconnoitred his opponent's position, and then gave the orders
       which, promptly and finely obeyed, disclosed the French array.
       ... It was now nearly eleven o'clock, and, although his
       opponent knew it not, Wellington had got news of the march
       from Wavre of Bulow, whose leading troops were actually, at
       that time, close to the wood of St. Lambert on the French
       right; while Grouchy was at Sart les Walhain, between Gembloux
       and Wavre. It is not practicable here to give a full account of
       the battle of Waterloo; we can only describe its broad
       outlines. The first gun was fired about twenty or thirty
       minutes past eleven, and preluded a dashing and sustained
       attack an Hougoumont, which failed to carry the house, garden,
       or orchard, but did gain the wood. It was probably intended to
       divert attention from the attack on the left and centre, which
       Ney, massing his guns opposite the British left, was preparing
       to execute. Wellington watched and in some measure controlled
       the fight for Hougoumont, and then rode off to the centre,
       taking post at a solitary tree which grew near the Charleroi
       road above La Haye Sainte.
    {1364}
       Ney at half past one sent forward the whole of D'Erlon's
       corps, and although some of them pushed close up to and over
       the Wavre road, stormed the orchard of La Haye Sainte and took
       the Pappelotte farm, yet at the critical moment Sir William
       Ponsonby's Union Brigade of horse charged into the French
       infantry, already shattered by the fire of Picton's troops,
       and the net result of the combined operation was that two
       eagles and 3,000 prisoners were captured, while nearly that
       number of killed and wounded remained on the ground. On the
       other side of La Haye Sainte the Household Brigade, led by
       Lord Anglesea in person, charged in upon and routed a large
       body of French cuirassiers. The grand attack thus completely
       failed, and the centre, like the right, remained intact. It
       was just before this combat began that Napoleon saw something
       like troops towards St. Lambert and despatched two brigades of
       light cavalry to reconnoitre. A Prussian staff officer was
       caught beyond Planchenoit, and from him came the unexpected
       and unwelcome information that the whole Prussian army was
       approaching. ... The signs of danger on his right flank, the
       punishment of D'Erlon's corps, the ineffectual attempt upon
       the British Guards in and about Hougoumont, were followed by a
       kind of pause and the combat reverted to cannonading and
       skirmishing. But towards four o'clock Napoleon, increasing the
       fire of his artillery, threw forward a mass of cavalry, forty
       squadrons, and then began that series of reiterated onsets of
       horse which lasted for two hours. ... Twice they were driven
       down the slope, and the third time, when they came on, they
       were strengthened by Kellerman and Guyot until they reached a
       force of 77 squadrons, or 12,000 men; but these also were
       repulsed, the British horse, what remained of them, charging
       when the French were entangled among the squares and
       disordered by the musketry and guns. Four times these fine
       troopers charged, yet utterly failed to penetrate or move a
       single foot battalion. But some time before the final effort,
       Ney by a fierce attack got possession of La Haye Sainte, and
       thus, just as the cavalry were exhausted, the French infantry
       were established within sixty yards of the Allied centre. And
       although the Emperor was obliged to detach one-half of his
       Guard to the right, because Blucher had brought into play
       beyond Planchenoit against Lobau nearly 80,000 men, still the
       capture of La Haye Sainte was justly regarded as a grave
       event. Wellington during the cavalry fight had moved three
       brigades on his right nearer to Hougoumont, and had called up
       Chassé and his Belgians to support them; and it was a little
       before this time that he cried out to Brigadier-General Adam,
       'By G--, Adam, I think we shall beat them yet! ... The crisis
       of the battle had come for Napoleon. Unable after eight hours'
       conflict to do more than capture La Haye Sainte; hardly
       pressed by the Prussians, now strong and aggressive; owing
       such success as he had obtained to the valour and discipline
       of his soldiers--the Emperor delivered his last stroke, not
       for victory--he could no longer hope to win--but for safety.
       He sent forward the last ten battalions of his Guard to assail
       the British right, and directed the whole remaining infantry
       force available to attack all along the line. The Guard
       marched onward in two columns, which came successively in
       contact with their opponents. Napier's guns and the British
       Guards, who rising from the ground showed across the head of
       the first column, fired heavily and charging drove them in
       confusion back towards La Belle Alliance; and the second
       column, struck in flank by the musketry of the 52nd and 95th
       was next broken by a bayonet charge and pursued by Colonel
       Colborne to and beyond the Charleroi road. As Ziethen's
       Prussians were falling upon the French near Pappelotte, and
       Pirch and Bulow wrestling with the Imperial Guard in
       Planchenoit, Wellington ordered the whole of the British line
       to advance. The cheers arising on the right where he was,
       extended along the front and gave new strength to the wearied
       soldiers. He led the way. As he neared the Charleroi road, the
       riflemen, full of Peninsular memories, began to cheer him as
       he galloped up, but he called out, 'No cheering, my lads;
       forward and complete your victory.' He found that good
       soldier, Colborne, halted for a moment before three squares of
       the rallied Imperial Guard. 'Go on, Colborne,' he said;
       'better attack them, they won't stand.' Nor did they.
       Wellington then turned to the right, where Vivian's Light
       Cavalry were active in the gloom, and we next find him once
       more with the 52nd near Rossomme, the farthest point of the
       advance, where that regiment halted after its grand march over
       the battlefield. Somewhere on the highway he met Blucher, who had
       so nobly kept his word, and it was then that Gneisenau
       undertook to chase the fugitives over the frontier. The
       French, or perhaps we should say the Napoleonic army, was
       destroyed, and the power which its mighty leader had built up
       on the basis of its astonishing successes was gone for ever."

          G. Hooper,
          Wellington,
          chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Gardner,
          Quatre Bras, Ligny, and Waterloo.

          Lieutenant Colonel C. C. Chesney,
          Waterloo Lectures.

          W. Siborne,
          History of the War in France and Belgium in 1819.

          General Sir J. S. Kennedy,
          Notes on the Battle of Waterloo.

          W. H. Maxwell,
          Life of Wellington,
          volume 8, chapters 28-32.

          G. R. Gleig,
          Story of the Battle of Waterloo.

          W. O'C. Morris,
          Great Commanders of Modern Times,
          and the Campaign of 1815.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (June-August).
       Napoleon's return to Paris.
       His final abdication.
       His surrender of himself to the English.
       His captivity at St. Helena.

       "The vanquished army had lost 200 pieces of ordnance, and
       80,000 men hors de combat or prisoners; as many more remained,
       independently of Grouchy's 85,000 men; but the difficulty was
       to rally them in presence of an enemy, that had taken lessons
       in audacity and activity from Napoleon himself. The loss of
       the allies was not less considerable, but there remained to
       them 150,000 men, the confidence of victory, and the certainty
       of being seconded by 300,000 allies, who were crossing the
       Rhine from Mentz to Bäle. Such was the issue of this struggle,
       commenced under such happy auspices, and which resulted more
       fatal to France than the battles of Poitiers and Azincourt. It
       must be admitted, that this disaster was the work of a
       multitude of unheard-of circumstances: if Napoleon can be
       reproached for certain faults, it must be allowed that fortune
       dealt cruelly with him in the lesser details, and that his
       enemies, in return, were as fortunate as they showed
       themselves skillful.
    {1365}
       However unjust be the spirit of party, we are forced to render
       homage to the merits of two generals, who, unexpectedly
       attacked in their cantonments extending from Dinant and Liège
       to Renaix, near Tournay, had taken such wise measures as to be
       in condition next morning for giving battle to equal forces,
       and for afterwards conquering by an able concentration of the
       two armies. ... In the very battle of Waterloo, the French
       might be censured for having attempted the first attack in
       masses too deep. This system was never successful against the
       murderous fire of English infantry and artillery.  ... There
       were likewise extraordinary charges of cavalry, which, being
       devoid of support, became heroic but useless struggles.
       Notwithstanding all this, it is almost certain that Napoleon
       would have remained master of the field of battle, but for the
       arrival of 65,000 Prussians on his rear; a decisive and
       disastrous circumstance, that to prevent was not entirely in
       his power. As soon as the enemy led 130,000 men on the
       battle-field, with scarcely 50,000 to oppose them, all was
       lost. ... Napoleon had but one course left him, which was to
       direct Grouchy through the Ardennes on Laon; to collect at
       this point all that could be drawn from the interior, from
       Metz and from Rapp's corps, leaving but garrisons in Lorraine
       and Alsace. The imperial cause was very much shaken, put not
       entirely lost; should all Frenchmen determine on opposing
       Europe with the courage of the Spartans of Leonidas, the
       energy of the Russians in 1812, or of the Spaniards of
       Palafox. Unfortunately for them, as·for Napoleon, opinion was
       very much divided on this subject, and the majority still
       believing that the struggle interested only the power of the
       emperor and his family, the fate of the country seemed of
       little consequence. Prince Jerome had collected 25,000 men in
       rear of Avesnes: he was ordered to lead them to Laon; there
       remained 200 pieces of artillery, beside those of Grouchy. ...
       Reaching Loon on the 19th, where he had at first resolved to
       await the junction of Grouchy and Jerome, the emperor
       discussed, with the small number of the trustworthy who had
       followed him, the course he should adopt after this frightful
       disaster. Should he repair to Paris, and concert with the
       chambers and his ministers, or else remain with the army,
       demanding of the chambers to invest him with dictatorial power
       and an unlimited confidence, under the conviction that he
       would obtain from them the most energetic measures, for saving
       France and conquering her independence, on heaps of ruins? As
       it always happens, his generals were divided in opinion; some
       wished him to proceed to Paris, and deposit the crown into the
       hands of the nation's delegates, or receive it from them a
       second time, with the means of defending it. Others, with a
       better appreciation of the views of the deputies, affirmed,
       that far from sympathizing with Napoleon, and seconding him,
       they would accuse him of having lost France, and would
       endeavor to save the country by losing the emperor. ...
       Lastly, the most prudent thought that Napoleon should not go
       to Paris, but remain at the head of the army, in order to
       treat with the sovereigns himself, by offering to abdicate in
       favor of his son. It is said, that Napoleon inclined to the
       idea of remaining at Laon with the army; but the advice of the
       greatest number determined him, and he departed for Paris."

          Baron de Jomini,
          History of the Campaign of Waterloo,
          pages 184-189.

       "It was a moment of unrelieved despair for the public men who
       gathered round him on his return to Paris, and among these
       were several whose fame was of earlier date than his own. La
       Fayette, the man of 1789; Carnot, organizer of victory to the
       Convention; Lucien, who had decided the revolution of
       Brumaire,--all these met in that comfortless deliberation.
       Carnot was for a dictatorship of public safety, that is, for
       renewing his great days of 1793; Lucien too liked the Roman
       sound of the word dictator. 'Dare!' he said to his brother,
       but the spring of that terrible will was broken at last. 'I
       have dared too much already;' said Napoleon. Meanwhile, in the
       Chamber of Representatives the, word was not dictatorship but
       liberty. Here La Fayette caused the assembly to vote itself
       permanent, and to declare guilty of high treason whoever
       should attempt to dissolve it. He hinted that, if the word
       abdication were not soon pronounced on the other side, he
       would himself pronounce the word 'dechéance.' The second
       abdication took place on June 22d. 'I offer myself a sacrifice
       to the hatred of the enemies of France. My public life is
       finished, and I proclaim my son, under the title of Napoleon
       II., Emperor of the French.' On the 25th he retired to
       Malmaison, where Josephine had died the year before. He had by
       no means yet ceased to hope. When his son was passed over by
       the Chamber of Representatives, who named an executive
       commission of five, he protested that he had not intended to
       make way for a new Directory. ... On the 27th he went so far
       as to offer his services once more as general, 'regarding
       myself still as the first soldier of the nation;' He was met
       by a refusal, and left Malmaison on the 29th for Rochefort,
       well furnished with books on the United States. France was by
       this time entering upon another Reign of Terror. Massacre had
       begun at Marseilles as early as the 25th. What should Napoleon
       do? He had been formerly the enemy of every other nation, and
       now he was the worst enemy, if not of France, yet of the
       triumphant faction in France. He lingered some days at
       Rochefort, where he had arrived on July 3d, and then, finding
       it impossible to escape the vigilance of the English cruisers,
       went on the 15th on board the 'Bellerophon' and surrendered
       himself to Captain Maitland. It was explained to him that no
       conditions could be accepted, but that he would be 'conveyed
       to England to be received in such manner as the Prince Regent
       should deem expedient:' He had written at the Île d'Aix the
       following characteristic letter to the Prince Regent:--'Royal
       Highness,--A prey to the factions which divide my country and
       to the enmity of the powers of Europe, I have terminated my
       public career, and I come, like Themistocles, to seat myself
       at the hearth of the British people. I place myself under the
       protection of its laws, which I claim from your Royal Highness
       as the most powerful, the most constant, and the most generous
       of my enemies.' It was perhaps the only course open to him. In
       France his life could scarcely have been spared, and Blücher
       talked of executing him on the spot where the Duc d'Enghien
       had fallen. He therefore could do nothing but what he did. His
       reference to Themistocles shows that he was conscious of
       being the worst enemy that England had ever had.
    {1366}
       Perhaps he remembered that at the rupture of the treaty of
       Amiens he had studied to envenom the contest by detaining the
       English residents in France. Still he might reflect, on the
       other hand, that England was the only great country which had
       not been trampled down and covered with massacre by his
       soldiers. It would have been inexcusable if the English
       Government had given way to vindictive feelings, especially as
       they could well afford to be magnanimous, having just won the
       greatest of all victories. But it was necessary to deprive him
       of the power of exciting new wars, and the experiment of Elba
       had shown that this involved depriving him of his liberty. The
       frenzy which had cost·the lives of millions must be checked. This
       was the principle laid down in the declaration of March 15th,
       by which he had been excommunicated as a public enemy. It was
       therefore necessary to impose some restraint upon him. He must
       be separated from his party and from all the revolutionary
       party in Europe. So long as he remained in Europe this would
       involve positive imprisonment. The only arrangement therefore
       which would allow him tolerable personal comfort and enjoyment
       of life, was to send him out of Europe. From these
       considerations grew the decision of the Government to send him
       to St. Helena. An Act of Parliament was passed 'for the better
       detaining in custody Napoleon Bonaparte,' and another Act for
       subjecting St. Helena to a special system of government. He
       was kept on board the 'Bellerophon' till August 4th, when he
       was transferred to the 'Northumberland.' On October 15th he
       arrived at St. Helena, accompanied by Counts Montholon, Las
       Cases, and Bertrand, with their families, General Gourgaud,
       and a number of servants. In April, 1816, arrived Sir Hudson
       Lowe, an officer who had been knighted for bringing the news
       of the capture of Paris in 1814, as governor. The rest of his
       life, which continued till May 5, 1821, was occupied partly in
       quarrels with this governor, which have now lost their
       interest, partly in the task he had undertaken at the time of
       his first abdication, that of relating his past life. He did
       not himself write this narrative, nor does it appear that he
       even dictated it word for word. It is a report made partly by
       General Gourgaud, partly by Count Montholon, of Napoleon's
       impassioned recitals; but they assure us that this report, as
       published, has been read and corrected throughout by him. It
       gives a tolerably complete account of the period between the
       siege of Toulon and the battle of Marengo. On the later period
       there is little, except a memoir on the campaign of 1815, to
       which the editors of the Correspondence have been able to add
       another on Elba and the Hundred Days."

          J. R. Seeley,
          Short History of Napoleon I.,
          chapter 6, section 5.

          ALSO IN:
          Count de Las Cases,
          Life, Exile and Conversations of Napoleon.

          General Count Montholon,
          History of the Captivity of Napoleon.

          W. Forsyth,
          History of the Captivity of Napoleon.

          B. E. O'Meara,
          Napoleon in Exile.

          Sir W. Scott,
          Life of Napoleon,
          volume 2, chapters 49-56.

          A. Thiers,
          History of the Consulate and the Empire,
          chapters 61-62 (volume 5).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (July-November).
       English and Prussian armies in Paris.
       Return of Louis XVIII.
       Restoration of the art-spoils or Napoleon.
       Indemnities demanded.
       Russian, Austrian and Spanish armies on French soil.
       The second Treaty or Paris.

       "The 7th of July was the proudest day in the annals of
       England. On that day her victorious army, beaded by
       Wellington, made their public entry, along with the Prussians,
       into Paris, where an English drum had not been heard for
       nearly four hundred years. ... The French regarded them with
       melancholy hearts and anxious looks. Few persons were to be
       seen in the streets. ... The English established themselves in
       the Bois de Boulogne in a regular camp; the Prussians
       bivouacked in the churches, on the quays, and in the principal
       streets. On the following day Louis, who had followed in the
       rear of the English army from Ghent, made his public entrance,
       escorted by the national guard. But his entry was attended by
       still more melancholy circumstances, and of sinister augury to
       the future stability of his dynasty. Even the royalists were
       downcast; their patriotic feelings were deeply wounded by the
       defeat of France. ... There was something in the restoration
       of the monarch by the arms of the old rivals and enemies of
       France which added inexpressibly to its bitterness. ... The
       reality of subjugation was before their eyes. Blucher kept
       aloof from all intercourse with the court, and haughtily
       demanded a contribution of 100,000,000 francs ... for the pay
       of his troops, as Napoleon had done from the Prussians at
       Berlin. Already the Prussian soldiers insisted with loud cries
       that the pillar of Austerlitz should be pulled down, as
       Napoleon had destroyed the pillar of Rosbach; and Blucher was
       so resolute to destroy the bridge of Jena, that he had
       actually begun operations by running mines under the arches
       for blowing it up. ... Wellington as steadily resisted the
       ruthless act, but he had great difficulty in maintaining his
       point; and it was only by his placing a sentinel on the
       bridge, and repeated and earnest remonstrances, that the
       destruction of that beautiful monument was prevented. ... A
       still more melancholy humiliation than they had yet
       experienced ere long befell the French nation. The Allied
       sovereigns now arrived in Paris, and insisted upon the
       restoration of the objects of art in the museum of the Louvre,
       which had been pillaged from their respective states by the
       orders of Napoleon. The justice of this demand could not be
       contested: it was only wresting the prey from the robber. ...
       Nothing wounded the French so profoundly as this breaking up
       of the trophies of the war. It told them, in language not to
       be misunderstood, that conquest had now reached their doors:
       the iron went into the soul of the nation. A memorial from all
       the artists of Europe at Rome claimed for the Eternal City the
       entire restoration of the immortal works of art which had once
       adorned it. The Allied sovereigns acceded to the just demand;
       and Canova, impassioned for the arts and the city of his
       choice, hastened to Paris to superintend the removal. It was
       most effectually done. The bronze horses ... [from Venice]
       were restored to their old station in front of the Church of
       St. Mark. The Transfiguration and the Last Communion of St.
       Jerome resumed their place in the halls of the Vatican; the
       Apollo and the Laocoon again adorned the precincts of St.
       Peter's; the Venus was enshrined anew amidst beauty in the
       Tribune of Florence; and the Descent from the Cross by Rubens
       was restored to the devout worship of the Flemings in the
       cathedral of Antwerp. ...
    {1367}
       The claims preferred by the different Allied powers for
       restitution not merely of celebrated objects of art, but of
       curiosities and valuable articles of all kinds, which had been
       carried off by the French during their occupation of the
       different countries of Europe, especially under Napoleon, were
       immense, and demonstrated at once the almost incredible length
       to which the system of spoliation and robbery had been carried
       by the republican and imperial authorities. Their amount may
       be estimated by one instance from an official list, prepared
       by the Prussian authorities in 1815, It appears that, during
       the years 1806 and 1807, there had been violently taken from
       the Prussian states, on the requisition of M. Donore, and
       brought to Paris,--statues, paintings, antiquities, cameos,
       manuscripts, maps, gems, antiques, rarities, and other
       valuable articles, the catalogue of which occupies 53 closely
       printed pages of M. Schoell's valuable Recueil. Among them are
       127 paintings, many of them of the very highest value, taken from
       the palaces of Berlin and Potsdam alone; 187 statues, chiefly
       antique, taken from the same palaces during the same period;
       and 86 valuable manuscripts and documents seized in the city
       of Aix-la-Chapelle, on the occupation of that city, then a
       neutral power, in 1803, by the armies of the First Consul on
       the invasion of Hanover. The total articles reclaimed by the
       Prussians exceeded two thousand. ... The claims of states and
       cities for indemnity on account of' the enormous exactions
       made from them by the French generals, under the authority of
       the Convention and the Emperor, were still more extraordinary.
       ... The vast amount of these claims for indemnities in money
       or territories, and the angry feelings with which they were
       urged, were of sinister augury to the French nation, and
       augmented, in a most serious degree, the difficulties
       experienced by those who were intrusted with the conduct of
       the negotiations. But, be they what they may, the French had
       no means of resisting them; all they could trust to was the
       moderation or jealousies of their conquerors. The force which,
       during the months of July and August, advanced from all
       quarters into their devoted territory, was immense, and such
       as demonstrated that, if Napoleon had not succeeded in
       dissolving the alliance by an early victory in the
       Netherlands, the contest, even without the battle of Waterloo,
       would have been hopeless. The united armies of Russians and
       Austrians, 350,000 strong, under Schwartzenberg and Barclay de
       Tolly, crossed the Rhine in various places from Bâle to
       Coblentz, and, pressing rapidly forward, soon occupied the
       whole eastern provinces of France. The Austrians and
       Piedmontese, a hundred thousand more; passed Mont Cenis, or
       descended the Rhone, from Geneva to Lyons. The Spaniards made
       their appearance in Bearn or Roussillon. The armies of Blucher
       and Wellington, now reinforced to 200,000 effective men,
       occupied Paris, its environs, Normandy, and Picardy. Eighty
       thousand Prussians and Germans, in addition, were advancing
       through the Rhenish provinces and Belgium. Before the Allied
       sovereigns returned to Paris, in the middle of July, the
       French territory was occupied by 800,000 men, to oppose which
       no considerable force remained but the army beyond the Loire,
       which mustered 65,000 combatants. ... Austria insisted upon
       getting back Lorraine and Alsace; Spain put in a claim to the
       Basque provinces; Prussia alleged that her security would be
       incomplete unless Mayence, Luxembourg, and all the frontier
       provinces of France adjoining her territory, were ceded to
       her; and the King of the Netherlands claimed the whole of the
       French fortresses of the Flemish barrier. The monarchy of
       Louis seemed on the eve of dissolution; and so complete was
       the prostration of the vanquished, that there appeared no
       power capable of preventing it. It was with no small
       difficulty, and more from the mutual jealousies of the
       different powers than any other cause, that these natural
       reprisals for French rapacity were prevented from taking
       place. The negotiation was protracted at Paris till late in
       autumn; Russia, which had nothing to gain by the proposed
       partition, took part with France throughout its whole
       continuance; and the different powers, to support their
       pretensions in this debate, maintained their armies, who had
       entered on all sides, on the French soil; so that above
       800,000 foreign troops were quartered on its inhabitants for
       several months. At length, however, by the persevering efforts
       of Lord Castlereagh, M. Nesselrode, and M. Talleyrand, all
       difficulties were adjusted, and the second treaty of Paris was
       concluded in November 1815, between France and the whole
       Allied powers. By this treaty, and the relative conventions
       which were signed the same day, conditions of a very onerous
       kind were imposed upon the restored government. The French
       frontier was restored to the state in which it stood in 1790,
       by which means the whole of the territory, far from
       inconsiderable, gained by the treaty of 1814, was resumed by
       the Allies. In consequence of this, France lost the fortresses
       of Landau, Sarre-Louis, Philipville, and Marienburg, with the
       adjacent territory of each. Versoix, with a small district
       round it, was ceded to the canton of Geneva; the fortress of
       Huningen was to be demolished; but the little country of the
       Venaisin, the first conquest of the Revolution, was preserved
       to France. Seven hundred millions of francs (£28,000,000
       sterling) were to be paid to the Allied powers for the
       expenses of the war; in addition to which it was stipulated
       that an army of 150,000 men, composed of 80,000 from each of
       the great powers of England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and
       the lesser powers of Germany, was to occupy, for a period not
       less than three, or more than five years, the whole frontier
       fortresses of France; ... and this large force was to be
       maintained entirely at the expense of the French government.
       In addition to this, the different powers obtained indemnities
       for the spoliations inflicted on them by France during the
       Revolution, which amounted to the enormous sum of 735,000,000
       of francs more (£29,400,000 sterling). A hundred millions of
       francs were also provided to the smaller powers as an
       indemnity for the expenses of the war; so that the total sums
       which France had to pay, besides maintaining the army of
       occupation, amounted to no less than fifteen hundred and
       thirty-five millions of francs, or £61,400,000 sterling. ...
       Great Britain, in a worthy spirit, surrendered the whole sum
       falling to her out of the indemnity for the war, amounting to
       nearly £5,000,000 sterling, to the King of the Netherlands, to
       restore the famous barrier against France which Joseph II. had
       so insanely demolished."

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 95 (volume 20).

          ALSO IN:
          Prince de Talleyrand,
          Memoirs,
          part 9 (volume 8).

          E. Hertslet,
          The Map of Europe by Treaty,
          Number 40 (volume 1).

    {1368}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (September).
       The Holy Alliance.

          See HOLY ALLIANCE.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.
       The restored monarchy.
       Louis XVIII. and Charles X.
       Career of the Reactionaries.
       Conquest of Algiers.
       Ordinances of July.
       Revolution.
       Abdication and exile of the king.

       "France was defeated but not crushed. Indeed she had gained
       Avignon and some districts of Alsace since 1792, and she had
       gained social and political stability by having millions of
       peasants as small proprietors in the soil; moreover, as
       Napoleon always waged his wars at the expense of his conquered
       foes, the French national debt was after all the wars only
       one-sixth of the debt of Great Britain. So France soon rose to
       a position of strength and prosperity hardly equalled in all
       Europe, in spite of bad harvests, political unrest, and the
       foreign occupation which ended in 1818. The royalists, after a
       quarter of a century of repression, now revenged themselves
       with truly French vehemence. In France a victorious party
       generally crushes its opponents; and the elections, held
       during the full swing of the royalist reaction, sent up to
       Paris a Legislative Assembly 'more royalist than the king
       himself.' Before it assembled, Louis XVIII., in spite of his
       promise only to punish those who were declared by the Assembly
       to be traitors, proscribed fifty-seven persons who had
       deserted to Napoleon in the 'Hundred Days.' ... Of the
       proscribed men thirty-eight were banished and a few were shot.
       Among the latter the most illustrious was Marshal Ney, whose
       past bravery did not shield him from the extreme penalty for
       the betrayal of the military oath. ... This impolitic
       execution rankled deep in the breasts of all Napoleon's old
       soldiers, but for the present all opposition was swept away in
       the furious tide of reaction. Brune, one of Napoleon's
       marshals, was killed by the royalist populace of Avignon; and
       the Protestants of the south, who were suspected of favouring
       Napoleon's home policy, suffered terrible outrages at Nimes
       and Uzès in this 'white terror.' The restored monarchy had far
       stronger executive powers than the old system wielded before
       1789, for it now drew into its hands the centralised powers
       which, under the Directory and the Empire, had replaced the
       old cumbrous provincial system; but even this gain of power
       did not satisfy the hot-headed royalists of the Chamber. They
       instituted judicial courts under a provost (prévôt), which
       passed severe sentences without right of appeal. Dismissing
       the comparatively Liberal ministers Talleyrand and Fouché,
       Louis in September 1816 summoned a more royalist ministry
       under the Duc de Richelieu, which was itself hurried on by the
       reactionaries. Chateaubriand fanned the flames of royalist
       passion by his writings, until the king even found it
       necessary to dissolve this mischievous Chamber, and the new
       deputies who assembled (February 1817) showed a more moderate
       spirit. France was soon delivered from the foreign armies of
       occupation, for the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and
       Prussia, meeting at Aix-la-Chapelle (September 1818), in order
       to combat revolutionary attempts, decided that an early
       evacuation of French territory would strengthen the Bourbon
       rule in France; and they renewed the Quadruple Alliance, which
       aimed at upholding existing treaties. The discontent in
       Germany and Italy awakened a sympathetic echo in France, which
       showed itself in the retirement of the Duc de Richelieu and
       the accession of a more progressive minister, Decazes
       (November 1819). This check to the royalist reaction was soon
       swept away by an event of sinister import. The Duc de Berry,
       second son of the Comte d'Artois, was assassinated (February
       1820), as he was leaving the opera-house, by a fanatic who
       aimed at cutting off the direct Bourbon line (February 1820).
       His design utterly failed, for a posthumous son, the
       celebrated Comte de Chambord, was born in September 1820; and
       the only result was a new outburst of royalist fury. Liberty
       of the press was suspended, and a new complicated electoral
       system restricted the franchise to those who paid at least
       1,000 francs a year in direct taxation: the, Chamber of
       Deputies, a fifth part of which was renewed every year by an
       electorate now representing only the wealthy, became every
       year more reactionary, while the Left saw its numbers decline.
       The Ultra-royalist ministry of Villèle soon in its turn
       aroused secret conspiracies, for the death of Napoleon (May 5,
       1821) was now awakening a feeling of regret for the
       comparative liberty enjoyed in France during the Empire.
       Military conspiracies were formed, only to be discovered and
       crushed, and the veteran republican Lafayette was thought to
       be concerned in a great attempt projected in the eastern
       departments with its headquarters at Belfort; and the terrible
       society of the Carbonari secretly spread its arms through the
       south of France, where it found soil as favourable as in Italy
       itself. ... A revolution in Spain held Ferdinand a prisoner in
       his palace at Madrid. Louis determined to uphold the throne of
       his Bourbon relative, and sent an army which quickly effected
       its object (1823). 'The Pyrenees no longer exist,' exclaimed
       Louis XVIII. In fact, everywhere in Europe absolutism seemed
       to be triumphant, and the elections of December 1823 sent up a
       further reinforcement to the royalist party; also the
       approaching end of the sensible old king foreshadowed a period
       of still more violent reaction under his hot-headed brother
       Charles. Louis XVIII. died on September 16, 1824, At his death
       the restoration seemed firmly established. ... France had
       quickly recovered from twenty years of warfare, and was
       thought to have the strongest government in Europe. Always the
       chief of the reactionary nobles, Charles had said, 'It is only
       Lafayette and I who have not changed since 1789.' Honest,
       sincere, and affable as the new king was, yet his popularity
       soon vanished when it was seen how entirely he was under the
       control of his confessor; and the ceremonies of his coronation
       at Rheims showed that he intended to revive the almost
       forgotten past. In Guizot's words, 'Louis XVIII was a moderate
       of the old system and a liberal-minded inheritor of the 18th
       century: Charles X. was a true Émigré, and a submissive bigot'
       Among the first bills which Charles proposed to the Chambers was
       one to indemnify those who had lost their lands in the
       Revolution. To give these lands back would have caused general
       unsettlement among thousands of small cultivators; but the
       former landowners received an indemnity of a milliard of
       francs, which they exclaimed against for its insufficiency
       just as loudly as the radicals did for its extravagance: by
       this tardy act of justice the State endeavoured to repair some
       of the unjust confiscations of the revolutionary era. ...
    {1369}
       The attempts made by the Jesuits to regain their legal status
       in France, in spite of the prohibition dating from before the
       fall of the old regime, aroused further hostility to the king,
       who was well known to favour their cause. Nothing, however, so
       strengthened the growing opposition in the Chambers and in the
       country at large as a rigorous measure aimed at the
       newspapers, pamphlets, and books which combated the clerical
       reaction. These publications were to pay a stamp duty per
       page, while crushing fines were devised to ruin the offending
       critics. One of the leaders of the opposition, Casimir Périer,
       exclaimed against this measure as ruinous to trade: 'Printing
       would be suppressed in France and transferred to Belgium.' The
       king persevered in his mad enterprise: he refused to receive a
       petition from the most august literary society in Europe, the
       Académie Française, and cashiered its promoters as if they
       were clerks under his orders. Strange to say, the Chamber of
       Deputies passed the measure, while that of the Peers rejected
       it--an event greeted by illuminations all over Paris (April
       1827). A few days afterwards, at a review of the National
       Guards in Paris, the troops raised cries for the liberty of
       the press and for the charter granted in 1815. The next day
       they were disbanded by royal command, but were foolishly
       allowed to retain their arms, which were soon to be used
       against the government. Charles next created seventy-six new
       peers to outvote his opponents in the Upper House. He also
       dissolved the Chamber of Deputies, but found the new members
       less pliable. Finally, Charles had to give way for the time,
       and accept a more moderate ministry under Martignac in place
       of the reactionary Villèle Cabinet. ... Charles was soon able
       to dismiss this ministry, the last hope of conciliation, and
       formed (August 1829) a ministry under Count Polignac, one of
       whose colleagues was the General Bourmont who had deserted to
       the allies the day before Waterloo. The king's speech at the
       opening of the next session (March 1830) was curt and
       threatening, and the Chamber was soon prorogued. Reform
       banquets, a custom which the French borrowed from English
       reformers, increased the agitation, which the Polignac
       ministry vainly sought to divert by ambitious projects of
       invasion and partition of some neighbouring States. The only
       practical outcome of these projects was the conquest of the
       pirate stronghold of Algiers. This powerful fortress had been
       bombarded and reduced by Lord Exmouth with the British fleet
       in 1816, and the captives, mostly Italians, were released from
       that den of slave-dealers; but the Dey of Algiers had resumed
       his old habits, complaints from the French were met by
       defiance, and at last the French envoy quitted the harbor amid
       a shower of bullets. A powerful expedition effected a landing
       near the strongly-fortified harbour, and easily beat back the
       native attack; and then from the land side soon battered down
       the defences of the city.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.

       Thus the city which had long been the terror of Mediterranean
       sailors became the nucleus of the important French colony of
       Algeria (July 4,1830). The design of Charles X. and of his
       reactionary Polignac ministry to divert the French people from
       domestic grievances to foreign conquest needed the genius and
       strength of a Napoleon to ensure success. The mere fact of the
       expedition being Under the command of the hated General
       Bourmont had made it unpopular. ... So, although the victory
       was triumphantly announced throughout France, yet the
       elections sent up a majority hostile to the king.
       Nevertheless, with his usual blind obstinacy, Charles on the
       25th July 1830 issued the famous ordinances which brought
       matters to a crisis. The first suspended the liberty of the
       press, and placed books under a strict censorship; the second
       dissolved the newly-elected Chamber of Deputies; the third
       excluded licensed dealers (patentés) from the franchise; the
       fourth summoned a new Chamber under the new conditions, every
       one of which violated the charter granted by the late king.
       The Parisians at once flew to arms, and raised barricades in
       the many narrow streets which then favoured street-defence.
       Marmont, hated by the people as being the first of Napoleon's
       marshals who had treated with the allies, was to quell the
       disturbances with some 20,000 troops of the line; but on the
       second day's fighting (July 28) the insurgents, aided by the
       disbanded National Guards, and veterans of the empire, beat
       back the troops; and on the third day the royal troops, cut
       off from food and supplies, and exhausted by the heat, gave
       way before the tri-colour flag; the defection of two line
       regiments left the Louvre unguarded; a panic spread among
       other regiments, and soon the tri-colour floated above the
       Tuileries. Charles thereupon set the undignified example, soon
       to be followed by so many kings and, princes, of giving way
       when it was too late. He offered to withdraw the hated
       ordinances, but was forced to flee from St. Cloud. He then
       tried the last expedient, also doomed to failure, of
       abdicating in favour of his little grandson the Duc de
       Bordeaux, since better known as the Comte de Chambord.
       Retiring slowly with his family to Cherbourg, the baffled
       monarch set out for a second and last exile, spent first at
       Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, and ended at Göritz in Bohemia.
       More than 5,000 civilians and 700 soldiers were killed or
       wounded in these terrible 'three days' of July 1830, which
       ended all attempts to re-establish the tyranny of the old
       régime. The victims were appropriately buried in the Place de
       la Bastille. They freed not France alone, but dealt a fierce
       blow at the system of Metternich."

          J. H. Rose,
          Century of Continental History,
          chapter 23.

          ALSO IN:
          D. Turnbull,
          The French Revolution of 1830.

          A. de Lamartine,
          The Restoration of Monarchy in France,
          books 32-50 (volumes 3-4).

          E. E. Crowe,
          History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII.
          and Charles X.

          Prince de Talleyrand,
          Memoirs,
          part 10 (volumes 3-4).

          G. L. Dickinson,
          Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
          chapter 3.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1822:
       The Congress of Verona.
       French intervention in Spain approved.

          See VERONA: THE CONGRESS OF.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1823-1827.
       Interference in Spain to suppress the revolution and reinstate
       King Ferdinand.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1827-1829.
       Intervention on behalf of Greece.
       Battle of Navarino.

          See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

    {1370}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.
       The monarchy renewed under Louis Philippe.
       Its steady drift from the constitutional course.

       "The Constitutional party set their hopes on Louis Philippe,
       Duke of Orleans. This prince, born in 1773, was the son of
       that notorious 'Egalité' who during the revolution had ended
       his checkered career under the guillotine. His grandmother was
       the noble Elizabeth Charlotte, a native of the Palatinate, who
       had the misfortune to be the wife of the effeminate Duke of
       Orleans, brother of Louis XIV. Louis Philippe was a Bourbon,
       like King Charles; but the opposition of several members of
       this Orleans branch of the royal house had caused it to be
       regarded as a separate family. From his youth up he had
       displayed a great deal of popular spirit and common-sense. ...
       Seemingly created by his nature and career to be a citizen
       king, he had long since, as early as 1814, determined to
       accept the throne in case it were offered him." The offer came
       in 1830 with the revolution of July. On the 31st of that month
       he accepted the office of lieutenant-general of the kingdom,
       conferred by the vote of a meeting of fifty delegates. "The
       'Society of the Friends of the People' [an organization of the
       pronounced republicans], not very well pleased with this result
       of the 'great week' [as the week of the revolution was
       called], laid before Lafayette, on the following day," their
       programme, "and commissioned him to make the duke guarantee
       the popular rights therein set forth by his signature. With
       this document in his pocket, Lafayette made his ... visit to
       Louis Philippe in the Palais Royal. In the course of
       conversation he said to him, 'You know that I am a republican,
       and consider the American constitution the most perfect.' 'I
       am of the same opinion,' replied the duke; 'no one could have
       been two years in America and not share that view. But do you
       think that that constitution could be adopted in France in its
       present condition--with the present state of popular opinion?'
       'No,' said Lafayette; 'what France needs is a popular monarchy
       surrounded by republican--thoroughly
       republican--institutions.' 'There I quite agree with you,'
       rejoined Louis Philippe. Enchanted with this political
       harmony, the old general considered it unnecessary to present
       the programme, and went security to the republicans for the
       duke, the patriot, of 1789. ... On the 3d of August the
       Chamber was opened by the Duke of Orleans, and the abdication
       of the king and dauphin announced. ... The question whether
       the constitution was to be changed, and how, gave rise to an
       animated contest between radicals and liberals. The confidence
       in Louis Philippe was so great, that they were content with a
       few improvements. The throne was declared vacant, and Louis
       Philippe proclaimed king of the French. ... August 8th, Louis
       Philippe appeared in the Palais Bourbon, took the oath to the
       constitution, and was thereupon proclaimed king. ... None of
       the great monarchs had so difficult a task as Louis Philippe.
       If he attached himself to the majority of his people and
       showed himself in earnest with 'the republican institutions
       which ought to surround the throne,' he had all the
       continental powers against him; if he inclined toward the
       absolute system of the latter, then not alone the extreme
       parties, but also the men of the constitutional monarchy, ...
       rose against him. ... His system, which he himself named a
       happy medium (juste milieu), would have been a happy medium if
       he had struck the middle and kept it; but he gradually swerved
       so much toward the right that the middle was far to his left.
       From the outset he had three parties against him--Legitimists,
       Bonapartists, and Republicans." At intervals, there were
       demonstrations and insurrections undertaken in the interest of
       each of these. In July, 1835, the assassination of the king
       was attempted, by the explosion of an infernal machine, which
       killed and wounded sixty people. "The whole Republican party
       was unjustly made responsible for this attempt, and new blows
       were struck at the juries and the Press. Every Press offence
       involving a libel of the king or the administration was to be
       tried from this time on before the Court of Peers, and the
       composition of that body rendered conviction certain. With
       these September laws' the reaction was complete, the power of
       the Republicans was broken. Their activity did not cease,
       however. Their numerous societies continued to exist in
       secret, and to the political affiliated themselves the social
       societies, which ... demanded, among other impossibilities,
       the abolition of private property. It was these baleful
       excrescences which deprived republicanism of all credit, and
       outbreaks like that of May 12th, 1839, where a few hundred
       members of the 'Society of the Seasons,' with Barbès and
       Blanqui at their head, disarmed military posts and proclaimed
       the republic, found not the slightest response. The repeated
       attempts which were made on the king's life were also
       unsuccessful." The relations of Louis Philippe "to foreign
       powers became better the more he approximated to their system,
       putting restraints upon societies, the Press, and juries, and
       energetically crushing popular revolts. Naturally he was by
       this very means constantly further estranging the mass of the
       people. ... What the Legitimists and Republicans had not
       effected--a change of government--the Napoleonids now took in
       hand." Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, son of ex-king Louis of
       Holland and Hortense Beauharnais, made his appearance among
       the soldiers of the garrison at Strasburg, October 30, 1836,
       with the expectation that they would proclaim him emperor and
       set the example of a rising in his favor. But the attempt was
       a wretched failure; Louis Napoleon was arrested and
       contemptuously sent out of the country, to America, without
       punishment. In 1840 he repeated his undertaking, at Boulogne,
       more abortively than in the first instance; was again made
       prisoner, and was consigned, this time, to the castle of Ham,
       from which he escaped six years later. "All the world laughed
       at his folly; but without the scenes of Strasburg and
       Boulogne, and the martyrdom of a six years' imprisonment, his
       name certainly would not have produced such an effect in the
       year 1848."

          W. Miller,
          Political History of Recent Times,
          sections 7 and 14.

          ALSO IN:
          L. Blanc,
          History of Ten Years, 1830-1840.

          F. P. Guizot,
          Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Own Time,
          volumes 3-4.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1831-1832.
       Intervention in the Netherlands.
       Siege of Antwerp.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1840.
       The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1846.
       The subjugation of Algeria.
       War with Abd-el-Kader.

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D.1830-1846.

    {1371}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
       The limited electoral body and its corruption.
       Agitation for reform.
       The suppressed banquet at Paris and the
       revolution which followed.
       Abdication and flight of the king.

       "The monarchy of Louis Philippe lasted for 18 years. But the
       experiment was practicable only so long as the throne rested
       on a small body of obedient electors. The qualification for
       the franchise was so high that it was held only by 200,000
       people. So small a constituency could, be 'managed' by the
       skill of M. Guizot and M. Thiers [who were the chief rivals of
       the time in political leadership]. It could be 'managed'
       through gifts of places, bribes, the influence of local
       magnates, and the pressure of public officials. There was
       never perhaps so corrupt an electoral body. ... M. Guizot, who
       was an austere puritan at home, and who has entered into a
       competition with Saint Augustin as a writer of religious
       meditations, raised many sneers to the lips of worldlings, not
       only by lending his hand to the infamous intrigue of the
       Spanish Marriages, but by allowing his subordinates to traffic
       in places for the sake of getting votes. His own hands, of
       course, were clean; no one spoke a whisper against his
       personal purity. But he seemed to have much practical sympathy
       with the advice which Pitt, in one of Landor's 'Imaginary
       Conversations,' gives to his young disciple Canning. Pecuniary
       corruption was the very breath of life to the constitutional
       monarchy. The voters were bought as freely as if they had
       stood in the market-place. The system admirably suited the
       purpose of the little family party of princes and
       parliamentary chiefs who ruled the country. But it was as
       artificial and fleeting as the sand castles which a child
       builds on the edge of the advancing tide."

       J. Macdonell,
       France since the First Empire,
       pages 172-174.

       "The population of France was then 34,000,000, and the
       privilege of the political franchise was vested exclusively in
       those who paid in direct taxes a sum not less than £8. This
       class numbered little more than 200,000. ... The government
       had 130,000 places at its disposal, and the use which was made
       of these during the 18 years of Louis Philippe's reign was
       productive of corruption more widespread and shameless than
       France had known since the first revolution. In the scarcely
       exaggerated language used by M. de Lamartine, the government
       had 'succeeded in making of a nation of citizens a vile band
       of beggars.' It was obvious to all who desired the
       regeneration of France that reform must begin with the
       representation of the people. To this end the liberals
       directed much effort. They did not as yet propose universal
       suffrage, and their leaders were divided between an extension
       of the franchise to all who paid £2 of direct taxes and an
       extension, which went no lower than £4. The demand for reform
       was resisted by the government. ... Among the leaders of the
       liberal party were men of high character and commanding
       influence. Arago, Odillon Barrot, Louis Blanc, Thiers,
       Lamartine, were formidable assailants for the strongest
       government to encounter. Under their guidance the agitation
       for reform assumed dimensions exceedingly embarrassing and
       even alarming. For once France borrowed from England her
       method of political agitation. Reform banquets, attended by
       thousands of persons, were held in all the chief towns, and
       the pressure of a peaceful public opinion was employed to
       obtain the remedy of a great wrong. The police made feeble
       attempts to prevent such gatherings, but were ordinarily
       unsuccessful. But the king and M. Guizot, strong in the
       support of the army and a purchased majority of the deputies,
       and apparently little aware of the vehemence of the popular
       desire, made no effort to satisfy or propitiate. Louis
       Philippe had wisely set a high value on the maintenance of
       cordial relations with England. ... The Queen of England
       gratified him by a visit [1843], which he returned a few
       months after. ... During these visits there was much
       conversation regarding a Spanish matter which was then of some
       interest. The Spanish government was looking around to find
       suitable husbands for their young queen and her sister. The
       hands of the princesses were offered to two sons of Louis
       Philippe. But ... England looked with disfavour upon a close
       alliance between the crowns of France and Spain. The king
       would not offend England. He declined the hand of the Spanish
       queen, but accepted that of her sister for his fourth son, the
       Duc de Montpensier. Queen Victoria and her ministers approved
       of that marriage on the condition voluntarily offered by King
       Louis, that it should not take place till the Spanish queen
       was married and had children. But in a few years the king
       violated his pledge, and pressed upon Spain an arrangement
       under which the two marriages were celebrated together [1846].
       ... To Louis Philippe himself the transaction was calamitous.
       He had broken his kingly word, and he stood before Europe and
       before his own people a dishonoured man. ... Circumstances
       made it easy for the opposition to enhance the general
       discontent. Many evidences of shameless corruption were at
       this time brought to light. ... The crops failed in 1845 and
       1846, and prices rose to a famine point. ... The demand for
       parliamentary reform became constantly more urgent; but M.
       Guizot heeded it not. The reformers took up again their work
       of agitation. They announced a great procession and reform
       banquet. The police, somewhat hesitatingly, interdicted the
       demonstration, and its promoters resolved to submit; but the
       people, insufficiently informed of these movements, gathered
       for the procession in the early morning. All that day
       [February 22, 1848] the streets were thronged, and the
       excitement of the people increased from hour to hour; but few
       soldiers were seen, and consequently no conflict occurred.
       Next morning the strategic points of the city were garrisoned
       by a strong force of soldiers and national guards, and the
       people saw that the government feared them. Business was
       suspended, and the constantly rising agitation foretold
       irrepressible tumults. The men of the faubourgs appeared once
       more. Towards evening a few barricades were thrown up, and a
       few gunsmiths' shops were plundered. Worst of all, the
       national guard appeared to sympathize with the people. ... To
       appease the angry mob, no measure seemed so hopeful as the
       sacrifice of the ministry. Guizot resigned. Thiers and Odillon
       Barrot, chiefs of the liberal party, were received into the
       cabinet. Marshal Bugeaud was appointed to command the troops.
       But before the day closed a disaster had occurred which made
       all concession vain. Before one of the public offices there
       was stationed a battalion of infantry, around which there
       surged an excited crowd. A shot came from the crowd, and was
       promptly responded to by a volley which killed or wounded 50
       persons.
    {1372}
       The bodies of the victims were placed on waggons and drawn
       along the streets, that the fury of the people might be
       excited to the highest pitch. During that sleepless night,
       Marshal Bugeaud, skilfully directing the forces which he
       commanded, had taken the barricades and effectively checked
       the rioters. But in early morning the new ministers ordered
       him to desist and withdraw his troops. They deemed it useless
       to resist. Concession was, in their view, the only avenue to
       tranquillity. The soldiers retired; the crowds pressed on to
       the Tuileries." The king, terrified by their approach, was
       persuaded to sign an abdication in favor of his grandson, the
       Comte de Paris, and to fly in haste, with his family, from the
       palace and from Paris. A week later the royal family "reached
       the coast and embarked for England, ... their majesties
       travelling under the lowly but well-chosen incognito of Mr.
       and Mrs. Smith. ... Immediately on the departure of the king,
       a provisional government was organized, with M. Lamartine at
       its head."

          R. Mackenzie,
          The Nineteenth Century,
          book 3, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          F. P. Guizot,
          France under Louis Philippe.

          M. Caussidière,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (February-May).
       The three months of Provisional Government.
       Its extraordinary measures.
       Its absolutism.
       Creation or the Ateliers Nationaux.
       The consequences.

       On the morning of February 24th--the morning of the king's
       flight--M. de Lamartine, entering the Palais Bourbon, where
       the Chamber of Deputies held its meetings, found in the
       vestibule seven or eight persons waiting for him. "Who they
       were we are not told--or what they were, except that they
       belonged to the newspaper press. Even the names of the papers
       with which they were connected are not expressly
       stated--though the 'National' and 'Réforme' are indicated.
       They demanded a secret conference. Lamartine took them into a
       distant apartment." There they "proposed to him to substitute
       for Louis-Philippe the Comte de Paris as king, and the Duchess
       of Orleans as regent, and to place him [Lamartine] over them
       minister." "Lamartine does not appear to have been surprised
       at the proposal. He does not appear to have doubted the power
       of seven or eight journalists to dethrone a king, create a
       regent, and appoint a minister! And he was right. The
       'National' and the 'Réforme,' whose representatives stood
       before him, did more than all this, a couple of hours after.
       ... He objected to their scheme that such an arrangement would
       not last, and declared himself in favour of a republic, based
       on universal suffrage; ... they expressed their conviction,
       and separated, agreed, apparently, on the course of action to
       be pursued.' A few hours later, the Chamber was invaded by a
       body of rioters, fresh from the sack of the Tuileries. The
       Duchess of Orleans, who had presented herself at the Chamber
       with her two children, fled before them. "M. Sauzet, the
       President, disappeared. Lamartine [who was speaking] remained
       in the tribune, and desired Dupont de l'Eure to take the
       vacant chair." Thereupon a Provisional Government was
       appointed, in some fashion not clearly detailed. It underwent
       certain changes, by unexplained additions, within the
       following day or two, but "in the 'Moniteur' of February 27
       (the third day of the existence of the Provisional
       Government), its members are arranged thus:--MM. Arago, Dupont
       de l'Eure, Albert (ouvrier), F. Marrast, F. Flocon, Lamartine,
       Marie, L. Blanc, Crémieux, Ledru Rollin, Garnier Pagès. ...
       Within two days after its formation it was on the brink of
       ruin under an attack from the Terrorists [or Red Republicans,
       who assumed the red flag as their standard]. ... The contest
       had left the members of the government in a state of mind
       which M. de Lamartine thinks peculiarly favourable to wise
       legislation. ... 'Every member of the Council sought [he
       says], in the depths of his heart and of his intellect, for
       some great reform, some great legislative, political, or moral
       improvement. Some proposed the instantaneous abolition of
       negro slavery. Others, the abolition of the restrictions
       imposed by the laws of September upon the press. Some, the
       proclamation of fraternity among nations, in order to abolish
       war by abolishing conquest. Some, the abolition of the
       qualification of electors. And all, the principles of mutual
       charity among all classes of citizens. As quickly as these
       great democratic truths, rather felt than discussed, were
       converted into decrees, they were printed in a press set up at
       the door of the council-room, thrown from the windows to the
       crowd, and despatched by couriers through the departments.'
       ... The important decrees, which actually bear date February
       25 or 26, and which may therefore be referred to this evening
       of instinct, inspiration, and enthusiasm, are these:--The
       18th, which sets at liberty all persons detained on political
       grounds. The 19th, by which the government--

          1, Engages to secure the existence of the operative
          (ouvrier) by employment:

          2, Engages to secure employment (garantir du travail) to
          all citizens:

          3, Admits that operatives ought to combine in order to
          enjoy the fruits of their labour:

          4, And promises to return to the operatives, whose property
          it is, the million which will fall in from the civil list.

       The 22nd, which dissolves the Municipal Guards. The 26th,
       which declares that the actual government of France is
       republican, and that the nation will immediately be called on
       to ratify by its votes this resolution of the government and
       of the people of Paris. The 29th, which declares that Royalty,
       under any name whatever, ... is abolished. ... And the 30th,
       which directs the immediate establishment of national
       workshops (ateliers natlonaux). We confess that, we agree with
       Lamartine in thinking that they bear the stamp of instinct
       much more than that of reason. ... The declaration that the
       actual government of France was republican ... was palpably
       untrue. The actual government of France at that time was as
       far removed from republicanism as it was possible for a
       government to be. It was a many-headed Dictatorship--a
       despotic oligarchy. Eleven men--some appointed in the offices
       of a newspaper, and the others by a mob which had broken into
       the Chamber of Deputies--ruled France, during three months,
       with an absoluteness of which there is no other example in
       history. ... They dissolved the Chamber of Deputies; they
       forbade the peers to meet; they added 200,000 men to the
       regular army, and raised a new metropolitan army of 20,000
       more at double the ordinary pay; to meet this expense they
       added 45 centimes to the direct taxes; they restricted the
       Bank from cash payments; they made its paper a legal tender,
       and then required it to lend them fifty millions; ... they
       altered the hours of labour throughout France, and, subjected
       to heavy fines any master who should allow his operatives to
       remain at work for the accustomed period. ...
    {1373}
       The necessary consequence of the 19th decree, promising
       employment to all applicants, was the creation of the ateliers
       nationaux by the 30th. These workshops were immediately opened
       in the outskirts Of Paris. A person who wished to take
       advantage of the offers of the Government took from the person
       with whom he lodged a certificate that he was an inhabitant of
       the Department de la Seine. This certificate he carried to the
       mairie of his arrondissement, and obtained an order of
       admission to an atelier. If he was received and employed
       there, he obtained an order on his mairie for forty sous. If
       he was not received, after having applied at all of them, and
       found them all full, he received an order for thirty sous.
       Thirty sous is not high pay; but it was to be had for doing
       nothing; and hopes of advancement were held out. Every body of
       eleven persons formed an escouade; and their head, the
       escouadier, elected by his companions, got half a franc a day
       extra. Five escouades formed a brigade; and the brigadier,
       also elected by his subordinates, received three francs a day.
       Above these again were the lieutenants, the chefs de
       compagnie, the chefs de service, and the chefs
       d'arrondissement, appointed by the Government, and receiving
       progressively higher salaries. Besides this, bread was
       distributed to their families in proportion to the number of
       children. The hours supposed to be employed in labour were
       nine and a half. ... This semi-military organisation, regular
       payment, and nominal work produced results which we cannot
       suppose to have been unexpected by the Government. M. Emile
       Thomas tells us that in one mairie, that containing the
       Faubourg St.-Antoine, a mere supplemental bureau enrolled,
       from March 12 to 20, more than 1,000 new applicants every day.
       We have before us a list of those who had been enrolled on May
       19, and it amounts to 87,942. A month later it amounted to
       125,000--representing, at 4 to a family, 600,000 persons--more
       than one half of the population of Paris. To suppose that such
       an army as this could be regularly organised, fed, and paid,
       for months in idleness, and then quietly disbanded, was a
       folly of which the Provisional Government was not long guilty.
       They soon saw that the monster which they had created could
       not be subdued, if it could be subdued at all, by any means
       short of civil war. ... 'A thunder-cloud (says M. de
       Lamartine) was always before our eyes. It was formed by the
       ateliers nationaux; This army of 120,000 work-people, the
       great part of whom were idlers and agitators, was the deposit
       of the misery, the laziness, the vagrancy, the vice, and the
       sedition which the flood of the revolution had cast up and
       left on its shores.' ... As they were managed, the ateliers
       nationaux, it is now admitted, produced or aggravated the very
       evils which they professed to cure or to palliate. They
       produced or continued the stagnation of business which they
       were to remedy; and, when they became absolutely intolerable,
       the attempt to put an end to them occasioned the civil war
       which they were to prevent."

          N. W. Senior,
          Journals kept in France and Italy, 1848-1852,
          volume 1, pages 14-59.

          ALSO IN:
          Marquis of Normandy,
          A Year of Revolution,
          chapters 8-11 (volume l).

          L. Blanc,
    Historical Revelations, 1848.

          A. de Lamartine,
          History of the Revolution of 1848.

          J. P. Simpson,
          Pictures from Revolutionary Paris.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (April-December).
       The Constituent National Assembly, and the Constitution of the
       Second Republic.
       Savage and terrible insurrection of the workmen of the
       Ateliers Nationaux.
       Vigorous dictatorship of Cavaignac.
       Appearance of Louis Napoleon.
       His election to the Presidency of the Republic.

       The election by universal suffrage of a Constituent National
       Assembly, twice deferred on account of fears of popular
       turbulence, took place on the 23d of April, and resulted in
       the return of a very Conservative majority, largely composed
       of Napoleonists, Legitimists and Orleanists. The meeting of
       the Assembly was opened on the 7th of May. "The moderates were
       anxious to invest M. de Lamartine with a dictatorial
       authority," which he declined. "Eventually an executive
       commission of five was appointed. ... The commission consisted
       of Arago, Garnier Pagès, Marie, Lamartine, and Ledru Rollin.
       ... This conciliatory executive commission was elected by the
       Assembly on the 10th of May. On the 15th, the 'concilliated'
       mob broke into the chamber, insulted the deputies, turned them
       out, proclaimed a provisional government, and then marched to
       the Hôtel de Ville, where they were installed with due
       revolutionary solemnity;" but the National Guard rallied to
       the support of the government, and the insurrection was
       promptly suppressed. "Eleven vacancies in the Assembly had to
       be filled in the department of the Seine, on account of double
       returns. These elections produced fresh uneasiness in Paris.
       Eighth on the list stood Louis Napoleon Bonaparte; and among
       the names mentioned as candidates was that of Prince de
       Joinville, the most popular of the Orleans princes. The
       executive commission appears to have been more afraid of the
       latter than of the former; and to prevent the disagreeable
       circumstance of France returning him to the Assembly as one of
       her representatives, they thought themselves justified in
       declaring the whole Orleans family incapable of serving France
       in any capacity. ... Louis Napoleon, on the first proclamation
       of the Republic, had at once offered his services; but was by
       the Provisional Government requested to withdraw, as his great
       name might trouble the republic. ... Two Bonapartes had been
       elected members for Corsica, and three sat in the Assembly;
       but, as the next heir of the Emperor, Louis Napoleon caused
       them much uneasiness. ... Already mobs had gone about the
       Boulevard crying 'Vive l'Empereur.' The name of Bonaparte was
       not unpopular with the bourgeoisie; it was a guarantee of
       united and strong government to all. On his election, Louis
       Napoleon wrote to the President of the Assembly: a phrase in
       his letter gave considerable offence. Some days before,
       Lamartine had proposed his exclusion from the Assembly and the
       country; but, as it appeared he was in no way implicated in
       the seditious cries, they voted his admission by a large
       majority. The phrase which gave umbrage was: 'If the country
       imposes duties upon me, I shall know how to fulfill them.' ...
       However, by a subsequent letter, dated the 15th, he restored
       confidence by saying he would resign rather than be a cause of
       tumult. But the real difficulties of the government arose from
       a different cause.
    {1374}
       The National Assembly bore with impatience the expense of the
       Ateliers Nationaux: It was enough to submit to the factious
       spirit of those bodies; but it was too much to pay them for
       keeping on foot an organized insurrection, ever ready to break
       out and deluge the capital in blood. The executive commission
       had been desirous of finding means gradually to lessen the
       numbers receiving wages; and on the 12th of May, it was
       resolved to close the lists. The commission foresaw that if
       the Ateliers were at once abolished, it would produce a
       rebellion in Paris; and they hoped, first, by preventing any
       more being inscribed, and then by setting them to task-work,
       that they should gradually get the numbers reduced. ... But
       the Assembly would not wait; they ordered all the workmen
       between 18 and 25 years old, and unmarried, to be drafted into
       the army, or to be discharged; and they were breaking them up
       so rapidly, that if the workmen wanted to fight it was evident
       that it must be done at once or not at all. ... General
       Cavaignac, who had been sent for from Africa, was on his
       arrival in Paris named Minister at War, and had command of the
       troops. ... Preparations for the conflict commenced on Thursday
       the 22nd of June; but it was noon of the following day ere the
       first shot was fired. It is said, that had the executive
       commission known what they were about, the heads of the
       insurrection might have been all arrested in the meantime, for
       they were walking about all day, and at one time met in the
       Jardin des Plantes. The fighting on the 23d continued all day,
       with much slaughter, and little practical result. ... The
       extent of the insurgent lines swallowed up the troops, so
       that, though great numbers were in Paris, there appeared to be
       a deficiency of them, and loud complaints were made against
       the inefficiency of the executive commission. During the night
       the fighting ceased, and both parties were occupied in
       strengthening their positions. The Assembly was sitting in
       permanence; they were highly incensed against the executive
       commission, and wished them to send in their resignations; but
       the latter refused, saying it was cowardly to do so in the face
       of insurrection. The Assembly then formally deposed the
       commission, and appointed Cavaignac dictator; to which
       arrangement the executive commission at once assented. The
       General instantly ordered the National Guards to prevent
       assemblages in the streets, and that no one should go out
       without a pass: anyone going about, out of uniform, without
       permission, was walked home. In this manner many persons
       carrying ammunition to the insurgents were arrested. At noon,
       he sent a flag of truce with a proclamation, offering an
       amnesty to the rebels, at the suggestion of the ex-prefect
       Caussidière; but it was unhesitatingly rejected. This latter
       personage, though he was not among the barricades, was by many
       thought to be the head of the insurrection. The troops of the
       insurgents were managed with great military skill, showing
       that persons of military knowledge must have had the command;
       though no one knew who were their leaders. ... During the
       early part of the day, the fighting was mainly on the southern
       side of the river. The church of St. Gervais and the bridges
       were carried with great slaughter, as well as the church of
       St. Severin, and their great head-quarters the Pantheon; and
       by four o'clock, the troops had conquered the whole of the
       south bank of the Seine. On the other side, a hot engagement
       was going on in the Faubourgs Poissonnière and St. Denis:
       these were carried with great loss at a late hour, whence the
       insurrection was forced back to its great stronghold, the Clos
       St. Lazare; which defied every effort of General Lamoricière
       to take it on Saturday. An unfinished hospital served as a
       citadel, and several churches and public buildings as
       out-posts; while the old city wall, which they had loop-holed,
       enabled them to fire on the troops in comparative security;
       but the buildings were breached with cannon, and the
       insurgents by four o'clock on Sunday were dispersed. ... A
       desperate struggle was going on at a late hour in the Faubourg
       du Temple; and on the Monday morning the insurgents made a
       stand behind the Canal St. Martin, where they sent to treat on
       condition of retaining their arms. But Cavaignac would hear of
       no terms. It was thought, at one time, that they had
       surrendered; when some soldiers, going within the lines, were
       surprised and murdered. Hostilities at once began again, and
       the insurgents were finally subdued by one o'clock on Monday
       the 26th. The victory was dearly bought: 8,000 were
       ascertained to have been killed or wounded; and, as many
       bodies were thrown into the Seine unrecognised, this is much
       under the number. Nearly 14,000 prisoners were taken, and
       3,000 of these died of gaol fever. ... The excellent
       Archbishop of Paris, Denis Auguste Affre, fell a sacrifice to
       his Christian benevolence. Horrified at the slaughter, he,
       attended by two of his vicars carrying the olive-branch of
       peace, passed between the combatants. The firing ceased at his
       appearance; but, from the discharge of a single musket, it
       began again: he, nevertheless, mounted the barricade and
       descended into the midst of the insurgents, and was, in the
       act of addressing them, when some patriot, fearing the effect
       of his exhortations, shot him from a window. ... General
       Cavaignac, immediately after the pacification of Paris, laid
       down the temporary dictatorship with which he had been
       invested by the Assembly; but their gratitude for the
       salvation of society led them to appoint him President of the
       Council, with the power to name his own Ministry. He at once
       sent adrift all the red republican party, and chose a Ministry
       from among the moderate class of republicans; to which he
       afterwards added some members of the old opposition. ...
       Prince Louis Napoleon was again thrust upon the Assembly, by
       being elected for Corsica; but he wrote a letter on the 8th of
       July, saying, that though he did not renounce the honour of
       one day sitting as a representative of the people, he would
       wait till the time when his return to France could not in any
       way serve as a pretext to the enemies of the republic. ... On
       Tuesday, the 26th of September, shortly after the president
       had taken his seat, Louis Napoleon appeared quietly in the
       chamber, and placed himself on one of the back benches. ...
       The discussion of the constitution, which had been referred to
       a committee, was the only subject of interest, except the
       important question of how the president should be elected. It
       was proposed by some that the assembly itself should elect a
       president, a proposition which was eventually negatived by a
       large majority.
    {1375}
       The real object was to exclude Louis Napoleon, whose great
       name gave him every chance of success, if an appeal were made
       to the universal suffrage of the nation, which the republicans
       distrusted. Another amendment was moved to exclude all
       pretenders to the throne; on which, allusion being made to
       Louis Napoleon, he mounted the rostrum, and denied that he was
       a pretender. ... The red republicans were desirous of having
       no president, and that the constituent assembly itself should
       name the ministers. It was not the only constitutional point
       in dispute: for weeks and months, the debate on the
       constitution dragged its weary length along; amendments were
       discussed, and the work when turned out was, as might have
       been expected, a botch after all. ... It was eventually
       agreed, that to give validity to the election of a president
       it should be necessary that he should have more than a half of
       all the votes given; that is to say, more votes than all the
       other candidates put together; if not, the assembly was to
       choose between the highest candidate on the list and his
       competitors, by which means they hoped to be able to get rid
       of Bonaparte. ... The constitution was proclaimed on the 10th
       of November. ... The legitimist and Orleanist parties refused
       to start a candidate for fear of weakening Bonaparte, and thus
       throwing the choice into the hands of the assembly, who would
       choose General Cavaignac. Both these parties gave the former
       at least a negative support; and as M. Thiers declared that
       nine-tenths of the country were opposed to the General as too
       revolutionary, it was clear that in the country itself
       reaction was going on faster than in the assembly. ... Louis
       Napoleon's chief support was from the inhabitants of the
       country districts, the peasantry. ... On the 10th of December,
       5,534,520 votes were recorded for Louis Napoleon. General
       Cavaignac had 1,448,302. Then came Ledru Rollin; then Raspail.
       Lamartine got 17,914; 23,219 were disallowed, as being given
       for some of the banished royal family. The total number of
       voters was 7,449,471."

          E. S. Cayley,
          The European Revolution of 1848,
          volume 1, chapters 4-5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. F. Corkran,
          History of the Constituent
          National Assembly from May, 1848.

          Marquis of Normanby,
          A Year of Revolution,
          chapters 13-15(volume 2).

          H. C. Lockwood,
          Constitutional History of France,
          chapter 5, and appendix 8.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1849.
       Intervention at Rome, to crush the revolutionary republic and
       restore the Pope.
       French capture and occupation of the city.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1849-1850.
       Disagreement with England in Greece.
       The Don Pacifico affair.

          See GREECE: A. D.1846-1850.

    FRANCE: A. D.1851.
       The plot of the Coup d'État.

       "In the beginning of the winter of 1851 France was still a
       republic; but the Constitution of 1848 had struck no root.
       There was a feeling that the country had been surprised and
       coerced into the act of declaring itself a republic, and that
       a monarchical system of government was the only one adapted
       for France. The sense of instability which sprang from this
       belief was connected with an agonising dread of insurrections.
       ... Moreover, to those who watched and feared, it seemed that
       the shadow on the dial was moving on with a terrible
       steadiness to the hour when a return to anarchy was, as it
       were, pre-ordained by law; for the constitution requited that
       a new president should be chosen in the spring of the
       following year. ... In general, France thought it best that,
       notwithstanding the Rule of the Constitution, which stood in
       the way, the then President should be quietly re-elected; and
       a large majority of the Assembly, faithfully representing this
       opinion, had come to a vote which sought to give it effect;
       but their desire was baffled by an unwise provision of the
       Republican Charter which had laid it down that no
       constitutional change should take place without the sanction
       of three-fourths of the Assembly. By this clumsy bar the
       action of the State system was hampered, and many whose minds
       generally inclined them to respect legality were forced to
       acknowledge that the Constitution wanted a wrench." The
       President of the republic, Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte,
       "had always wished to bring about a change in the
       constitution, but, originally, he had hoped to be able to do
       this with the aid and approval of some at least of the
       statesmen and eminent generals of the country." But, "although
       there were numbers in France who would have been heartily glad
       to see the Republic crushed by some able dictator, there were
       hardly any public men who believed that in the President of
       the Republic they would find the man they wanted. Therefore
       his overtures to the gentlemen of France were always rejected.
       Every statesman to whom he applied refused to entertain his
       proposals. Every general whom he urged always said that for
       whatever he did he must have 'an order from the Minister of
       War.' The President being thus rebuffed, his plan of changing
       the form of government with the assent of some of the leading
       statesmen and generals of the country degenerated into schemes
       of a very different kind; and at length he fell into the hands
       of persons of the quality of Persigny, Morny, and Fleury. ...
       The President had been a promoter of the law of the 31st of
       May, restricting the franchise, but he now became the champion
       of universal suffrage. To minds versed in politics this change
       might have sufficed to disclose the nature of the schemes upon
       which the Chief of the State was brooding; but, from first to
       last, words tending to allay suspicion had been used with
       great industry and skill. From the moment of his coming before
       the public in February 1848, the Prince laid hold of almost
       every occasion he could find for vowing, again and again, that
       he harbored no schemes against the Constitution. ... It was
       natural that in looking at the operation which changed the
       Republic into an Empire, the attention of the observer should
       be concentrated upon the person who, already the Chief of the
       State, was about to attain to the throne; and there seems to
       be no doubt, that what may be called the literary part of the
       transaction was performed by the President in person. He was
       the lawyer of the confederacy. He no doubt wrote the
       Proclamations, the Plebiscites, and the Constitutions, and all
       such like things; but it seems that the propelling power which
       brought the plot to bear was mainly supplied by Count de Morny,
       and by a resolute Major, named Fleury. M. Morny was a man of
       great daring, and gifted with more than common powers of
       fascination. He had been a member of the Chamber of Deputies
       in the time of the monarchy; but he was rather known to the
       world as a speculator than as a politician. He was a buyer and
       seller of those fractional and volatile interests in trading
       adventures, which go by the name of 'Shares.' ...
    {1376}
       He knew how to found a 'company,' and he now undertook to
       establish institutions which were destined to be more
       lucrative to him than any of his former adventures; ... It
       seems, however, that the man who was the most able to make the
       President act, to drive him deep into his own plot, and
       fiercely carry him through it, was Major Fleury. ... He was
       daring and resolute, and his daring was of the kind which
       holds good in the moment of danger. If Prince Louis Bonaparte
       was bold and ingenious in designing, Fleury was the man to
       execute. ... The language held by the generals who declared
       that they would act under the authority of the Minister of War
       and not without it, suggested the contrivance which was
       resorted to. Fleury determined to find a military man capable
       of command, capable of secrecy, and capable of a great
       venture. The person chosen was to be properly sounded, and if
       he seemed willing, was to be admitted into the plot. He was
       then to be made Minister of War, in order that through him the
       whole of the land forces should be at the disposal of the
       plotters. Fleury went to Algeria to find the instrument
       required, and he so well performed his task that he hit upon a
       general officer who was christened, it seems, Jacques Arnaud
       Le Roy, but was known at this time as Achille St. Arnaud. ...
       He readily entered into the plot. From the moment that Prince
       Louis Bonaparte and his associates had entrusted their secret
       to the man of Fleury's selection, it was perhaps hardly
       possible for them to flinch, for the exigencies of St. Arnaud,
       formerly Le Roy, were not likely to be on so modest a scale as
       to consist with the financial arrangements of a Republic
       governed by law, and the discontent of a person of his quality
       with a secret like that in his charge would plainly bring the
       rest of the brethren into danger. He was made Minister of War.
       This was on the 27th of October. At the same time M. Maupas or
       de Maupas was brought into the Ministry. ... Persigny,
       properly Fialin, was in the plot. He was descended on one side
       of an ancient family, and disliking his father's name he seems
       to have called himself for many years after the name of his
       maternal grandfather. ... It was necessary to take measures
       for paralyzing the National Guard, but the force was under the
       command of General Perrot, a man whose honesty could not be
       tampered with. To dismiss him suddenly would be to excite
       suspicion. The following expedient was adopted: the President
       appointed as Chief of the Staff of the National Guard, a
       person named Vieyra. The past life and the then repute of this
       person were of such a kind, that General Perrot, it seems,
       conceived himself insulted by the nomination, and instantly
       resigned. That was what the brethren of the Elysée wanted. On
       Sunday, the 30th, General Lawæstine was appointed to the
       command. ... His function was--not to lead the force of which
       he took the command but--to prevent it from acting. ... Care
       had been taken to bring into Paris and its neighborhood the
       regiments most likely to serve the purpose of the Elysée, and
       to give the command to generals who might be expected to act
       without scruples. The forces in Paris and its neighborhood
       were under the orders of General Magnan. ... From time to time
       the, common soldiery were gratified with presents of food and
       wine, as well, as with an abundance of flattering words, and
       their exasperation against civilians was so well kept alive
       that men used to African warfare were brought into the humor
       for calling the Parisians 'Bedouins.' There was massacre in
       the very sound. The army of Paris was in the temper required.
       It was necessary for the plotters to have the concurrence of
       M. St. Georges, the director Of the state printing-office. M.
       St. Georges was suborned. Then all was ready. On the Monday
       night between the 1st and 2d of December, the President had
       his usual assembly at the Elysée. Ministers who were loyally
       ignorant of what was going on were mingled with those who were
       in the plot. ... At the usual hour the assembly began to
       disperse, and by eleven o'clock there were only three guests
       who remained. These were Morny (who had previously taken care
       to show himself at one of the theatres), Maupas, and St.
       Arnaud, formerly Le Roy. There was, besides, an orderly
       officer of the President, called Colonel Beville, who was
       initiated in the secret. ... They were to strike the blow that
       night. ... By and by they were apprised that an order which had
       been given for the movement of a battalion of gendarmerie, had
       duly taken effect without exciting remark. ... The President
       entrusted a packet of manuscripts to Colonel Beville, and
       despatched him to the state printing office. It was in the
       streets which surround this building that the battalion of
       gendarmerie had been collected. When Paris was hushed in
       sleep, the battalion came quietly out, and folded round the
       state printing-office. From that moment until their work was
       done the printers were all close captives, for no one of them
       was suffered to go out. ... It is said that there was
       something like resistance, but in the end, if not at first,
       the printers obeyed. Each compositor stood whilst he worked
       between two policemen, and, the manuscript being cut into many
       pieces, no one could make out the sense of what he was
       printing. By these proclamations the President asserted that
       the Assembly was a hot-bed of plots; declared it dissolved;
       pronounced for universal suffrage; proposed a new
       constitution; vowed anew that his duty was to maintain the
       Republic; and placed Paris and the twelve surrounding
       departments under martial law. In one of the proclamations, he
       appealed to the army, and strove to whet its enmity against
       civilians, by reminding it of the defeats inflicted upon the
       troops in 1830 and 1848. The President wrote letters
       dismissing the members of the government who were not in the
       plot; but he did not cause these letters to be delivered until
       the following morning. He also signed a paper appointing Morny
       to the Home Office. ... The order from the Minister of War was
       probably signed by half-past two in the morning, for at three it
       was in the hands of Magnan. At the same hour Maupas (assigning
       for pretext the expected arrival of foreign refugees), caused
       a number of Commissaries to be summoned in all haste to the
       Prefecture of Police. At half-past three in the morning these
       men were in attendance. ... It was then that, for the first
       time, the main secret of the confederates passed into the
       hands of a number of subordinate agents. During some hours of
       that night every one of those humble Commissaries had the
       destinies of France in his hands; for he might either obey the
       Minister, and so place his country in the power of the Elysée,
       or he might obey the law, denounce the plot, and bring its
       contrivers to trial. Maupas gave orders for the seizure at the
       same minute of the foremost Generals of France, and several of
       her leading Statesmen.
    {1377}
       Parties of the police, each under the orders of a Commissary,
       were to be at the doors of the persons to be arrested some
       time beforehand, but the seizures were not to take place until
       a quarter past six. ... At the appointed minute, and whilst it
       was still dark, the designated houses were entered. The most
       famous generals of France were seized. General Changarnier,
       General Bedeau, General Lamoricière, General Cavaignac, and
       General Leflô were taken from their beds, and carried away
       through the sleeping city and thrown into prison. In the same
       minute the like was done with some of the chief members and
       officers of the Assembly, and amongst others with Thiers,
       Miot, Baze, Colonel Charras, Roger du Nord, and several of the
       democratic leaders. Some men believed to be the chiefs of
       secret societies were also seized. The general object of these
       night arrests was that, when morning broke, the army should be
       without generals inclined to observe the law, that the
       Assembly should be without the machinery for convoking it, and
       that all the political parties in the State should be
       paralyzed by the disappearance of their chiefs. The number of
       men thus seized in the dark was seventy-eight. Eighteen of
       these were members of the Assembly. Whilst it was still dark,
       Morny, escorted by a body of infantry, took possession of the
       Home Office, and prepared to touch the springs of that
       wondrous machinery by which a clerk can dictate to a nation.
       Already he began to tell 40,000 communes of the enthusiasm
       with which the sleeping city had received the announcement of
       measures not hitherto disclosed. When the light of the morning
       dawned, people saw the Proclamations on the walls, and slowly
       came to hear that numbers of the foremost men of France had
       been seized in the night-time, and that every General to whom
       the friends of law and order could look for help was lying in
       one or other of the prisons. The newspapers, to which a man
       might run in order to know truly what others thought and
       intended, were all seized and stopped. The gates of the
       Assembly were closed and guarded, but the Deputies, who began
       to flock thither, found means to enter by passing through one
       of the official residences which formed Part of the building.
       They had assembled in the Chamber in large numbers, and some
       of them having caught Dupin, their reluctant President, were
       forcing him to come and take the chair, when a body of
       infantry burst in and drove them out, striking some of them
       with the butt-ends of their muskets. ... Driven from their
       Chamber, the Deputies assembled at the Mayoralty of the 10th
       arrondissement. There, upon the motion of the illustrious,
       Berryer, they resolved that the act of Louis Bonaparte was a
       forfeiture of the Presidency, and they directed the judges of
       the Supreme Court to meet and proceed to the judgment of the
       President and his accomplices. These resolutions had just been
       voted, when a battalion of the Chasseurs de Vincennes entered
       the courtyard. ... An aide-de-camp of General Magnan came with
       a written order directing the officer in command of the
       battalion to clear the hall, to do this if necessary by force,
       and to carry off to the prison of Mazas any Deputies offering
       resistance. ... The number of Deputies present at this moment
       was 220. The whole Assembly declared that they resisted, and
       would yield to nothing short of force. ... They were carried
       off, some to the Fort of Mount Valerian, some to the fortress
       of Vincennes, and some to the prison of Mazas. ... By the laws
       of the Republic, the duty of taking cognizance of offences
       against the Constitution was cast upon the Supreme Court. The
       Court was sitting, when an armed force entered the hall, and
       the judges were driven from the bench, but not until they had
       made a judicial order for the impeachment of the President."

          A. W. Kinglake,
          The Invasion of the Crimea,
          volume 1, chapter 14.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Tênot,
          Paris in December, 1851,
          chapters 1-4.

          V. Hugo,
          Napoleon the Little.

          M. de Maupas,
          The Story of the Coup d'État.

          B. Jerrold,
          Life of Napoleon III.,
          book 8 (volume 3).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1851.
       The bloody Triumph of the Coup d'État.
       Destruction of the Second Republic.

       "The second part of the Coup d'État, which drenched the
       boulevards with innocent blood, has cast a shade of horror
       over the whole transaction that time has been unable to
       efface. Paris is never so reduced in a crisis, whether the
       cause be just or unjust, that she is bereft of hands to erect
       and defend barricades in her streets. In the Faubourg St.
       Antoine an incipient rising on the 2d was suppressed
       immediately by the troops. The volcanic district from the
       Hôtel de Ville northward to the boulevards also showed signs
       of uneasiness, and throughout the morning of the 3d the
       military were busy pulling down partially completed barricades
       and dispersing small bodies of insurgents. There seems to be
       little question that the army was embittered against the
       populace. If this were so, the proclamation circulated by the
       president through the ranks on the 2d was not calculated to
       appease it. He styled the soldiers as the 'flower of the
       nation.' He pointed out to them that his interests and theirs
       were the same, and that they had suffered together in the past
       from the course of the Assembly. He reminded them of the years
       1830 and 1848, when the army had fought the people in the
       streets of Paris, and concluded by an allusion to the military
       grandeur of the Bonapartes. During the afternoon of the 3d and
       morning of the 4th the troops remained inactive; pending
       orders from the minister of war, and in this interval several
       strong barricades were erected in the restless quarters. On
       the afternoon of the 4th the boulevards, from the Madeleine to
       the Rue du Sentier, were occupied by a great body of troops
       awaiting orders to move east through the Boulevard Bonne
       Nouvelle upon the barricaded district. The soldiers stood at
       ease, and the officers lounged about, smoking their cigars.
       The sidewalks, windows, and balconies were crowded with men,
       women, and children, thoughtless onlookers of the great
       military display. Suddenly a single shot was heard. It was
       fired from a window near the Rue du Sentier. The troops at the
       head of the column faced sharply to the south, and commenced a
       deliberate fusillade upon the crowded walks and balconies. The
       battalions farther west caught the murderous contagion, until
       the line of fire extended into the Boulevard des Italiens. In
       a few moments the beautiful boulevards were converted into a
       bloody pandemonium. The sidewalks were strewn with corpses and
       stained with blood. The air was rent with shrieks and groans
       and the breaking of glass, while the steady, incessant
       rattling of the musketry was intensified by an occasional
       cannon-shot, that brought down with a crash the masonry from
       some fine façade.
    {1378}
       This continued for nearly twenty minutes, when a lack of
       people to kill seems to have restrained the mad volleys of the
       troops. If any attempt was made by officers to check their
       men, it was wholly unavailing, and in some cases miserable
       fugitives were followed into buildings and massacred. Later in
       the day the barricades were attacked, and their defenders
       easily overcome. By night-fall insurgent Paris was thoroughly
       cowed. These allegations, though conflicting with sworn
       statements of Republicans and Imperialists, can hardly be
       refuted. The efforts of the Napoleonic faction to portray the
       thoughtless crowd of the boulevards as desperate and
       bloody-minded rebels have never been successful, while the
       opposition so brilliantly represented by the author of
       'Histoire d'un Crime' have been too fierce and immoderate in
       their accusations to win public credence. The questions as to
       who fired the first shot, and whether it was fired as a signal
       for, or a menace against the military, are points on which
       Frenchmen of different political parties still debate. It is
       charitable to accept M. Hugo's insinuation that the soldiery
       were drunk with the president's wine, even though the fact
       implies a low state of discipline in the service. To what
       extent was the president responsible for the boulevard horror?
       M. Victor Hugo and M. de Maupas do not agree upon this point,
       and it seems useless to discuss it. Certain facts are
       indisputable. We know the army bore small love toward the
       Parisians, and we know it was in the streets by order of the
       president. We know that the latter was in bad company, and
       playing a dangerous game. We may discard M. Victor Hugo's
       statement as to the orders issued by the president from the
       Elysée on the fatal day, but we cannot disguise the fact that
       the boulevard horror subdued Paris, and crowned his cause with
       success. In other words, Louis Napoleon was the gainer by the
       slaughter of unoffending men, women, and children, and in
       after-years, when referring to the 4th of December, he found
       it for his interest to distort facts, and make figures lie.
       ... Louis Napoleon had expressly stated in the proclamation
       that astonished Paris on the 2d that he made the people judge
       between him and the Assembly. The citizens of France were
       called upon to vote on the 20th and 21st of December 'Yes' or
       'No' to the question as to whether the president should be
       sustained in the measures he had taken, should be empowered to
       draw up a new constitution, and should retain the presidential
       chair for a period of ten years."

          H. Murdock,
          The Reconstruction of Europe,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          V. Hugo,
          History of a Crime.

          E. Tênot,
          Paris in December, 1851,
          chapters 5-6.

          M. de Maupas,
          Story of the Coup d'État,
          chapters 18-24 (volume 2).

          Count H. de Viel Castel,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852.
       Transportation and exile of republicans.
       The dictator's constitution for France.
       Rapid progress of despotism.
       The Second Empire ordained.
       Elevation of Napoleon III. to the throne.

       "The struggle was over: terror of the victors followed.
       Thirty-two departments were in a state of siege. More than
       100,000 citizens were languishing in prison. Trial followed
       trial in rapid succession, the cases being classed under three
       heads: 1st, persons found armed, or against whom serious
       charges existed; 2d, persons charged with minor offences; 3d,
       dangerous persons. The first class was judged at once by a
       council of war, the second sent to various tribunals, the
       third transported without trial. Many prisoners were not even
       questioned. Numbers were set free; but multitudes were still
       held. Under these conditions the date of the plebiscite,
       December 20 and 21, approached. Notices were posted to the
       effect that 'any person seeking to disturb the polls or to
       question the result of the ballot would be tried by a council
       of war.' All liberty of choice was taken from the electors,
       many of whom were arrested on suspicion of exciting others to
       vote against the president of the republic. When the lists
       were published it was found that the 'ayes' had carried the
       day, although many did not vote at all. Indubitably the
       figures were notably swelled by violence and fraud. ...
       December 31, ex-Minister Baroche presented the result of the
       ballots to the prince-president,--a strange title now given to
       Louis Napoleon, for the time being, in lieu of another. ...
       Next day, January 1, 1852, Archbishop Sibour celebrated a Te
       Deum in Notre Dame, the prince-president sitting under a
       canopy. ... While the man of December 2 lodged in the palace
       of kings, the chief representatives of the republic were cast
       into exile. The executors of the plot treated the captive
       representatives very differently according as they were
       conservative or republican. When the prisoners were told that
       a distinction was to be made among them, they honorably
       refused to give their names, but they were betrayed by an
       usher of the Assembly. The republicans were then sent to
       Mazas, and treated like common thieves, M. Thiers alone being
       allowed a bed instead of the ordinary hammock. The other party
       were soon set free, with but few exceptions, and on the 8th of
       January the generals imprisoned at Ham, with their companion,
       Questor Baze, were sent to Belgium. Next day a series of
       proscriptions came out. All persons 'convicted of taking part
       in the recent insurrections' were to be transported, some to
       Guiana, some to Algiers. A second decree expelled from France,
       Algiers, and the French colonies, 'as a measure of public
       safety,' sixty representatives of the Left, including Victor
       Hugo and certain others, for whom it was reserved to aid in
       the foundation of a third republic. A third decree commanded
       the temporary absence from France and Algiers of eighteen
       other representatives, including the generals, with Thiers, De
       Rémusat, and several members of the Left, among them Edgar
       Quinet and Emile de Girardin. ... The next step was to
       establish the famous 'mixed commissions' in every province.
       These commissions were to try the numerous prisoners still
       held captive. ... The mixed commissions of 1852, as the
       historian of the coup d'état (M. Eugène Ténot) declares,
       'decided, without legal proceedings, without hearing of
       witnesses, without public trial, the fate of thousands and
       thousands of republicans.' They have left the indelible memory
       of one of the most monstrous events known in history. An act
       equally extraordinary in another way was the promulgation of
       the new constitution framed by the dictator alone (January 14,
       1852). ... The constitution of 1852 began by a 'recognition,
       confirmation, and guarantee of the great principles proclaimed
       in 1789, which are the foundation of the public rights and
       laws of France.'
    {1379}
       But it did not say one word about the freedom of the press,
       nor about freedom of clubs and association. ... 'The
       government of the French republic is intrusted to Prince Louis
       Napoleon Bonaparte for the term of ten years.' In the preface
       Louis Napoleon threw aside the fiction of irresponsibility
       'which deceives public sentiment'; the constitution therefore
       declares the leader of the state responsible to the French
       people, but omits to say how this responsibility may be
       realized; the French people have no resource save revolution.
       ... The legislative body was to consist of 262 members (one
       for each 3,500 electors), chosen for five years by universal
       suffrage. This body would vote upon the laws and taxes. Louis
       Napoleon, having profited so largely by the repeal of the law
       of May 31, could scarcely refuse to retain direct universal
       suffrage, but he essentially altered its character by various
       modifications. He also so reduced the importance of the only
       great body still elective, that he had little or nothing to
       fear from it. Another assembly, the Senate, was to be composed
       of eighty members, which number might be increased to 150. The
       senators were irremovable, and were to be chosen by the
       president of the republic, with the exception of cardinals,
       marshals, and admirals, who were senators by right. The
       president might give each senator an income of 80,000 francs.
       The Senate was the guardian of the constitution and of 'the
       public liberty.' ... The executive power chose all mayors, and
       was at liberty to select them outside the town council. In
       fact, the constitution of 1852 surpassed the constitution of
       the year VIII. as a piece of monarchic reaction. It entailed
       no consulate, but an empire,--dictatorship and total
       confiscation of public liberty. ... Despotism spread daily in
       every direction. On the 17th of February the liberty of the
       press was notably reduced, and severe penalties were affixed
       to any infraction. In fact, the press was made dependent on
       the good-will of the president. Education was next attacked, a
       decree of March 9, 1852, stripping the professors of the
       University of all the pledges and principles granted by the
       First Empire. ... The new power, in 1852, labored to turn all
       the forces of the country to material interests, while it
       stifled all moral interests. It suppressed education and the
       press, and constantly stimulated the financial and industrial
       movement. ... Numberless railroad companies now sprang to
       life, and roads were rapidly built upon a grand scale. The
       government adopted the system of grants on a long term of
       years,--say ninety-nine,--plus the guarantee of a small rate
       of interest. In everything the cry was for instant success, at
       any cost. Great financial operations followed on the heels of
       the first grants to railroad companies. ... This year's
       budget, like the constitution, was the work of a single man.
       The dictator settled it by a decree; then, having ordered the
       elections for his Chamber of Deputies, just before his
       constitution went into operation, he raised the universal
       state of siege (March 28). This was only a feint, for his
       government was a permanent state of siege. ... The official
       candidates presented, or rather imposed, were generally
       elected; the republicans failed to vote throughout a great
       part of the country. ... March 29, the prince-president
       proceeded to install the great state bodies at the Tuileries.
       It was thought that he would hint in his speech that he
       expected the title of Emperor, but he left that point vague,
       and still talked of preserving the republic. ... During the
       session a rumor was current that Louis Napoleon was to be
       proclaimed emperor on the 10th of May, after the distribution
       of eagles to the army; but this was not carried out. The
       dictator had no desire to be made emperor in this fashion. He
       meant to do it more artfully, and to make it seem that the
       nation forced the accomplishment of his wishes upon him. He
       therefore undertook a fresh journey through the provinces. ...
       The watchword was everywhere given by the authorities and
       influential persons, whose example was imitated by the crowd,
       irreconcilable opponents keeping silent. ... He returned to
       Paris, October 16, and was received in state at the Orleans
       station. The official bodies greeted him with shouts of 'Long
       live the Emperor!' ... Next day, the following paragraph
       appeared in the 'Moniteur': 'The tremendous desire for the
       restoration of the empire manifested throughout France, makes
       it incumbent upon the president to consult the Senate upon the
       subject.' The Senate and Legislature were convened November 4;
       the latter was to verify the votes, should the Senate decide
       that the people must be consulted in regard to a change in the
       form of government, which no one doubted would be the case.
       ... The Senate ... passed a decree for the submission of the
       restoration of the hereditary empire for popular acceptance
       (November 7); the senators then went in a body to St. Cloud to
       inform the prince-president of this decision. ... The people
       were then called upon to vote for the plebiscite decreed by
       the Senate (November 20 and 21). Republican and legitimist
       protests were circulated in despite of the police, the
       government publishing them in the official organ, the
       'Moniteur,' as if in defiance, thinking that the excessive
       violence of the republican proscripts of London and Guernsey
       would alarm the peace-loving public. The result of the vote
       was even greater than that of December 20, 1851; the
       authenticity of the figures may indeed be doubted, but there
       is not a doubt that there was really a large majority in favor
       of the plebiscite. France abandoned the struggle! On the
       evening of December 1, the three great state bodies, the two
       Chambers and the State Council, went to St. Cloud, and the
       president of the Legislature presented the result of the
       ballot to the new emperor, who sat enthroned, between his
       uncle Jerome and his cousin Napoleon."

          H. Martin,
          Popular History of France,
          1789-1878, volume 3, chapter 15.

          ALSO IN:
          H. C. Lockwood,
          Constitutional History of France,
          chapter 6, and appendix 9.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1853-1856.
       The Crimean war.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1857-1860.
       Allied operations with England in China.

          See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1858.
       The Orsini attempt to assassinate Napoleon III.
       Complaints against England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1859.
       Alliance with Sardinia and war with Austria.
       Victories of Magenta and Solferino.
       Liberation of Lombardy.
       Peace of Villafranca.
       Acquisition of Savoy and Nice.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.

    {1380}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1860.
       The Chevalier-Cobden commercial treaty with England.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1858-1860.

    FRANCE: A. D.1860-1870.
       Modifications of the imperial constitution.

       "Originally ... the power of the Legislative Body was limited
       to voting and rejecting as a whole the laws submitted to it by
       the Executive; there was no such thing as criticism or control
       of the general policy of the reign: but the year 1860 opened a
       period of development in the direction of liberty; by a decree
       of the November of that year the Emperor permitted the
       Deputies to draw up an address in answer to his speech, giving
       them thereby the opportunity to criticise his policy; by that
       of December 1861 he allowed them to vote the budget by
       sections, that is to say, to discuss and, if desirable, reject
       its items; by that of January 1867 he substituted for the
       Address the right of questioning the Ministers, who might be
       delegated to the Chamber by the Emperor to take part in
       certain definite discussions; lastly, by that of September
       1869 he gave to the Legislative Body the right of initiating
       laws, removed the restrictions hitherto retained on the right
       of amendment and of questions, and made the Ministers
       responsible to the Chamber. Thus the Constitution was
       deliberately modified, by the initiative of the Emperor
       himself, from the form of imperial despotism to that of
       parliamentary monarchy: this modified Constitution was
       submitted to a plebiscite in May 1870, and once more the
       people ratified the Empire by over seven million votes against
       a million and a half."

          G. L. Dickinson,
          Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
          chapter 7, section 8.

    FRANCE: A. D.1861-1867.
       Intervention in Mexico and its humiliating failure.

          See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1862.
       Commercial treaty with Germany.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1866.
       Withdrawal of troops from Rome.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1866-1870.
       Territorial concessions demanded from Germany.
       The Luxemburg question.
       War temporarily averted.

          See GERMANY. A.D. 1866-1870.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1867.
       Last defense of Papal sovereignty at Rome.
       Defeat of Garibaldi at Mentana.

          See ITALY: A.D. 1867-1870.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (June-July).
       "The Hohenzollern incident."
       Unjustifiable declaration of war against Prussia.

       "Towards the last of June, 1870, there arose what is known as
       the 'Hohenzollern incident,' which assumed so much importance,
       as it led up to the Franco-German War. In June, 1868, Queen
       Isabella had been chased from Spain, and had sought refuge in
       France. The Spanish Cortes, maintaining the monarchical form,
       offered the Crown of Spain to Prince Hohenzollern, a relation
       of the King of Prussia.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1878.

       The French Minister at Madrid telegraphed that Prince Leopold
       Hohenzollern had been nominated to the throne of Spain, and
       had accepted. This produced the utmost excitement and
       indignation among the French people. The Paris press teemed
       with articles more or less violent, calling on the government
       to prevent this outrage, even at the cost of war. The journals
       of all shades were unanimous in the matter, contending that it
       was an insult and a peril to France, and could not be
       tolerated. The Opposition in the Chamber made the incident an
       occasion for attacking the government, alleging that it was
       owing to its weak and vacillating policy that France was
       indebted to her fresh humiliation. The government journals,
       however, laid the whole blame upon the ambition of Count
       Bismarck, who had become to them a bête noire. ... Both
       parties vied with each other in showing the extent of their
       dislike to the great Prussian Chancellor. Much pressure was
       soon brought to bear in the proper quarters; the result of
       this was the withdrawal of the Hohenzollern candidacy.
       Explanations were made, better counsels seemed to prevail, and
       all immediate trouble appeared averted. It seemed quite
       certain that all danger of a war between France and Germany
       was at an end, and all being quiet on the banks of the Seine,
       on the 3d of July I left Paris in pursuit of health and
       recreation at the healing waters of Carlsbad, of far-off
       Bohemia. I was in excellent relations with the Duke de
       Gramont, and everything appeared to be serene. I had hardly
       reached Carlsbad, when scanty news was received of a somewhat
       threatening character. I could hardly believe that anything
       very serious was likely to result; yet I was somewhat uneasy.
       Going to drink the water at one of the health-giving springs,
       early in the morning of July 15th, my Alsatian valet brought
       me the startling news, that a private telegram, received at
       midnight, gave the intelligence that France had declared war
       against Germany. The news fell upon the thousands of visitors
       and the people of Carlsbad, like a clap of thunder in a
       cloudless sky, and the most intense excitement prevailed. The
       nearest railroad station to Carlsbad, at that time, was Eger.
       ... I rode all night from Carlsbad to Eger. Taking the
       railroad from Eger to Paris, and passing through Bavaria,
       Baden, Darmstadt and the valley of the Rhine, the excitement
       was something prodigious, recalling to me the days at home of
       the firing upon Sumter, in 1861. The troops were rushing to
       the depots; the trains were all blocked, and confusion
       everywhere reigned supreme. After great delays, and much
       discomfort, and a journey of fifty-two hours, I reached Paris
       at ten o'clock at night, July 18th. The great masses of
       people, naturally so excitable and turbulent, had been
       maddened by the false news so skilfully disseminated, that
       King William, at Ems, had insulted the French nation through
       its Ambassador. ... It soon turned out that all the reports
       which had been spread over Paris, that King William had
       insulted the French Ambassador were utterly false, and had not
       the slightest foundation. The French Ambassador, M. Benedetti,
       denied that he had received the least indignity from the
       Emperor. The plain truth seemed to be that the French
       Ambassador courteously approached the Emperor, while walking
       in the garden of the Kursaal, and spoke to him in relation to
       the pending difficulties then existing between the two
       countries. The good old king was kind and polite, as he always
       is to every one with whom he comes in contact, and when M.
       Benedetti commenced talking in relation to matters of such a
       grave character, he politely stated that he would have to talk
       upon such questions with the German Foreign Office. All that
       was very proper, and nobody thought of it, or supposed that
       there was any indignity, as there was not the slightest
       intended. ...
    {1381}
       The exaggerations in Paris and France of this simple incident
       surpassed all bounds, and they were apparently made to inflame
       the people still more. It really appeared that the Government
       of France had determined to have war with Germany, coûte que
       coûte [at all costs]. The alleged causes growing out of the
       talk that Germany was to put a German prince on the throne of
       Spain were but a mere pretext. The Hohenzollern candidature
       had been withdrawn, and there was no necessity or sense in any
       further trouble. But the truth was that, after eighteen years
       of peace, the courtiers and adventurers who surrounded the
       Emperor seemed to think that it was about time to have a war,
       to awaken the martial spirit of the French people, to plant
       the French eagles in triumph in the capital of some foreign
       country, and, as a consequence, to fix firmly on the throne
       the son of Napoleon the Third, and restore to the Imperial
       crown the lustre it had lost."

          E. B. Washburne,
          Recollections of a Minister to France,
          volume 1, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Müller,
          Political History of Recent Times,
          section 25.

          G. B. Malleson,
          The Refounding of the German Empire,
          chapter 11;

          W. Rüstow,
          The War for the Rhine Frontier, 1870,
          chapter 6 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (July-August).
       Disastrous opening of the war.
       Defeats at Wörth, Spichern and Gravelotte.
       Bazaine's army shut up in Metz.

       "July 23d Napoleon intrusted the regency to the empress for
       the period of his absence from Paris. ... On the 28th, ...
       accompanied by his son, [he] left for Metz, to assume command
       of the army. ... The army consisted of eight corps. Of these,
       the 1st, under Marshal MacMahon, was stationed at Strasburg;
       the 2d, under General Frossard, at St. Avold; the 3d, under
       Marshal Bazaine, at Metz; the 4th, under General Ladmirault,
       at Diedenhofen (Thionville); the 5th, under General Failly, at
       Bitsch; the 6th, under Marshal Canrobert, in the camp at
       Châlons; the 7th, under General Felix Douay, at Belfort; the
       8th,--the Imperial Guard--under General Bourbaki, at Nancy.
       Accordingly, the French forces were divided into two groups,
       the larger stationed on the Moselle, and the smaller in
       Alsace. To the latter belonged the 1st and 7th corps, both of
       which were placed under the command of Marshal MacMahon, with
       orders to prevent the crown prince's army from entering
       Alsace. The larger group comprised the 2d, 3d, and 4th corps.
       ... The 6th and 8th were to have formed the reserve; but the
       greatly superior numbers of Prince Frederic Charles and
       Steinmetz, who were advancing against this larger group,
       necessitated the immediate bringing of those corps to the
       front. The connection between the two groups was to be
       maintained by the 5th corps, stationed at Bitsch. Skirmishing
       of the advanced posts and collisions between reconnoitering
       parties began on the 19th of July. The most important of these
       minor engagements was that at Saarbrücken, on the 2d of August
       [the French claiming a victory]. ... August 4th the crown
       prince crossed the French frontier and attacked the town of
       Weissenburg, on the little river Lauter. ... Weissenburg was
       successfully carried by Prussian and Bavarian battalions
       combined, and the Geisberg by sixteen battalions of Prussians
       alone. ... August 5th MacMahon with his corps took up his
       position at Wörth, fortifying the heights westward from
       Sauerbach, together with the villages of Froschweiler and
       Elsasshausen, in the intention of meeting at that place the
       advancing columns of the crown prince, whose attack he
       expected on the 7th. To strengthen his army sufficiently for
       the task required of it he endeavored to bring up General
       Felix Douay's corps from Belfort and Mühlhausen, and that of
       General Failly from Bitsch; but only one division of the
       former arrived in time, and a division of the latter which was
       sent to his support did not reach the neighborhood of the
       battle-field until the evening of the 6th, in time to afford a
       partial protection on the retreat. Consequently, MacMahon was
       left with not more than 45,000 men to face the crown prince's
       whole army. ... On the morning of the 6th the advance guard of
       the 5th corps became involved in a sharp action with the
       enemy," and "from a mere skirmish of the advance guard
       resulted the decisive battle of Wörth. ... After Wörth itself
       had been carried, the fighting was most severe around the
       fortified village of Froschweiler. This was finally taken, and
       a desperate charge of the French cuirassiers repulsed.
       Thereupon MacMahon's army broke and fled in wild confusion,
       some toward the passes of the Vosges, others to Strasburg or
       Bitsch. ... The trophies of victory were numerous and
       valuable: 200 officers and 9,000 men prisoners. ... The French
       lost 6,000 dead and wounded; the German loss was 489 officers
       and 10,153 men--a loss greater than that of Sadowa. ...
       MacMahon, with about 15,000 of his defeated troops, reached
       Zabern on the morning of the 7th, and set out thence for
       Châlons, whither Generals Douay and Failly were also directed
       to lead their forces. A new army was to be formed at that
       point, and northern Alsace was abandoned to the crown prince's
       victorious troops. The Badish division received orders to march
       against Strasburg, and by the 9th the whole corps was
       assembled before that city, Hagenau having been taken by the
       cavalry on the way. ... Preparations for a siege were made, a
       regular siege corps being formed ... and placed under the
       command of General Werder. With the remainder of the third
       army the crown prince left Wörth on the 8th of August, marched
       through the unguarded passes of the Vosges, and entered Nancy
       on the 16th. ... Detachments were left behind to blockade
       Bitsch and Pfalzburg. At Nancy the prince rested for a few
       days and waited for decisive news from the Saar and Moselle. A
       second victory was won on the 6th of August at Spichern [or
       Forbach]. Like the battle of Wörth, this action was not the
       result of a strategical combination, but rather of a
       misunderstanding. ... Frossard [whose corps was encountered at
       Spichern] fell back on Metz by way of Saargemünd. Bazaine, who,
       although not more than seven or eight miles from the field of
       battle, had made no attempt to come to Frossard's assistance,
       led his corps to the same place. In this battle, owing to the
       unfavorable nature of the ground, the losses of the conquerors
       were heavier than those of the conquered. The Germans had 223
       officers and 4,648 men dead, wounded, and missing; while the
       French, according to their own reports, lost 249 officers and
       3,829 men, 2,000 of whom were taken prisoners. August 7th the
       victors continued their forward march, capturing great stores
       of provisions in Forbach. On the 9th St. Avold was taken, and
       foraging parties advanced almost to Metz.
    {1382}
       Marching through the Rhenish Palatinate, part of Prince
       Frederic Charles's army directed its course toward Metz by way
       of Saarbrücken, and part through Saargemünd. ... In the
       imperial head-quarters at Metz the greatest consternation
       prevailed. ... It was [finally] decided to concentrate five
       army corps on the right bank of the Moselle, at Metz, and to
       form a second army, consisting of four corps, under MacMahon's
       command, in the camp at Châlons. The first line of defence on
       the Rhine and Saar had been abandoned, and France was to be
       defended on the Moselle. By this decision Alsace and Lorraine
       were surrendered to the foe at the very outset." On the 9th of
       August the French emperor transferred the chief command from
       himself to Marshal Bazaine, while Lebœuf at the same time
       withdrew from the direction of the staff. Simultaneously, at
       Paris, the Grammont-Ollivier ministry resigned, and was
       succeeded by a cabinet formed under the presidency of Count
       Palikao (General Montauban). "New levies were called into the
       field, comprising all unmarried men between the ages of 25 and
       30 not already enrolled in the 'garde mobile.' ... In the
       German head-quarters ... it was resolved in some way to make
       Bazaine's army harmless, either by shutting him up in Metz or
       by pushing him northward to the Belgian frontier. ... The task
       was a difficult one. ... All depended upon what course Bazaine
       might conclude to pursue, and the energy with which he
       executed his plans. It was his purpose to leave Metz with the
       field army and join MacMahon at Châlons. There would then be
       300,000 French at that place to block the German march to
       Paris. In that event the Germans would have to leave 60,000
       men before Metz ... and Diedenhofen, and would not have enough
       left to venture an attack on the united and well-intrenched
       armies at Châlons. Accordingly, the union of those two armies
       must be prevented at any price, and Bazaine be attacked before
       Metz. The execution of this plan led to the severe fighting
       near that city--the battle of Colombey-Nouilly (Borny), on the
       14th, Vionville on the 16th, and Gravelotte on the 18th." The
       battle of Gravelotte was "the first battle in the war in which
       a pre-arranged plan [Moltke's] was actually carried out. ... It
       was a brilliant victory, and followed by important results.
       Bazaine's army was shut up in the fortress and among the
       outlying forts, and rendered unavailable for further service
       in the field. The losses of the French amounted to about
       13,000 men, including 600 officers; the German loss was 899
       officers and 19,260 men, of whom 328 officers and 4,909 men
       were killed outright. The number of combatants on the side of
       the French was about 140,000, on the side of the Germans
       178,818, the former having 550, and the latter 822 cannon. It
       must be remembered, however, that the French occupied a
       position very much of the nature of a fortress, which had to
       be carried by storm."

          W. Müller,
          Political History of Recent Times,
          section 25.

          ALSO IN:
          Count H. von Moltke,
          The Franro-German War of 1870-71,
          section 1.

          Colonel A. Borbstaedt and Major F. Dwyer,
          The Franco-German War,
          chapters 10-29.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (August-September).
       Investment of Metz by the Germans.
       Disastrous attempt of MacMahon to rescue Bazaine.
       The catastrophe at Sedan.

       "The huge, stubborn, vehement and bloody conflict waged in the
       rural tract between the northern edges of the Bois de Vaux and
       the Forest of Jaumont, which the French Marshal called the
       'Defence of the Lines of Amanvillers,' the French Army, 'the
       Battle of St. Privat,' and the Germans the battle of
       'Gravelotte--St. Privat,' established the mastery of the
       latter over 'the Army of the Rhine.' Marshal Bazaine had not
       proved strong enough to extricate the Army he was suddenly
       appointed to command from the false position in which it had
       been placed by the errors and hesitations of the Emperor and
       Marshal Lebœuf. ... The German leaders forthwith resolved, and
       acted on the resolve, to take the largest advantage of success.
       When the broadening day showed that the French were encamped
       under the guns of the fort, and that they did not betray the
       faintest symptom of fighting for egress on any side, the place
       was deliberately invested. ... Soon the blockade was so far
       completed that only adventurous scouts were able at rare
       intervals to work their way through the German lines. As early
       as the forenoon of the 19th, the King had decided to form what
       came to be called the 'Army of the Meuse' out of the Corps
       which were not needed to uphold the investment of Metz, and
       thus place himself in a condition to assail the French Army
       collecting at Chalons. ... This formidable force was put under
       the command of the Crown Prince of Saxony, who had shown
       himself to be an able soldier. Consequently, there remained
       behind to invest Bazaine, seven Corps d'Armée and a Division
       of Reserve under General von Kummer. ... One Army had been
       literally imprisoned, another remained at large, and behind it
       were the vast resources of France. Three Marshals were cooped
       up in the cage on the Moselle; one, MacMahon, and the Emperor
       were still in the field; and upon the forces with them it was
       resolved to advance at once, because prudence required that
       they should be shattered before they could be completely
       organized, and while the moral effect of the resounding blows
       struck in Alsace and Lorraine had lost none of its terrible
       power. Therefore the King and General von Moltke started on
       the morrow of victory to march on Paris through the plains of
       Champagne."

          G. Hooper,
          The Campaign of Sedan,
          chapter 10.

       "While the German invasion had thus been rolling from Lorraine
       into the flats of Champagne, the shattered right wing of the
       army of the Rhine, with reinforcements sent off from Paris,
       had been drawn together in the well-known plains made
       memorable by the defeat of Attila. By 20 August the first and
       fifth French corps marched rapidly from the Upper Moselle to
       the Marne, had been joined by the seventh corps from Belfort
       and by the twelfth formed in and despatched from Paris; and
       this force, numbering perhaps 130,000 men, with from 400 to
       500 guns, had been concentrated round the great camp of
       Châlons. Macmahon was given the supreme command, and the first
       operations of the experienced chief showed that he understood
       the present state of affairs, and were in accord with the
       rules of strategy. Bazaine, he knew, was in peril near Metz,
       and certainly had not attained the Meuse; and he was at the
       head of the last army which France could assemble for the
       defence of her capital.
    {1383}
       In these circumstances, impressed perhaps by the grand
       memories of the campaign of 1814, he most properly resolved to
       fall back towards Paris; but as Bazaine was possibly not far
       distant, and a position on the flank of the German advance
       might afford a favourable opportunity to strike, he withdrew
       northwards on the 21st to Rheims, in the double hope that he
       would approach his colleague and threaten the communications
       of the advancing enemy. This, we repeat, was following the art
       of war, and had Macmahon firmly adhered to his purpose, there
       would have been no Sedan and no treaty of Frankfort. Unhappily
       the marshal, a hero in the field, was deficient in real
       strength of character, and at this critical moment evil
       counsels and false information shook, and at last changed, a
       resolve that ought to have never faltered. A new
       administration had been formed in Paris, and Palikao, the
       minister of war, devoted to the Empire, and especially bent on
       satisfying the demands of the excited capital, which
       passionately insisted on the relief of Bazaine, had conceived
       a project by which he hoped that this great object would be
       effected and the 'dynasty' be restored in popular opinion. The
       army of the Meuse, he argued, was near that stream, round
       Verdun; the third army was far away to the south; there was a
       considerable interval between the two masses; and the army of
       Châlons, then at Rheims, was not far from the Upper Meuse. In
       those circumstances it was quite practicable, should Macmahon
       rapidly advance to the Meuse, to overpower with his largely
       superior force the army of the Meuse before support could be
       sent from the distant third army; and the enemy in his path
       being swept aside, the marshal could then descend on Metz,
       fall with the collected strength of the army of Châlons on the
       divided fragments of the investing force, and triumphantly
       effect his junction with Bazaine, having routed, perhaps, the
       first and second armies before the third could appear on the
       scene. The defiles and woods of the Argonne and the Ardennes,
       stretching between the French and the German armies, Palikao
       insisted, would form a screen to conceal the advance of the
       army of Chãlons, and would greatly facilitate the proposed
       movement. This project reached Macmahon on 21 August, and may
       be pronounced one of the most reckless ever designed by a
       desperate gambler in war. ... Macmahon at first refused to
       listen to what he condemned as a hopeless project; but bad
       advisers found their way to him, and his resolution was
       already yielding when a calamitous event fixed his shifting
       purpose. A despatch from Bazaine, obscure and untrue,
       announced that he was on his way northward. Macmahon inferred
       that his beleaguered colleague had left Metz and eluded his
       foes, and, thinking that he would reach Bazaine before long,
       in an evil hour for France and for himself, he consented to
       attempt the march to the Meuse."

          W. O'C. Morris,
          The Campaign of Sedan
          (English Historical Review., April, 1888).

       "It was not until the afternoon of August 23 that MacMahon's
       army passed through Rheims. Anxious, and knowing that
       everything depended on speed, he addressed some columns as
       they toiled onwards, reminding them that French soldiers had
       marched thirty miles a day under the sun of Africa. The
       difference, however, was great between raids made by a few
       light regiments and the advance of a raw unwieldy mass; and
       though the marshal endeavoured to hurry them forward, he was
       confronted with almost insurmountable obstacles. Scarcely had
       the army made a march towards establishing itself at
       Bethniville, on the Suippe, when commissariat difficulties
       obliged him to re-approach the line of the railway. He made a
       movement on his left, and reached Rethel on the 24th, in order
       to obtain for his troops several days' subsistence. This
       distribution occupied the whole of the 25th. ... As the
       direction of the French movement could not now be concealed,
       at this point MacMahon made arrangements for marching with all
       possible rapidity. It may be doubted, however, whether
       Napoleon himself, at the head of the grand army could have
       made the haste which the marshal designed with his raw and
       partly demoralized troops. ... His army was altogether unequal
       to forced marches, and moved at this critical moment with the
       sluggishness inherent in its defective organization.
       Encumbered with stragglers, badly pioneered, and checked by
       hindrances of every kind, it made hardly ten miles a day; and
       it was the 27th of August before its right column, still far
       from the Meuse, passed through Vouziers, and the left reached
       Le Chêne. ... On the 27th it was openly boasted of in Paris
       that MacMahon had gained at least forty-eight hours' start of
       the Crown Prince, and his coming success was firmly counted on
       by the imperialist cabinet, whereas, in reality, the whole
       scheme was foiled beforehand by Von Moltke's and General
       Blumenthal's prompt combination. ... If in fighting, in the
       boldness of their cavalry, the activity of their staff, the
       cool firing of their infantry, and the skilful tactical use of
       their guns, the superiority of the Germans to their
       antagonists had been already proved; it only required the
       contrast now presented between the movements of the two armies
       to show, that in no point had the difference of training and
       moral feeling told more in favour of the invaders than in that
       of the marching, on which the elder Napoleon so often relied
       for his advantage over these very Germans. ... Between the
       27th and the morning of the 29th, the right column of the
       French army had only its outposts at Buzancy, while the left,
       though its outposts touched Stenay, was only at Stonne and
       Beaumont, both columns spreading a long way backward; in other
       words, they were still a march from the Meuse, which they
       ought to have passed three days before, and their rearward
       divisions were yet distant. The German armies, from the 26th
       to the 29th, made astonishing exertions to close on MacMahon
       as he crossed towards the Meuse, and success was already
       within their grasp. The force of the Crown Prince of Saxony,
       in two columns, had reached the Meuse at Dun on the 27th, and
       was thus in a position to arrest and retard the vanguard of
       the French whenever it attempted to cross the river. Meanwhile
       the army of the Crown Prince of Prussia, hastening forward by
       Varennes and Grand Prè, and to the left by Senuc and Suippe,
       had arrived close to the line of march of MacMahon's right
       column, and by the evening of the 28th had occupied it about
       Vouziers. A step farther, and this immense army would be upon
       the positions of the luckless French, who, assailed in flank
       and rear by superior numbers, could not fail to be involved in
       terrible disaster. ... MacMahon [on the 27th], observing that
       the enemy so completely surrounded him, felt more than ever
       satisfied that it would be impossible to carry out the plan
       which had been prescribed to him at Paris; and to save, if
       possible, the sole army which France had at her disposal, he
       accordingly resolved to turn back in a westerly direction. ...
    {1384}
       The same evening he sent ... [a] telegram to the Count
       Palikao, at Paris. ... In reply to this, the government sent a
       telegram to the emperor at eleven o'clock the same night,
       telling him that if they abandoned Bazaine there would
       certainly be a revolution in Paris, and they would themselves
       be attacked by all the enemy's forces. ... The emperor admits
       that he could unquestionably have set this order aside, but
       'he was resolved not to oppose the decision of the regency,
       and had resigned himself to submit to the consequences of the
       fatality which attached itself to all the resolutions of the
       government.' 'As for MacMahon, he again bowed to the decision
       intimated to him from Paris, and once more turned towards
       Metz. These orders and counter-orders naturally occasioned
       further delay, and the French headquarters had reached no
       farther than Stonne on the 28th. ... On Monday, August 29, De
       Failly occupied the country between Beaumont and Stonne, on
       the left bank of the Meuse; while the main body of the French
       army, under MacMahon in person, had crossed the river, and
       were encamped on the right bank at Vaux, between Mouzon and
       Carignan, and on the morning of the 30th the emperor
       telegraphed to Paris that a brilliant victory might be
       expected. MacMahon's position was in a sharp wedge of country
       formed by the confluence of the rivers Meuse and Chiers, and
       it was his intention to advance towards Montmèdy. The other
       part of his army was close to the river on its left bank. ...
       The battle--or rather series of battles, for the fighting
       extended over three days--which was to decide whether or not
       he would reach Metz and liberate Bazaine, began in earnest a
       little before noon on Tuesday, August 30."

          H. M. Hozier,
          The Franco-Prussian War,
          volume 1, chapter 13.

       "The retreating French were concentrated, or rather massed,
       under the walls of Sedan, in a valley commonly called the Sink
       of Givonne. The army consisted of twenty-nine brigades,
       fifteen divisions, and four corps d'armée, numbering ninety
       thousand men. 'It was there,' says Victor Hugo, 'no one could
       guess what for, without order, without discipline, a mere
       crowd of men, waiting, as it seemed, to be seized by an
       immensely powerful hand. It seemed to be under no particular
       anxiety. The men who composed it knew, or thought they knew,
       that the enemy was far away. Calculating four leagues as a
       day's march, they believed the Germans to be at three days'
       distance. The commanders, however, towards nightfall, made
       some preparations for safety. The whole army formed a sort of
       horse-shoe, its point turning towards Sedan. This disposition
       proved that its chiefs believed themselves in safety. The
       valley was one of those which the Emperor Napoleon used to
       call a "bowl," and which Admiral Van Tromp designated by a
       less polite name. No place could have been better calculated
       to shut in an army. Its very numbers were against it. Once in,
       if the way out were blocked, it could never leave it again.
       Some of the generals,--General Wimpfen among them--saw this,
       and were uneasy; but the little court around the emperor was
       confident of safety. "At worst," they said, "we can always
       reach the Belgian frontier." The commonest military
       precautions were neglected. The army slept soundly on the
       night of August 31. At the worst they believed themselves to
       have a line of retreat open to Mézières, a town on the
       frontier of Belgium. No cavalry reconnoissance was made that
       night; the guards were not doubled. The French believed
       themselves more than forty miles from the German army. They
       behaved as if they thought that army unconcentrated and
       ill-informed, attempting vaguely several things at once, and
       incapable of converging on one point, namely, Sedan. They
       thought they knew that the column under the Prince of Saxony
       was marching upon Châlons, and that the Crown Prince of
       Prussia was marching upon Metz. But that night, while the
       French army, in fancied security, was sleeping at Sedan, this
       is what was passing among the enemy. By a quarter to two A. M.
       the army of the Prince of Saxony was on its march eastward
       with orders not to fire a shot till five o'clock, and to make
       as little noise as possible. They marched without baggage of
       any kind. At the same hour another division of the Prussian
       army marched, with equal noiselessness, from another direction
       on Sedan, while the Würtemburgers secured the road to
       Mézières, thereby cutting off the possibility of a retreat
       into Belgium. At the same moment, namely, five o'clock,--on
       all the hills around Sedan, at all points of the compass,
       appeared a dense dark mass of German troops, with their
       commanders and artillery. Not one sound had been heard by the
       French army, not even an order. Two hundred and fifty thousand
       men were in a Circle on the heights round the Sink of Givonne.
       They had come as stealthily and as silently as serpents. They
       were there when the sun rose, and the French army were
       prisoners.'

          Victor Hugo,
          Choses Vues.

       The battle was one of artillery. The German guns commanded
       every part of the crowded valley. Indeed the fight was simply
       a massacre. There was no hope for the French, though they
       fought bravely. Their best troops, the Garde Impériale, were
       with Bazaine at Metz. Marshal MacMahon was wounded very early
       in the day. The command passed first to General Ducrot, who
       was also disabled, and afterwards to Wimpfen, a brave African
       general who had hurried from Algeria just in time to take part
       in this disastrous day. He told the emperor that the only hope
       was for the troops to cut their way out of the valley; but the
       army was too closely crowded, too disorganized, to make this
       practicable. One Zouave regiment accomplished this feat, and
       reached Belgium. That night--the night of September 1--an
       aide-de-camp of the Emperor Napoleon carried this note to the
       camp of the king of Prussia:--Monsieur Mon Frère,--Not having
       been able to die in midst of my troops, it only remains for me
       to place my sword in the hands of your Majesty. I am your
       Majesty's good brother, Napoleon. ... With Napoleon III. fell
       not only his own reputation as a ruler, but the glory of his
       uncle and the prestige of his name. The fallen emperor and
       Bismarck met in a little house upon the banks of the Meuse.
       Chairs were brought out, and they talked in the open air. It
       was a glorious autumn morning. The emperor looked care-worn,
       as well he might. He wished to see the king of Prussia before
       the articles of capitulation were drawn up: but King William
       declined the interview. When the capitulation was signed,
       however, he drove over to visit the captive emperor at a
       château where the latter had taken refuge.
    {1385}
       Their interview was private; only the two sovereigns were
       present. The French emperor afterwards expressed to the Crown
       Prince of Prussia his deep sense of the courtesy shown him. He
       was desirous of passing as unnoticed as possible through
       French territory, where, indeed, exasperation against him, as
       the first cause of the misfortunes of France, was so great
       that his life would have been in peril. The next day he
       proceeded to the beautiful palace at Cassel called
       Wilhelmshöhe, or William's Rest. It had been built at ruinous
       expense by Jerome Bonaparte while king of Westphalia, and was
       then called Napoleon's Rest. ... Thus eighty thousand men
       capitulated at Sedan, and were marched as prisoners into
       Germany; one hundred and seventy-five thousand French soldiers
       remained shut up in Metz, besides a few thousand more in
       Strasburg, Phalsbourg, Toul, and Belfort. But the road was
       open to Paris, and thither the various German armies marched,
       leaving the Landwehr, which could not be ordered to serve
       beyond the limits of Germany, to hold Alsace and Lorraine,
       already considered a part of the Fatherland."

          E. W. Latimer,
          France in the Nineteenth Century,
          chapter 12.

       "The German army had lost in the battle of Sedan about 460
       officers and 8,500 men killed and wounded. On the French side
       the loss sustained in the battle and at the capitulation
       amounted according to their returns to the following: Killed
       3,000 men; wounded 14,000; prisoners (in the battle) 21,000;
       prisoners (at the capitulation) 83,000; disarmed in Belgium
       3,000; total 124,000."

          The Franco-German War: German Official Account,
          part 1, volume 2, page 408.

          ALSO IN:
          Capt. G. Fitz-George,
          Plan of the battle of Sedan, with Memoir.

          A. Forbes,
          My Experiences of the War between France and Germany,
          part 1, chapter 4 (volume l).

          Colonel. A. Borbstaedt and Major F. Dwyer,
          The Franco-German War,
          chapters 30-40.

          G. B. Malleson,
          The Refounding of the German Empire,
          chapter 14.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (September).
       Revolution at Paris.
       Collapse of the empire.
       Self-constitution of the Government of National Defense.

       At Paris, the whole truth of the tremendous disaster at Sedan
       was but slowly learned. On the afternoon of Saturday,
       September 3, Count de Palikao intimated a little part of it,
       only, "in a statement to the Corps Législatif, announcing that
       Marshal Bazaine, after a vigorous sally, had been obliged to
       retire again under the walls of Metz, and that Macmahon, after
       a series of combats, attended by reverses and successes--
       having at the outset driven a part of the enemy's army into
       the Meuse--had been compelled to retreat to Sedan and
       Mézières, a portion of his army having taken refuge in
       Belgium. The junction of the two armies had therefore not been
       made. The situation was serious, calmly observed the Minister
       of War, but not hopeless. Not hopeless! when the truth was
       that one army was blockaded and the other prisoner, and that
       there were no reserves. ... At a midnight sitting Count de
       Palikao, still determined to conceal a portion of the truth,
       intimated that part of Marshal Macmahon's army had been driven
       back into Sedan, that the remainder had capitulated, and that
       the Emperor had been made prisoner. M. Jules Favre met this
       announcement of fresh disasters by a motion, declaring the
       Emperor and his dynasty to have forfeited all rights conferred
       by the Constitution, demanding the appointment of a
       Parliamentary Committee invested with the governing power, and
       having for its special mission the expulsion of the enemy from
       French territory, and further maintaining General Trochu in
       his post as Governor of Paris. The Chamber then adjourned till
       the morrow. But Paris had touched one of those crises when, as
       Pascal says, a grain of sand will give a turn to history and
       change the life of nations, and the morrow brought with it the
       downfall of the Ministry, of the dynasty, of the Empire, and of
       that bizarre constitutional edifice which had been kept
       waiting so long for its complemental crown. ... It had been
       intimated that the Corps Législatif would reassemble at noon,
       before which time numerous groups collected on the Place de la
       Concorde, and eventually swelled to a considerable crowd. The
       bridge leading to the Palais Bourbon was guarded by a
       detachment of mounted gendarmes, and numerous
       sergents-de-ville. ... Battalions of National Guards having,
       however, arrived, the gendarmes, after flourishing their
       swords, opened their ranks and allowed them to pass, followed
       by a considerable portion of the crowd, shouting 'Vive la
       République!' and singing the 'Chant du Départ.' The iron gates
       of the Palais Bourbon having been opened to admit a deputation
       of National Guards, the crowd precipitated itself forward, and
       in a few minutes the steps and courtyard were alike invaded.
       Cries of 'Vive la Garde Nationale!' 'Vive la Ligne!' 'Vive la
       République!' resounded on all sides, and the soldiers who
       occupied the court of the Palais Bourbon, after making a show
       of resistance, ended by hoisting the butt ends of their rifles
       in the air in sign of sympathy, joining at the same time in the
       shouts of the crowd, while the latter, encountering no further
       opposition, proceeded to invade the passages of the Chamber,
       at the moment Count de Kératry was attacking the Ministry for
       surrounding the Corps Législatif with troops and
       sergents-de-ville, contrary to the orders of General Trochu.
       Count de Palikao, having explained the relative positions of
       the Governor of Paris and the Minister of War, introduced a
       bill instituting a Council of Government and National Defence,
       composed of five members elected by the Legislative Body, the
       ministers to be appointed with the approval of the members of
       this Council, and he, Count de Palikao, to occupy the post of
       Lieutenant-General. M. Jules Favre having claimed priority for
       the motion which he had introduced the day before, M. Thiers,
       pleading the necessity for union, next moved that:--'In view
       of existing circumstances, the Chamber appoints a Commission
       of Government and National Defence. A Constituent Assembly
       will be convoked as soon as circumstances permit.' The Chamber
       having declared in favour of their urgency, these several
       propositions were eventually referred to the Bureau, and the
       sitting was suspended. It was during this period that the
       crowd penetrated into the Salles des Quatre Colonnes and de la
       Paix. ... At half-past two, when the sitting was resumed, the
       galleries were crowded and very noisy. The members of the Left
       only were in their places. It was in vain the President
       attempted to obtain silence, in vain the solemn huissiers
       commanded it. MM. Gambetta and Crémieux appeared together at
       the tribune, and the former begged of the people to remain
       quiet. ...
    {1386}
       A partial silence having been secured, Count de Palikao,
       followed by a few members of the majority, entered the
       Chamber, but did not essay to speak. ... A minute or two
       afterwards, the clamour arose again, and a noisy multitude
       commenced invading the floor of the hall. ... Nothing was left
       to the President but to put on his hat and retire, which he
       did, together with Count de Palikao and the members by whom
       the latter had been accompanied. By this time the Chamber was
       completely invaded by National and Mobile Guards, in company
       with an excited crowd, whose advance it was in vain now to
       attempt to repel. M. Jules Favre, having mounted the tribune,
       obtained a moment's silence. 'No scenes of violence,' cried
       he; 'let us reserve our arms for our enemies.' Finding it
       utterly impossible to obtain any further hearing inside the
       Chamber, M. Gambetta, accompanied by the members of the Left,
       proceeded to the steps of the peristyle, and there announced
       the dethronement of the Emperor to the people assembled
       outside. Accompanied by one section of the crowd, they now
       hurried to the Hôtel de Ville, and there installed themselves
       as a Provisional Government, whilst another section took
       possession of the Tuileries--whence the Empress had that
       morning taken flight--as national property. A select band of
       Republicans, mindful of what Count--now Citoyen--Henri
       Rochefort had done to bring Imperialism into disrepute,
       proceeded to the prison of Sainte Pélagie and conducted the
       author of the Lanterne, and other political prisoners, in
       triumph to the Hôtel de Ville. The deputies who quitted the
       Chamber when it was invaded by the mob, met that same
       afternoon at the President's residence, and sent a deputation
       to the Hôtel de Ville, with a proposal to act in common with
       the new Government. This proposition was, however, declined,
       on the score of the Republic having been already proclaimed
       and accepted by the population of Paris. At an evening meeting
       of nearly two hundred deputies, held under the presidency of
       M. Thiers, MM. Jules Favre and Simon attended on the part of
       the Provisional Government to explain that they were anxious
       to secure the support of the deputies, whom they hinted,
       however, could best serve their country in the departments.
       After this unequivocal rebuff, the deputies, who had in the
       meantime been apprised that seals had been placed on the doors
       of the Corps Législatif, saw that nothing remained to them but
       to protest, and protest they accordingly did against the
       events of the afternoon. ... Not one of the two hundred
       deputies present so much as dared suggest the breaking of the
       seals and the assembling in the Legislative Chamber. ... The
       Government which grasped the reins of power on the utter
       collapse of Imperial institutions was a mob-named one in the
       fullest sense of the term, the names having been chalked by
       the populace on the pillars of the portico of the Palais
       Bourbon during that invasion of the Chamber on the Sunday
       afternoon which resulted in the overthrow of the Imperial
       regime. The list appears to have been accepted by the
       principal members of the Left, who, although they would have
       preferred disassociating themselves from M. Rochefort,
       nevertheless felt that it was impossible to leave him out of
       the combination, and therefore adroitly--and not
       inappropriately, as the safety of Paris was especially in
       their keeping--made it embrace all the deputies for Paris,
       save, as M. Jules Simon observed, the most illustrious
       --meaning M. Thiers, who refused to join it. ... The
       Government of National Defence, as it elected to style itself,
       on M. Rochefort's suggestion, was composed of the following
       members:--General Trochu, president; Jules Favre, Vice
       President and Minister for Foreign Affairs; Emanuel Arago;
       Crémieux, Minister of Justice; Jules Ferry, Secretary; Leon
       Gambetta, Minister of the Interior; Garnier-Pagès;
       Glais-Bizoin; Eugene Pelletan; Ernest Picard, Minister of
       Finance; Henri Rochefort; and Jules Simon, Minister of Public
       Instruction. Subsequently it associated with it General Le
       Flô, Minister of War; Admiral Fourichon, Minister of Marine;
       M. Dorian, Minister of Public Works; and M. Magnin, Minister
       of Agriculture and Commerce. These, with Count de Kératry,
       charged with the Prefecture of Police, M. Etienne Arago,
       appointed Mayor of Paris, composed altogether no less than
       eighteen members, upwards of two-thirds of whom were Bretons,
       advocates, or journalists. ... For some days the new
       Government was prodigal of proclamations and decrees. Its
       first acts were to close the doors of the Palais Bourbon and
       the Palais du Luxembourg, and dissolve the Corps Législatif
       and abolish the Senate as bouches inutiles politiques, to
       issue proclamations to the army, or rather the debris of one,
       justifying the Revolution and appealing to the troops to
       continue their heroic efforts for the defence of the country,
       and to the National Guard, thanking them for their past, and
       asking for their future patriotism. It released all
       functionaries from their oaths, dismissed the ambassadors at
       foreign courts, appointed prefects in all the departments, and
       new mayors in the twenty arrondissements of the capital,
       proclaimed the complete liberty of the press, ordered all
       Germans not provided with special permission to remain, to
       quit the departments of the Seine and Seine-et-Oise within
       four-and-twenty hours. ... It pressed forward the provisioning
       of the city and its works of defence, increased the herds of
       sheep and oxen and the stores of corn and flour, provisionally
       abolished all local customs and octroi dues, and fixed the price
       of butcher's meat, armed the outer forts and the enceinte,
       blew up or mined all the bridges and fired all the woods in
       the environs, razed thousands of houses to the ground, felled
       roadside trees, and constructed huge barricades with them;
       laid in fact all the beautiful suburbs in waste; listened to
       the thousand and one wild schemes put forth by patriotic
       madmen for exterminating the invaders, and launched a huge
       captive balloon, which hovered daily over Paris to give timely
       notice of their dreaded arrival."

          H. Vizetelly, editor,
          Paris in Peril,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Favre,
          The Government of the National Defence, June-October.

          W. Rüstow,
          The War for the Rhine Frontier,
          chapter 22 (volume 2).

    {1387}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (September-October).
       Futile striving for allies and for peace without
       territorial sacrifices.
       Investment of Paris.
       Gambetta's organization of defense in the provinces.
       Bazaine's surrender at Metz.

       "The Government of National Defence ... imagined that the fall
       of the Empire would simplify the cruel position of France
       towards the enemy. The Dynasty which had declared war being
       reversed, and the men now in power having been throughout
       opposed to war and in favour of German unity, and now
       demanding nothing but peace, what motive could the King of
       Prussia have to continue the invasion of France? It was
       further to be considered that free France would defend her
       integrity to the last drop of her blood; that she would
       voluntarily give up neither an inch of her territory nor a
       stone of her fortresses. Such were the ideas which the new
       Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Jules Favre, expressed on the
       6th of September, in a circular addressed to the French agents
       in foreign countries. The Cabinet of Berlin was not slow in
       disabusing him of these convictions. Far from accepting the
       view that the Emperor Napoleon was the sole promoter of war,
       Count Bismarck, in two despatches of the 13th and of the 16th
       of September, threw the responsibility of the conflict on the
       French nation. He stated that the vast majority of the
       Chambers had voted for war, and that the Emperor was justified
       in assuring the King that he had been forced into a war to
       which he was personally averse. ... In order to be secure
       against future aggression, Germany would ask for guarantees
       from the French nation itself, and not from a transitory
       Government. ... In any case, Germany would require Strasburg
       and Metz. Thus the accession to power of the Republican
       Government did not modify the reciprocal positions of the two
       belligerents. Nevertheless, hope was entertained in Paris that
       the friendly intervention of the great powers might induce the
       victor to soften his rigour;" but intervention was declined by
       the Berlin Cabinet and not undertaken. "On the 19th of
       September the investment of Paris was completed. At the desire
       of the French Government, the English Cabinet applied to the
       German head-quarters, with the object of obtaining for M.
       Jules Favre an interview with Count Bismarck. This request
       having been granted, the two statesmen held conferences, on
       the 19th and 20th of September, at Ferrières, a castle of
       Baron Rothschild near Meaux. During these interviews the
       French Minister was sentimental and the German Minister coldly
       logical. They could not come to an agreement on any single
       point. ... The Government of Paris ... again proclaimed that
       France would not cede an inch of her territory. Meanwhile, in
       consequence of the investment of Paris, the Government of
       National Defence was divided into two parts; some of its
       Delegates withdrew to Tours, forming a delegation of the
       central Government which remained in Paris. The German armies
       had continued their onward march, as well as their operations
       against the fortresses. Toul capitulated on the 23rd and
       Strasburg on the 28th of September. On the 5th of October,
       King William had established his headquarters at Versailles."
       Meantime "the Government of National Defence made a last
       attempt to secure allies, or at least the help of powerful
       mediators. With this object M. Thiers, who had placed himself
       at the disposal of the Administration of the 4th of September,
       was sent on a mission to the European Courts. From the 12th of
       September till the 20th of October, the old statesman visited
       in succession London, Vienna, St. Petersburg, and Florence. In
       none of these cities were his measures attended with happy
       results." At St. Petersburg and at London he was told--and he
       was himself convinced--"that the King of Prussia was
       compelled to consider the public opinion of Germany, and that
       France would have to resign herself to territorial
       sacrifices." He returned to France to advise, and to procure
       authority for, a conference with the German Chancellor. But
       events had already occurred which aggravated the forlorn
       condition of France. "The youngest and most enterprising
       member of the Government of Paris, M. Gambetta, had left the
       Capital on the 8th of October in a balloon for Tours. It was
       his intention to organise national defence in the Provinces.
       The day after his arrival at Tours, he issued a fiery
       Proclamation to the French people. ... With an energy that
       called forth universal admiration, the Government of Tours,
       over which Gambetta presided as Dictator, organised
       resistance, formed a new army, and gathered together every
       possible resource for defence both in men and in materials.
       All these efforts could not arrest the progress of the
       invasion. From the 11th to the 31st of October, the Germans
       took successively Orleans, Soissons, Schlestadt and Dijon.
       Round Paris they repulsed the sallies of Malmaison, Champigny,
       and le Bourget. But all these defeats of heroic soldiers waned
       when compared to the appalling and decisive catastrophe of
       Metz. After the battle of Gravelotte, Marshal Bazaine had
       unsuccessfully attempted several sallies. ... On the 7th of
       October, after an unfortunate battle at Woippy, lasting nine
       hours, Bazaine considered the situation desperate. His only
       thought was to obtain the most favourable conditions he could,
       and with this object he sent General Boyer to the headquarters
       at Versailles." After two weeks of negotiation, "on the 21st
       of October, the army encamped within the walls of Metz found
       itself without provisions. ... Negotiations with Prince
       Frederick Charles, nephew of the King and Commander-in-chief
       of the besieging Army, were opened on the 25th, and terminated
       on the 27th of October. The conditions were identical with
       those of Sedan: capitulation of the town and its forts with
       all the material of war, all the army of the Rhine to be
       prisoners and the officers to be liberated on parole."

          E. Simon,
          The Emperor William and his Reign,
          chapter 13 (volume 2).

       "The French Army of the Rhine at the time of the surrender
       still numbered 173,000 men, inclusive of 6,000 officers and
       20,000 men remaining temporarily in Metz as sick or
       convalescent."

          The Franco-German War: German Official Account,
          part 2, volume 1, page 201.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Forbes,
          My Experiences of the War between France and Germany,
          part 2 (volume 1).

    FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
       The war in the provinces.
       Unsuccessful attempts to relieve the capital.
       Distress in Paris.
       Capitulation and armistice.

       "The surrender of Metz and the release of the great army of
       Prince Frederick Charles by which it was besieged fatally
       changed the conditions of the French war of national defence.
       Two hundred thousand of the victorious troops of Germany under
       some of their ablest generals were set free to attack the
       still untrained levies on the Loire and in the north of
       France, which, with more time for organisation, might well
       have forced the Germans to raise the siege of Paris. The army
       once commanded by Steinmetz was now reconstituted, and
       despatched under General Manteuffel towards Amiens; Prince
       Frederick Charles moved with the remainder of his troops
       towards the Loire. Aware that his approach could not long be
       delayed, Gambetta insisted that Aurelle de Paladines should
       begin the march on Paris.
    {1388}
       The general attacked Tann at Coulmiers on the 9th of November,
       defeated him, and re-occupied Orleans, the first real success
       that the French had gained in the war. There was great alarm
       at the German headquarters at Versailles; the possibility of a
       failure of the siege was discussed; and 40,000 troops were
       sent southwards in haste to the support of the Bavarian
       general. Aurelle, however, did not move upon the capital: his
       troops were still unfit for the enterprise; and he remained
       stationary on the north of Orleans, in order to improve his
       organisation, to await reinforcements, and to meet the attack
       of Frederick Charles in a strong position. In the third week
       of November the leading divisions of the army of Metz
       approached, and took post between Orleans and Paris. Gambetta
       now insisted that the effort should be made to relieve the
       capital. Aurelle resisted, but was forced to obey. The
       garrison of Paris had already made several unsuccessful
       attacks upon the lines of their besiegers, the most vigorous
       being that of Le Bourget on the 30th of October, in which
       bayonets were crossed. It was arranged that in the last days
       of November General Trochu should endeavour to break out on
       the southern side, and that simultaneously the army of the
       Loire should fall upon the enemy in front of it and endeavour
       to force its way to the capital. On the 28th the attack upon
       the Germans on the north of Orleans began. For several days
       the struggle was renewed by one division after another of the
       armies of Aurelle and Prince Frederick Charles. Victory
       remained at last with the Germans; the centre of the French
       position was carried; the right and left wings of the army
       were severed from one another and forced to retreat, the one
       up the Loire, the other towards the west. Orleans on the 5th
       of December passed back into the hands of the Germans. The
       sortie from Paris, which began with a successful attack by
       General Ducrot upon Champigny beyond the Marne, ended after
       some days of combat in the recovery by the Germans of the
       positions which they had lost, and in the retreat of Ducrot
       into Paris. In the same week Manteuffel, moving against the
       relieving army of the north, encountered it near Amiens,
       defeated it after a hard struggle, and gained possession of
       Amiens itself. After the fall of Amiens, Manteuffel moved upon
       Rouen. This city fell into his hands without resistance. ...
       But the Republican armies, unlike those which the Germans had
       first encountered, were not to be crushed at a single blow.
       Under the energetic command of Faidherbe the army of the north
       advanced again upon Amiens. Goeben, who was left to defend the
       line of the Somme, went out to meet him, defeated him on the
       23rd of December, and drove him back to Arras. But again,
       after a week's interval, Faidherbe pushed forward. On the 3rd
       of January he fell upon Goeben's weak division at Bapaume, and
       handled it so severely that the Germans would on the following
       day have abandoned their position, if the French had not
       themselves been the first to retire. Faidherbe, however, had
       only fallen back to receive reinforcements. After some days'
       rest he once more sought to gain the road to Paris, advancing
       this time by the eastward line through St. Quentin. In front
       of this town Goeben attacked him. The last battle of the army
       of the North was fought on the 19th of January. The French
       general endeavoured to disguise his defeat, but the German
       commander had won all that he desired. Faidherbe's army was
       compelled to retreat northwards in disorder; its part in the
       war was at an end. During the last three weeks of December
       there was a pause in the operations of the Germans on the
       Loire. ... Gambetta ... had ... determined to throw the army
       of Bourbaki, strengthened by reinforcements from the south,
       upon Germany itself. The design was a daring one, and had the
       ... French armies been capable of performing the work which
       Gambetta required of them, an inroad into Baden, or even the
       reconquest of Alsace, would most seriously have affected the
       position of the Germans before Paris. But Gambetta
       miscalculated the power of young, untrained troops,
       imperfectly armed, badly fed, against a veteran army. In a
       series of hard-fought struggles the army of the Loire under
       General Chanzy was driven back at the beginning of January
       from Vendôme to Le Mans. On the 12th, Chanzy took post before
       this city and fought his last battle. While he was making a
       vigorous resistance in the centre of the line, the Breton
       regiments stationed on his right gave way; the Germans pressed
       round him, and gained possession of the town. Chanzy retreated
       towards Laval, leaving thousands of prisoners in the hands of the
       enemy, and saving only the debris of an army. Bourbaki in the
       meantime, with a numerous but miserably equipped force, had
       almost reached Belfort. ... Werder had evacuated Dijon and
       fallen back upon Vesoul; part of his army was still occupied
       in the siege of Belfort. As Bourbaki approached he fell back
       with the greater part of his troops in order to cover the
       besieging force, leaving one of his lieutenants to make a
       flank attack upon Bourbaki at Villersexel. This attack, one of
       the fiercest in the war, delayed the French for two days, and
       gave Werder time to occupy the strong positions that he had
       chosen about Montbéliard. Here, on the 15th of January, began
       a struggle which lasted for three days. The French, starving
       and perishing with cold, though far superior in number to
       their enemy, were led with little effect against the German
       entrenchments. On the 18th Bourbaki began his retreat. Werder
       was unable to follow him; Manteuffel with a weak force was
       still at some distance, and for a moment it seemed possible
       that Bourbaki, by a rapid movement westwards, might crush this
       isolated foe. Gambetta ordered Bourbaki to make the attempt:
       the commander refused to court further disaster with troops
       who were not fit to face an enemy, and retreated towards
       Pontarlier in the hope of making his way to Lyons. But
       Manteuffel now descended in front of him; divisions of
       Werder's army pressed down from the north; the retreat was cut
       off; and the unfortunate French general, whom a telegram from
       Gambetta removed from his command, attempted to take his own
       life. On the 1st of February, the wreck of his army, still
       numbering 85,000 men, but reduced to the extremity of weakness
       and misery, sought refuge beyond the Swiss frontier. The war
       was now over. Two days after Bourbaki's repulse at Montbéliard
       the last unsuccessful sortie was made from Paris. There now
       remained provisions only for another fortnight; above 40,000
       of the inhabitants had succumbed to the privations of the
       siege; all hope of assistance from the relieving armies before
       actual famine should begin disappeared.
    {1389}
       On the 23rd of January Favre sought the German Chancellor at
       Versailles in order to discuss the conditions of a general
       armistice and of the capitulation of Paris. The negotiations
       lasted for several days; on the 28th an armistice was signed
       with the declared object that elections might at once be
       freely held for a National Assembly, which should decide
       whether the war should be continued, or on what conditions
       peace should be made. The conditions of the armistice were
       that the forts of Paris and all their material of war should
       be handed over to the German army; that the artillery of the
       enceinte should be dismounted; and that the regular troops in
       Paris should, as prisoners of war, surrender their arms. The
       National Guard were permitted to retain their weapons and
       their artillery. Immediately upon the fulfilment of the first
       two conditions all facilities were to be given for the entry
       of supplies of food into Paris. The articles of the armistice
       were duly executed, and on the 30th of January the Prussian
       flag waved over the forts of the French capital."

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 3, chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Murdock,
          The Reconstruction of Europe,
          chapters 29-30.

          Daily News Correspondence of the War
          chapters 13-21.

          Cassell's History of the War,
          volume 1, chapter 36,
          volume 2; chapters 1-18.

          Comte d'Herrison,
          Journal of a Staff Officer in Paris.

          E. B. Washburne,
          Recollections of a Minister to France,
          volume 1, chapters 5-10.

          J. A. O'Shea,
          An Iron-bound City.

          F. T. Marzials,
          Life of Gambetta,
          chapter 5.

          H. von Moltke,
          The Franco-German War of 1870-71,
          sections 3-7.

          T. G. Bowles,
          The Defence of Paris.

          W. Rüstow,
          The War for the Rhine Frontier, 1870,
          volume 3.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (January-May).
       Preliminaries of Peace signed at Versailles.
       The Treaty of Frankfort.
       Cession of Alsace and one-fifth of Lorraine.
       Five milliards of indemnity.

       "On the afternoon of January 28 [1871] the capitulation of
       Paris was signed, and an armistice agreed upon to expire on
       February 19 at noon. The provinces occupied by the armies of
       Bourbaki and Munteuffel were alone excluded from this
       agreement. On January 29 the German troops quietly took
       possession of the Paris forts. The regulars and mobiles became
       prisoners of war, with the exception of 12,000 men who were
       left under arms to preserve order. At the earnest request of
       Favre the National Guard were allowed to retain their arms. If
       Favre urged this as a measure to counteract the imperialistic
       ideas supposed to be still cherished by the prisoners
       returning from Germany, it was a political crime as well as a
       military folly. The National Guard became the armed Commune.
       ... While the armies withdrew to the lines stipulated in the
       armistice, the elections went quietly forward. The assembly
       convened at Bordeaux, and manifested a spirit that won for it
       universal respect. On February 17 M. Thiers was appointed
       chief of the executive power, and having named his ministry,
       he repaired to Versailles to arrange the preliminaries of
       peace. The conferences that followed with the German
       chancellor were perhaps the most trying ordeals to which the
       Frenchman had ever been subjected. No peace was possible save
       on the basis of the cession of miles of territory and the
       strongest of fortresses. France must also pay a war indemnity
       of no less than five milliards of francs. Bismarck, it is
       true, thought Thiers 'too sentimental for business, ... hardly
       fit indeed to buy or sell a horse,' but no diplomatist,
       however astute, could have made better terms for stricken
       France. So thought the assembly at Bordeaux; and when Thiers
       announced the result of his mission with a quivering lip, he
       had its sympathy and support. On the 2d of March the assembly
       formally ratified the peace preliminaries by a vote of 546 to
       107. It had been stipulated in the armistice that the German
       troops should not occupy Paris. The extension of time granted
       by the Germans entitled them to some compensation, and the
       entry of Paris was the compensation claimed. The troops
       detailed for this purpose were not chosen at random. To the
       Frenchman who on the 1st day of March beheld them pass along
       the Avenue de Malakoff or the Champs Elysées it was an ominous
       pageant. It was a German and not a Prussian army that he
       beheld. ... That night the Hessians smoked their pipes on the
       Trocadéro, and the Bavarians stacked their arms in the Place
       de la Concorde, while the lights blazing from the palace of
       the Elysée announced the German military headquarters. On the
       third day of the month, the Bordeaux Assembly having ratified
       the peace preliminaries, the German troops marched out, and
       Paris was left to herself again. The war was over. Beyond the
       Rhineland, in Bavaria and Würtemberg as well as in the north,
       all was joy and enthusiasm over the return of the army that
       had answered before the world the question, 'What is the
       German Fatherland?' On the 10th of May the definite treaty of
       peace was signed at Frankfort by which France ceded Alsace and
       a portion of Lorraine, including the fortresses of Metz and
       Strasburg, to her conqueror."

          H. Murdock,
          The Reconstruction of Europe,
          chapter 30.

       The following are the heads of the Preliminary Treaty
       concluded at Versailles, to which the final Treaty of
       Frankfort conformed:

       "1. France renounces in favour of the German Empire the
       following rights: the fifth part of Lorraine including Metz
       and Thionville, and Alsace less Belfort.

       2. France will pay the sum of five milliards of francs, of
       which one milliard is to be paid in 1871 and the remaining
       four milliards by instalments extending over three years.

       3. The German troops will begin to evacuate the French
       territory as soon as the Treaty is ratified. They will then
       evacuate the interior of Paris and some departments lying in
       the western region. The evacuation of the other departments
       will take place gradually after payment of the first milliard,
       and proportionately to the payment of the other four
       milliards. Interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum
       will be paid on the amount remaining due from the date of the
       ratification of the Treaty.

       4. The German troops will not levy any requisitions in the
       departments occupied by them, but will be maintained at the
       cost of France. A delay will be granted to the inhabitants of
       the territories annexed to choose between the two
       nationalities.

       6. Prisoners of war will be immediately set at liberty.

       7. Negotiations for a definitive Treaty of Peace will be
       opened at Brussels after the ratification of this Treaty.

       8. The administration of the departments occupied by the
       German troops will be entrusted to French officials, but under
       the control of the chiefs of the German Corps of occupation.

       9. The present Treaty confers upon the Germans no rights
       whatever in the portions of territories not occupied.

       10. This Treaty will have to be ratified by the

       National Assembly of France."

          C. Lowe,
          Prince Bismarck,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Hertslet,
          The Map of Europe by Treaty,
          volume 3, numbers 438 and 446.

    {1390}

    FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (March-May).
       Insurrection of the Communists of Paris.
       Second siege and reduction of the capital.

       "On the 3d of March the German army of occupation--which had
       been in the assigned part of the city since the 1st--marched
       off through the Arc de Triomphe, and on the 7th the German
       headquarters were moved from Versailles. The great
       Franco-Prussian War was over. ... But before ... peace could
       be attained, the country had yet to suffer from the so-called
       patriots of the Red Republicans worse outrage than it had
       endured at the hands of the German invaders. When the
       negotiations for the capitulation of Paris were in progress,
       Count Bismarck had warned M. Favre of the danger of allowing,
       as he proposed, the National Guard to retain their arms; and
       the members of the Government of National Defence might
       themselves have seen the risk they were incurring, had they
       calmly considered the various émeutes that had taken place
       during the siege, and in which the National Guard had always
       played such a conspicuous part on the side of disaffection.
       Now, in the full consciousness of their strength--somewhere
       about 100,000--and in their possession of a powerful
       artillery,--for during the German occupation they had, on the
       pretext of keeping them safe, got a large number of cannon
       into their hands,--they seemed determined to attempt the
       revival of the Reign of Terror. ... The appointment of General
       d'Aurelle de Paladines as their commander gave great offence,
       and on the 9th March an attempt to place the tricolor on the
       column in the Place de la Bastille instead of the red flag of
       revolution led to an outbreak. A promise in the event of the
       cannon being given up, of the continuance of pay till
       'ordinary work was resumed,' was disregarded, and the
       dismissal of D'Aurelle and the full recognition of the right
       of the National Guard to elect its own officers demanded. An
       effort of the government to seize the cannon in the Place des
       Vosges failed, and it was now clear enough that more energetic
       action than negotiations must take place. On the morning of the
       18th March a large force of regular troops under Generals
       Vinoy and Lecomte proceeded to Montmarte and took possession
       of the guns; but the want of horses for their immediate
       removal gave time for the Reds to assemble and frustrate the
       effort, while, worst of all, a large number of the regular
       troops fraternized with the insurgents. General Lecomte and
       General Clement Thomas were taken prisoners and almost
       immediately shot. The outbreak, thus begun, spread rapidly;
       for, through some unaccountable timidity of the government,
       the government forces were withdrawn from the city, and the
       insurgents left free to act as they pleased. They seized
       General Chanzy at the Orleans railway station, took possession
       of the Ministry of Justice and the Hôtel de Ville, and threw
       up barricades round all the revolutionary quarters. The
       Central Committee of the National Guard, the leading man of
       which was Assi, ... summoned the people of Paris to meet 'in
       their comitia for the communal elections,' and declared their
       intention of resigning their power into the hands of the
       Commune thus chosen. The National Assembly removed from
       Bordeaux and held its sittings at Versailles: but bitter as
       was the feeling of the majority of the Deputies against the
       new turbulence, the position of affairs prevented any action
       from being taken against the insurgents. The removal of
       General d'Aurelle and the appointment of Admiral Saisset in
       his place was of no avail. A number of the inhabitants of
       Paris, styling themselves 'Men of Order,' attempted to
       influence affairs by a display of moral force, but they were
       fired on and dispersed. The Assembly was timid, and apparently
       quite unable to bring its troops into play. ... Through
       Admiral Saisset concessions were offered, but the demands of
       the Communists increased with the prospect of obtaining
       anything. They now modestly demanded that they should
       supersede the Assembly wherever there was any prospect of
       collision of power, and be allowed to control the finances;
       and as a very natural consequence the negotiations were
       abandoned. This was on the 25th of March, and on the 26th the
       Commune was elected, the victory of the Reds being very easily
       gained, as hardly any of those opposed to them voted. Two days
       afterwards the Commune was proclaimed at the Hôtel de Ville,
       the members who had been elected being seated on a platform in
       red arm-chairs. The leading man of the new system was the
       honest but hot-headed and utopian Deleseluze; Cluseret, a man
       of considerable military genius, who had led a life of a very
       wild nature in America, and who was the soul of the resistance
       when the actual fighting began, was Delegate of War; Grousset,
       of Foreign Affairs; and Rigault, of Public Safety. The new
       government applied itself vigorously to changes; conscription
       was abolished, and the authority of the Versailles government
       declared 'null and void.' Seeing that a desperate struggle
       must inevitably ensue, a very large number of the inhabitants
       of Paris quitted the city, and the German authorities allowed
       the prisoners from Metz and Sedan to return so as to swell the
       forces at the disposal of M. Thiers. They also intimated that,
       in view of the altered circumstances, it might again become
       necessary for them to occupy the forts they had already
       evacuated. The first shot in the second siege of Paris, in
       which Frenchmen were arrayed against Frenchmen, was fired on
       the 2d April, when a strong division of the Versailles army
       advanced against the National Guards posted at Courbevoie, and
       drove them into Paris across the Pont de Neuilly. During the
       ensuing night a large force of insurgents gathered, and were
       on the morning of the 3d led in three columns against
       Versailles. Great hopes had been placed on the sympathy of the
       regular troops, but they were doomed to disappointment. ...
       The expedition ... not only failed, but it ... cost the
       Commune two of its leading men,--Duval, and that Flourens who
       had already made himself so conspicuous in connection with
       revolutionary outbreaks under the Empire and the Government of
       National Defence,--both of whom were taken and promptly shot
       by the Versailles authorities. The failure and the executions
       proved so exasperating that the 'Commune of Paris' issued a
       proclamation denouncing the Versailles soldiers as banditti.
       ... They had ample means of gratifying their passion for
       revenge, for they had in their hands a number of leading men,
       including Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, and M. Bonjean,
       President of the Court of Cassation, and these--two hundred in
       all--they proclaimed their intention of holding as hostages.
    {1391}
       M. Thiers was still hesitating, and waiting for a force
       sufficiently powerful to crush all opposition; and in this he
       was no doubt right, for any success of the Communists, even of
       the most temporary character, would have proved highly
       dangerous. The Germans had granted permission to the
       government to increase their original 30,000 troops to
       150,000, and prisoners of Metz and Sedan had been pouring
       steadily back from Germany for this purpose. On the 8th April
       Marshal MacMahon took command of the forces at Versailles. A
       premature attack on the forts of Issy, Vanves, and Montrouge
       on the 11th failed, but on the 17th and 19th several of the
       insurgent positions were carried; on the 25th the bombardment
       of Issy and Vanves was begun, and from that time onwards
       operations against the city were carried on with the greatest
       activity, the insurgents being on all occasions put to the
       sword in a most merciless manner. Issy was taken on the 8th
       May, and Vanves on the 4th, and the enceinte laid bare. Inside
       Paris all this time there was nothing but jealousy. ... First
       one leader, and then another, was tried, found wanting, and
       disgraced. ... On the 21st May the defenders of the wall at
       the gate of St. Cloud were driven from their positions by the
       heavy artillery fire, and the besieging army, having become
       aware of the fact, pushed forward and secured this entrance to
       the city; and by the evening of the 22d there were 80,000
       Versaillists within the walls. Next day they gained fresh
       ground, and were ready to re-occupy the Tuileries and the
       Hôtel de Ville; but before this was possible the Communists,
       mad with despair, had resolved on that series of outrages
       against humanity that will make their names detested and their
       cause distrusted as long as the story of their crimes stands
       recorded in the annals of history. They had already
       perpetrated more than one act of vandalism. ... On the 12th
       May, in accordance with a public decree, they had destroyed
       the private residence of M. Thiers with all its pictures and
       books; on the 16th the magnificent column erected in the Place
       Vendome in memory of Napoleon I., and crowned by his statue,
       was undermined at one side and then pulled to the ground by
       means of ropes and utterly destroyed; and now on the 24th, in
       the last efforts of despairing rage, bands of men and women,
       still more frantic and eager for blood than were those of the
       Reign of Terror, rushed through the doomed city. Early in the
       morning the Tuileries, the Hôtel de Ville, the Ministry of
       Finance, the Palais d'Orsay, and other public and private
       buildings were seen to be on fire. The Louvre, too, with all
       its inestimable treasures, was in flames, and was saved with
       the greatest difficulty. If the Commune was to perish, it had
       clearly resolved that the city was to perish with it. Men and
       women marched about in bands with petroleum, and aided the
       spread of the conflagration by firing the city in different
       places. Heedless of the flames, the Versailles troops pressed
       on, eager, if possible, to save the lives of the 200 hostages,
       but, alas, in vain. A passion for blood had seized on the
       Commune, and its last expiring effort was to murder in cold
       blood, not only a large number of the hostages, but also
       batches of fresh victims, seized indiscriminately about the
       streets by bands of men and women, and dragged off to instant
       death. On the 26th Belleville was captured, and on the 27th
       and 28th the Cemetery of Père la Chaise was the scene of the
       final struggle,--a struggle of such a desperate nature--for
       there was no quarter--that, for days after, the air of the
       district was literally fraught with pestilence. Many of the
       leaders of the Commune had fallen in the final contest, and
       all the others who were captured by the Versailles troops
       during the fighting were at once shot. Of the 30,000 prisoners
       who had fallen into the hands of the government, a large
       number, both men and women, were executed without mercy, and
       the rest distributed in various prisons to await trial, as
       also were Rossel, Assi, Grousset, and others, who were
       captured after the resistance was at an end. Cluseret
       succeeded in making good his escape. ... Of the prisoners,
       about 10,000 were set free without trial, and the others were
       sentenced by various courts-martial during the following
       months and on through the coming year, either to death,
       transportation or imprisonment."

          H. Martin,
          Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
          volume 3, chapter 24.

          ALSO IN:
          E. B. Washburne,
          Recollections of a Minister to France,
          volume 2, chapters 5-7.

          P. Vésinier,
          History of the Commune of Paris.

          P. O. Lissagaray,
          History of the Commune of 1871.

          W. P. Fetridge,
          Rise and Fall of the Paris Commune.

          J. Leighton,
          Paris under the Commune.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (April-May).
       The government of the Commune in Paris.

       "For the conduct of affairs the Communal Council divided
       itself into ten 'commissions,' of finance, war, public safety,
       external relations, education, justice, labour and exchange,
       provisions, the public service, and the general executive. Of
       these the most efficient appears to have been that of finance;
       by advances from the bank and by the revenues of the post, the
       telegraph, the octrois, &c., means were found to provide for
       the current expenditure. The other commissions were admittedly
       inefficient, and especially the one which was most important
       for the moment, that of war:--'as to a general plan,' says
       Lissagaray, 'there never was one: the men were abandoned to
       themselves, being neither cared for nor controlled;' 'at the
       Ministry,' says Gastyne, 'no one is at his place. They pass
       their time in running after one another. The most
       insignificant Lieutenant will take orders from nobody, and
       wants to give them to everybody. They smoke, chat and chaff.
       They dispute with the contractors. They buy irresponsibly
       right and left because the dealers give commissions or have
       private relations with the officials;' 'in the army of
       Versailles,' said a member of the Commune, 'they don't get
       drunk: in ours they are never sober;' 'the administration of
       war,' said another, 'is the organisation of disorganisation;'
       'I feel myself,' said Rossel, on resigning his command,
       'incapable of any longer bearing the responsibility of a
       command where everyone deliberates and no one obeys. The
       central committee of artillery has deliberated and prescribed
       nothing. The Commune has deliberated and resolved upon
       nothing. The Central Committee deliberates and has not yet
       known how to act. ... My predecessor committed the fault of
       struggling against this absurd situation. I retire, and have
       the honour to ask you for a cell at Mazas.' The same
       incompetence, leading to the same result of anarchy, was
       displayed by the Executive Commission:--'in less than a
       fortnight,' said Grosset, 'conflicts of every kind had arisen;
       the Executive Commission gave orders which were not executed;
       each particular commission, thinking itself sovereign in its
       turn, gave orders too, so that the Executive Commission could
       have no real responsibility.'
    {1392}
       On April 20 the Executive Commission was replaced by a
       committee, composed of a delegate from each of the nine other
       commissions; still efficiency could not be secured, and at the
       end of the month it was proposed to establish a Committee of
       Public Safety. This proposition was prompted by the traditions
       of 1793, and brought into overt antagonism the two conflicting
       tendencies of the Commune: there were some of its members who
       were ready to save the movement by a despotism, to secure at
       every cost a strong administration, and impose the Commune, if
       need be by terror, upon Paris and the provinces. ... On the
       other hand there was a strong minority which opposed the
       proposal, on the ground that it was tantamount to an
       abdication on the part of the Communal Council. ... The
       appointment of the Committee was carried by forty-five votes
       to twenty-three; many of those who voted for it regarded it as
       merely another 'Executive Commission,' subordinate to, and at
       any moment subject to dismissal by, the Commune; and so, in
       effect, it proved; it was neither more terrible nor more
       efficient than the body to which it succeeded; it came into
       existence on the 1st of May, and on the 9th the complaint was
       already advanced that 'your Committee of Public Safety has not
       answered our expectations; it has been an obstacle, instead of a
       stimulus;' on the 10th a new committee was appointed, with
       similar results; all that the innovation achieved was to bring
       into clear relief the fact that there existed in the Commune a
       Jacobin element ready to recur to the traditions of 1793, and
       to make Paris the mistress of France by the guillotine or its
       modern equivalent."

          G. L. Dickinson,
          Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
          pages 267-270.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.
       The Assembly at Bordeaux.
       Thiers elected Chief of the Executive Power.
       The founding of the Republic.
       The recovery of order and prosperity.
       Resignation of Thiers.
       Election of Marshal MacMahon.
       Plans of the Monarchists defeated.
       Adoption of the Constitution of 1875.

       "The elections passed off more quietly than was to be
       expected, and the Assembly which came together at Bordeaux on
       the 13th of February exactly represented the sentiment of the
       nation at that particular moment. France being eager for
       peace, the Assembly was pacific. It was also somewhat
       unrepublican, for the Republic had been represented in the
       provinces only by Gambetta, the promoter of war to the knife,
       who had sacrificed the interests of the Republic to what he
       conceived to be the interests of the national honor. Politics
       had, in truth, been little thought of, and Thiers was elected
       in 27 departments upon very diverse tickets, rather on account
       of his opposition to the war and his efforts in favor of peace
       than on account of his fame as a liberal orator and historian.
       Moved by the same impulse, the Assembly almost unanimously
       appointed him Chief of the Executive Power of the French
       Republic, and intrusted to him the double task of governing
       the country and of treating with the German Emperor. ... It
       was apparently in the name of the Republic that peace was
       negotiated and the Government gradually reconstructed. ... The
       Assembly, however, which was all-powerful, held that to change
       the form of government was one of its rights. It might have
       been urged that the electors had scarcely contemplated this,
       and that the Monarchists were in the majority simply because
       they represented peace, while in the provinces the Republic
       had meant nothing but war to the hilt. But these distinctions
       were not thought of in the press of more urgent business,
       namely, the treaty which was to check the shedding of blood,
       and the rudiments of administrative reconstruction. No
       monarchy would have been willing to assume the responsibility
       of this Treaty. ... The Right accordingly consented to accept
       the name of Republic as a makeshift, provided it should be
       talked about as little as possible. Thiers had come to think,
       especially since the beginning of the war, that the Republic
       was the natural heir of Napoleon III. ... He had, however,
       been struck with the circumstance that so many Legitimists had
       been elected to the Assembly, and he was no more eager than
       they to stop to discuss constitutions. ... He was the more
       disposed to wait, inasmuch as he saw in the Chamber the very
       rapid formation and growth of a group in which he had great
       confidence. Of these deputies M. Jules Simon has given a
       better definition than they could themselves formulate,--for
       this political philosopher has written a masterly history of
       these years. ... Here is what Simon says of this party in the
       Assembly: 'There were in this body some five-score firm
       spirits who were alike incapable either of forsaking the
       principles whereon all society rests, or of giving up freedom.
       Of all forms of government they would have preferred
       constitutional monarchy, had they found it established, or
       could they have restored it by a vote without resort to force.
       But they quickly perceived that neither the Legitimists nor
       the Bonapartists would consent to the constitutional form;
       that such a monarchy could obtain a majority neither in the
       Parliament nor among the people. ... Some of these men
       entertained for the Republic a distrust which, at first,
       amounted to aversion. Being persuaded, however, that they must
       choose between the Republic and the Empire ... they did not
       despair of forming a Republic at once liberal and
       conservative. In a word, they thrust aside the Legitimate
       Monarchy as chimerical, Republican and Cæsarian dictatorship
       as alike hateful. ... Of this party M. Thiers was not merely
       the head, but the body also.' ... But there was another party,
       which, although the least numerous in the Assembly and split
       into factions at that, was the most numerous in the
       country,--the Republican party."

          P. de Rémusat,
          Thiers,
          chapters 6-7.

    {1393}

       "In the wake of Thiers followed such men as Rémusat, Casimir
       Périer, Leon Say, and Lafayette. This added strength made the
       Republicans the almost equal rivals of the other parties
       combined. So great was Thiers' influence that, despite his
       conversion to Republicanism, he was still able to control the
       Monarchical Assembly. A threat of resignation, so great was
       the dread of what might follow it, and so jealous were the
       Monarchists of two shades and the Imperialists of each other,
       was enough to bring the majority to the President's terms. It
       was under such political conditions that the infant Republic,
       during its first year, undertook the tasks of preserving
       peace, of maintaining internal order, of retrieving disaster,
       of tempting back prosperity and thrift to the desolated land,
       of relieving it of the burdens imposed by war, and, at the
       same time, of acquiring for itself greater security and
       permanency. The recovery of France was wonderfully rapid; her
       people began once more to taste sweet draughts of liberty; the
       indemnity was almost half diminished; and her industries, at
       the end of the year, were once more in full career. But the
       Republic was a long way from complete and unquestioned
       recognition. The second year of the Republic (1872-73) was
       passed amid constant conflicts between the rival parties.
       Thiers still maintained his ascendency, and stoutly adhered to
       his defence of Republican institutions; but the Assembly was
       restive under him, and energetic attempts were made to bring
       about a fusion between the Legitimists and the Orleanists.
       These attempts were rendered futile by the obstinacy of the
       Count of Chambord, who would yield nothing, either of
       principle or even of symbol, to his cousin of Orleans. The
       want of harmony among the Monarchists postponed the
       consideration of what should be the permanent political
       constitution of France until November of the year 1872, when a
       committee of thirty was chosen to recommend constitutional
       articles. Against this the Republicans protested. They
       declared that the Assembly had only been elected to make peace
       with Germany; ... that dissolution was the only further act
       that the Assembly was competent to perform. This indicated the
       confidence of the Republicans in their increased strength in
       the country; and the fact that the Monarchists refused to
       dissolve shows that they were not far from holding this
       opinion of their opponents. Despite the rivalries and
       bitterness of the factions, the Republic met with no serious
       blow from the time of its provisional establishment in
       February, 1871, until May, 1873. Up to the latter period two
       thirds of the enormous indemnity had been paid, and the German
       force of occupation had almost entirely retired from French
       territory. ... But in Italy, 1873, a grave misfortune, alike
       to France and to the Republican institutions, occurred. At
       last the Monarchical reactionists of the Assembly had gathered
       courage to make open war upon President Thiers. Perceiving
       that his policy was having the effect of nourishing and adding
       ever new strength to the Republican cause, and that every
       month drifted them further from the opportunity and hope of
       restoring Monarchy or Empire ... they now forgot their own
       differences, and resolved, at all hazards, to get rid of the
       Republic's most powerful protector. ... The Duc de Broglie,
       the leader of the reactionary Monarchists, offered a
       resolution in the Assembly which was tantamount to a
       proposition of want of confidence in President Thiers. After
       an acrimonious debate, in which Thiers himself took part, De
       Broglie's motion was passed by a majority of fourteen. The
       President had no alternative but to resign; and thus the
       executive power, at a critical moment, passed out of
       Republican into Monarchical hands. Marshal MacMahon was at
       once chosen President. ... MacMahon was strongly Catholic in
       religion; and so far as he was known to have any political
       opinions, they wavered between Legitimism and
       Imperialism--they were certainly as far as possible from
       Republicanism. Now was formed and matured a deliberate project
       to overthrow the young Republic, and to set up Monarchy in its
       place. All circumstances combined to favor its success. The
       new President was found to be at least willing that the thing
       should, if it could, be done. His principal minister, De
       Broglie, entered warmly into the plot. The Orleanist princes
       agreed to waive their claims, and the Count of Paris was
       persuaded to pay a visit to the Count of Chambord at his
       retreat at Frohsdorf, to acknowledge the elder Bourbon's right
       to the throne, and to abandon his own pretensions. The
       Assembly was carefully canvassed, and it was found that a
       majority could be relied upon to proclaim, at the ripe moment,
       Chambord as king, with the title of Henry V. The Republic was
       now, in the early autumn of 1873, in the most serious and real
       peril. It needed but a word from the Bourbon pretender to
       overthrow it, and to replace it by the throne of the Capets
       and the Valois. Happily, the old leaven of Bourbon bigotry
       existed in 'Henry V.' He conceded the point of reigning with
       parliamentary institutions, but he would not accept the
       tricolor as the flag of the restored monarchy. He insisted
       upon returning to France under the white banner of his
       ancestors. To him the throne was not worth a piece of cloth.
       To his obstinacy in clinging to this trifle of symbolism the
       Republic owed its salvation. The scheme to restore the
       monarchy thus fell through. The result was that the two wings
       of Monarchists flew apart again, and the Republicans, being
       now united and patient under the splendid leadership of
       Gambetta, once more began to wax in strength. It only remained
       to the Conservatives to make the best of the situation--to
       proceed to the forming of a Constitution, and to at least
       postpone to as late a period as possible the permanent
       establishment of the Republic. The first step was to confirm
       MacMahon in the Presidency for a definite period; and 'the
       Septennate,' giving him a lease of power for seven years--that
       is, until the autumn of 1880--was voted. ... It was not until
       late in the year 1875 that the Constitution which is now the
       organic law of France was finally adopted.

          See CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE.

       The chief circumstance which impelled a majority of the
       Assembly to take this decisive step was the alarming revival
       of Imperialism in the country. This was shown in the success
       of Bonapartists in isolated elections to fill vacancies. Much
       as the Royalists distrusted a Republic, they dreaded yet more
       the restoration of the Empire; and the rapid progress made by
       the partisans of the Empire forced them to adopt what was
       really a moderate Republican Constitution. This Constitution
       provided that the President of the Republic should be elected
       by a joint convention of the Senate and the Chamber of
       Deputies; that the Senate should consist of 300 members, of
       whom 75 were to be elected for life by the Assembly, and the
       remaining 225 by electoral colleges, composed of the deputies,
       the councillors-general, the members of the councils
       d'arrondissement, and delegates chosen from municipal
       councils; that the vacancies in the life senatorships should
       be filled by the Senate itself, while the term of the Senators
       elected by the colleges should be nine years, one third
       retiring every three years; that the Chamber of Deputies
       should consist of 533 members, and that the deputies should be
       chosen by single districts, instead of, as formerly, in groups
       by departments: that the President could only dissolve the
       Chamber of Deputies with the consent of the Senate; that money
       bills should originate in the Lower Chamber, and that the
       President should have the right of veto.
    {1394}
       The 'Septennate' organized and the Constitution adopted, the
       Assembly, which had clung to power for about five years, had
       no reason for continued existence, and at last dissolved early
       in 1876, having provided that the first general election under
       the new order of things should take place in February. ... The
       result of the elections proved three things--the remarkable
       growth of Republican sentiment; the great progress made, in
       spite of the memory of Sedan, by the Bonapartist propaganda;
       and the utter hopelessness of any attempt at a Royalist
       restoration."

          G. M. Towle,
          Modern France,
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Simon,
          The Government of M. Thiers.

          F. Le Goff,
          Life of Thiers,
          chapters 8-9.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1872-1889.
       Reform of Public Instruction.

          See
          EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
          FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1889.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
       Stable settlements of the Republic.
       Presidencies of MacMahon and Grevy.
       Military operations in Tunis, Madagascar and Tonquin.
       Revision of the constitution.
       Expulsion of the princes.
       Boulangerism.
       Election of M. Sadi Carnot to the presidency.

       "The last day of the year 1875 saw a final prorogation of this
       monarchist assembly which had established the Republic. It had
       been in existence nearly five years. The elections to the
       Senate gave a small majority to the Republicans. Those to the
       Chamber of Deputies (February, 1876) gave about two-thirds of
       its 532 seats to Republicans, mostly moderate Republicans. The
       ministry to which the leadership of this assembly was soon
       confided, was therefore naturally a ministry of moderate
       Republicans. M. Dufaure was prime minister, and M. Léon Say
       minister of finance. ... The Dufaure ministry was not
       long-lived, being succeeded before the year 1876 closed, by a
       ministry led by M. Jules Simon, a distinguished orator and
       writer. The tenure of French cabinets in general has been so
       little permanent under the Third Republic, that in the
       nineteen years which have elapsed since the fall of the
       Empire, twenty-five cabinets have had charge of the executive
       government. ... Few events had marked the history of the Simon
       ministry when, suddenly, in May, 1877, the President of the
       Republic demanded its resignation. Much influenced of late by
       Monarchist advisers, he had concluded that the moderate
       Republican cabinets did not possess the confidence of the
       chambers, and, feeling that the responsibility of maintaining
       the repose and security of France rested upon him, had
       resolved, rather than allow the management of the affairs of
       the country to fall into the hands of M. Gambetta and the
       Radicals, to appoint a ministry of conservatives, trusting
       that the country would ratify the step. A ministry was
       organized under the Duke of Broglie, and the Chamber of
       Deputies was first prorogued, and then, with the consent of
       the Senate, dissolved. The death of M. Thiers in September
       caused a great national demonstration in honor of that
       patriotic statesman, 'the liberator of the territory.' The
       result of the ensuing elections was a complete victory for the
       Republicans, who secured nearly three-fourths of the seats in
       the new Chamber. The Marshal, appointing a ministry composed
       of adherents of his policy who were not members of the
       Assembly, attempted to make head against the majority, but was
       forced in December to yield to the will of the people and of
       their representatives, and to recall M. Dufaure and the
       moderate Republicans to office. The year 1878 therefore passed
       off quietly, being especially distinguished by the great
       success of the universal exhibition held at Paris. ... At the
       beginning of 1879 elections were held in pursuance of the
       provisions of the constitution, for the renewal of a portion
       of the Senate. ... Elections were held for the filling of 82
       seats. Of these the Republicans won 66, the Monarchist groups
       16. This was a loss of 42 seats on the part of the latter, and
       assured to the Republicans a full control of the Senate. It
       had also the effect of definitively establishing the Republic
       as the permanent government of France. The Republican leaders
       therefore resolved to insist upon extensive changes in the
       personnel of the Council of State and the judiciary body. ...
       When they also proposed to make extensive changes in other
       departments, Marshal MacMahon, who foresaw the impossibility
       of maintaining harmonious relations with the cabinets which
       the Republican majority would now demand, took these new
       measures as a pretext, and, on January 30, 1879, resigned the
       office of President of the Republic. On the same day the
       Senate and Chamber, united in National Assembly, elected as
       his successor, for the constitutional term of seven years, M.
       Jules Grevy, president of the Chamber of Deputies a moderate
       Republican who enjoyed general respect. M. Grévy was 71 years
       old. M. Gambetta was chosen to succeed him as president of the
       Chamber. The cabinet was remodelled, M. Dufaure resigning his
       office and being succeeded by M. Waddington. In the
       reorganized ministry one of the most prominent of the new
       members was M. Jules Ferry, its minister of education. He soon
       brought forward two measures which excited violent discussion:
       the one dealing with the regulation of superior education, the
       other with the constitution of the Supreme Council of Public
       Instruction. ... In March, 1880, the Senate rejected the bill
       respecting universities. The ministry, now composed of members
       of the 'pure Left' (instead of a mixture of these and the Left
       Centre) under M. de Freycinet, resolved to enforce the
       existing laws against non-authorized congregations. The
       Jesuits were warned to close their establishments; the others,
       to apply for authorization. Failing to carry out these
       decrees, M. de Freycinet was forced to resign, and was
       succeeded as prime minister by M. Ferry, under whose orders
       the decrees were executed in October and November,
       establishments of the Jesuits and others, to the number of
       nearly 300, being forcibly closed and their inmates dispersed.
       Laws were also passed in the same year and in 1881 for the
       extension of public education, and a general amnesty
       proclaimed for persons engaged in the insurrection of the
       commune. In April and May, 1881, on pretext of chastising
       tribes on the Tunisian frontier of Algeria, who had committed
       depredations on the French territories in Northern Africa, a
       military force from Algeria entered Tunis, occupied the
       capital, and forced the Bey to sign a treaty by which he put
       himself and his country under the protectorate of France. ...
    {1395}
       The elections, in August, resulted in a Chamber composed of
       467 Republicans, 47 Bonapartists, and 43 Royalists, whereas
       its predecessor had consisted of 387 Republicans, 81
       Bonapartists, and 61 Royalists. In response to a general
       demand, M. Gambetta became prime minister on the meeting of
       the new Assembly in the autumn. ... But his measures failed to
       receive the support of the Chamber, and he was forced to
       resign after having held the office of prime minister but two
       months and a half (January, 1882). On the last day of that
       year M. Gambetta, still the most eminent French statesman of
       the time, died at Paris, aged forty-four. ... The death of
       Gambetta aroused the Monarchists to renewed activity. Prince
       Napoleon issued a violent manifesto, and was arrested. Bills
       were brought in which were designed to exclude from the soil
       of France and of French possessions all members of families
       formerly reigning in France. Finally, however, after a
       prolonged contest, a decree suspending the dukes of Aumale,
       Chartres, and Alençon from their functions in the army was
       signed by the President. Some months later, August, 1883, the
       Count of Chambord ('Henry V.') died at Frohsdorf; by this
       event the elder branch of the house of Bourbon became extinct
       and the claims urged by both Legitimists and Orleanists were
       united in the person of the Count of Paris. During the year
       1882 alleged encroachments upon French privileges and
       interests in the northwestern portion of Madagascar had
       embroiled France in conflict with the Hovas, the leading tribe
       of that island. The French admiral commanding the squadron in
       the Indian Ocean demanded in 1883 the placing of the
       northwestern part of the island under a French protectorate,
       and the payment of a large indemnity. These terms being
       refused by the queen of the Hovas, Tamatave was bombarded and
       occupied, and desultory operations continued until the summer
       of 1883, when an expedition of the Hovas resulted in a signal
       defeat of the French. A treaty was then negotiated, in
       accordance with which the foreign relations of the island were
       put under the control of France, while the queen of Madagascar
       retained the control of internal affairs and paid certain
       claims. A treaty executed in 1874 between the emperor of Annam
       and the French had conceded to the latter a protectorate over
       that country. His failure completely to carry out his
       agreement, and the presence of Chinese troops in Tonquin, were
       regarded as threatening the security of the French colony of
       Cochin China. A small expedition sent out [1882] under
       Commander Rivière to enforce the provision of the treaty was
       destroyed at Hanoi. Reinforcements were sent out. But the
       situation was complicated by the presence of bands of 'Black
       Flags,' brigands said to be unauthorized by the Annam
       government, and by claims on the part of China to a suzerainty
       over Tonquin. A treaty was made with Annam in August, 1883,
       providing for the cession of a province to France, and the
       establishment of a French protectorate over Annam and Tonquin.
       This, however, did not by any means wholly conclude
       hostilities in that province. Sontay was taken from the Black
       Flags in December, and Bacninh occupied in March, 1884. The
       advance of the French into regions over which China claimed
       suzerainty, and which were occupied by Chinese troops, brought
       on hostilities with that empire. In August, 1884, Admiral
       Courbet destroyed the Chinese fleet and arsenal at Foo-chow;
       in October he seized points on the northern end of the island
       of Formosa, and proclaimed a blockade of that portion of the
       island. On the frontier between Tonquin and China the French
       gained some successes, particularly in the capture of
       Lang-Sön; yet the climate, and the numbers and determination
       of the Chinese troops, rendered it impossible for them to
       secure substantial results from victories. Finally, after a
       desultory and destructive war, a treaty was signed in June,
       1885, which arranged that Formosa should be evacuated, that
       Annam should in future have no diplomatic relations except
       through France, and that France should have virtually complete
       control over both it and Tonquin, though the question of
       Chinese suzerainty was left unsettled. ... It was not felt
       that the expeditions against Madagascar, Annam, and China had
       achieved brilliant success. They had, moreover, been a source
       of much expense to France; at first popular, they finally
       caused the downfall of the ministry which ordered them. That
       ministry, the ministry of M. Jules Ferry, ... remained in
       power an unusual length of time,--a little more than two
       years. Its principal achievement in domestic affairs consisted
       in bringing about the revision of the constitution, which,
       framed by the Versailles Assembly in 1875, was felt by many to
       contain an excessive number of Monarchical elements. ... In
       1885, after the fall of the Ferry cabinet, a law was passed
       providing for scrutin de liste; each department being entitled
       to a number of deputies proportioned to the number of its
       citizens, the deputies for each were to be chosen on a general
       or departmental ticket. In the same year a law was passed
       declaring ineligible to the office of President of the
       Republic, senator or deputy, any prince of families formerly
       reigning in France. ... In December the National Assembly
       re-elected M. Grévy President of the Republic. In the ministry
       led by M. de Freycinet, which held office during the year 1886,
       great prominence was attained by the minister of war, General
       Boulanger, whose management of his department and political
       conduct won him great popularity. ... The increasing activity
       of the agents of the Monarchist party, the strength which that
       party had shown in the elections of the preceding year, and
       the demonstrations which attended the marriage of the daughter
       of the Count of Paris to the crown prince of Portugal, incited
       the Republican leaders to more stringent measures against the
       princes of houses formerly reigning in France. The government
       was intrusted by law with discretionary power to expel them
       all from France, and definitely charged to expel actual
       Claimants of the throne and their direct heirs. The Count of
       Paris and his son the Duke of Orleans, Prince Napoleon and his
       son Prince Victor, were accordingly banished by presidential
       decree in June, 1886. General Boulanger struck off from the
       army-roll the names of all princes of the Bonaparte and
       Bourbon families. The Duke of Aumale, indignantly protesting,
       was also banished; in the spring of 1889 he was permitted to
       return. Meanwhile, within the Republican ranks, dissensions
       increased. The popularity of General Boulanger became more and
       more threatening to the cabinets of which he was a member. An
       agitation in his favor, conducted with much skill, caused fear
       lest he were aspiring to a military dictatorship
       of France. ...
    {1396}
       In the autumn of 1887, an inquiry into the conduct of General
       Caffarel, deputy to the commander-in-chief, accused of selling
       decorations, implicated by Daniel Wilson, son-in-law of M.
       Grévy, who was alleged to have undertaken to obtain
       appointments to office and lucrative contracts in return for
       money. M. Grévy's unwise attempts to shield his son-in-law
       brought about his own fall. The chambers, determined to force
       his resignation, refused to accept any ministry proposed by
       him. After much resistance and irritating delays he submitted,
       and resigned the presidency of the Republic on December 2,
       1887. On the next day the houses met in National Assembly at
       Versailles to chose the successor of M. Grévy. ... The most
       prominent candidates for the Republicans were M. Ferry and M.
       de Freycinet; the former, however, was unpopular with the
       country. The followers of both, finding their election
       impossible, resolved to cast their votes for M. Sadi Carnot, a
       Republican of the highest integrity and universally respected.
       M. Carnot, a distinguished engineer, grandson of the Carnot
       who had, as minister of war, organized the victories of the
       armies of the Revolution, was accordingly elected President of
       the French Republic. ... The chief difficulties encountered by
       the cabinet arose out of the active propagandism exercised in
       behalf of General Boulanger. ... His name ... became the
       rallying-point of those who were hostile to the parliamentary
       system, or to the Republican government in its present form.
       Alarmed both by his singular popularity and by his political
       intrigues, the government instituted a prosecution of him
       before the High Court of Justice; upon this he fled from the
       country, and the dangers of the agitation in his favor were,
       for the time at least, quieted. On May 5, 1889, the
       one-hundredth anniversary of the assembly of the
       States-General was held at Versailles. On the next day,
       President Carnot formally opened the Universal Exhibition at
       Paris, the greatest of the world's fairs which have been held
       in that city."

          V. Duruy,
          History of France,
          pages 666-677.

          ALSO IN:
          H. C. Lockwood,
          Constitutional History of France,
          chapter 7, and appendix 10.

          J. G. Scott,
          France and Tonkin.

          F. T. Marzials,
          Life of Gambetta.

          E. W. Latimer,
          France in the 19th Century,
          chapters 18-20.

          Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
          Science, March, 1893, supplement.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1877-1882.
       Anglo-French control of Egyptian finances.

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882 and 1882-1883.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1884-1885.
       Territorial claims in Africa.
       The Berlin Conference.

          See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1892-1893.
       The Panama Canal scandal.

          See PANAMA CANAL.

    FRANCE: A. D. 1893.
       Election of Deputies.

       Elections for a new Chamber of Deputies were held in France,
       ending on Sunday, September 3, 1893. The resulting division of
       parties in the Chamber is stated as follows: "Opportunists
       [those, that is, who would shape political action by
       circumstances--by opportunities--and not by hard and fast
       principles], 292; Converted Monarchists [who accept the
       Republic as a fixed fact], 35; Unconverted Monarchists, 58;
       and Radicals, including Socialists, 187. As the Converted
       Monarchists will vote with the Government, there will be a
       heavy Government majority to begin with; but ... it is not
       perfectly reliable, and is singularly deficient in marked
       men."

          Spectator, Sept. 9, 1893.

    ----------FRANCE: End----------

    FRANCESCO MARIA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1521-1535.

    FRANCESCO SFORZA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1450-1466.

    FRANCHE COMTÉ.

       In the dissolution of the last kingdom of Burgundy (see
       BURGUNDY, THE LAST KINGDOM: A. D. 1032), its northern part
       maintained a connection with the Empire, which had then become
       Germanic, much longer than the southern. It became divided
       into two chief states--the County Palatine of Burgundy, known
       afterwards as Franche Comté, or the "free county," and Lesser
       Burgundy, which embraced western Switzerland and northern
       Savoy. "The County Palatine of Burgundy often passed from one
       dynasty to another, and it is remarkable for the number of
       times that it was held as a separate state by several of the
       great princes of Europe. It was held by the Emperor Frederick
       Barbarossa in right of his wife; the marriage of one of his
       female descendants carried it to Philip the Fifth of France.
       Then it became united with the French duchy of Burgundy under
       the dukes of the House of Valois. Saving a momentary French
       occupation after the death of Charles the Bold, it remained
       with them and their Austrian and Spanish representatives. ...
       But, through all these changes of dynasty, it remained an
       acknowledged fief of the Empire, till its annexation to France
       under Lewis the Fourteenth. The capital of this county, it
       must be remembered, was Dole. The ecclesiastical metropolis of
       Besançon, though surrounded by the county, remained a free
       city of the Empire from the days of Frederick Barbarossa [A.
       D. 1152-1190] to those of Ferdinand the Third [A. D.
       1637-1657]. It was then merged in the county, and along with
       the county it passed to France."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 8, section 5.

    FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1512.
       Included in the Circle of Burgundy.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

    FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1648.
       Still held to form a part of the Empire.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

    FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1659.
       Secured to Spain.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1674.
       Final conquest by Louis XIV. and incorporation with France.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678;
          also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

    ----------FRANCHE COMTÉ: End----------

    FRANCHISE, Elective, in England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

    FRANCIA, Doctor, The dictatorship of.

          See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

    FRANCIA.

          See FRANCE: 9TH CENTURY.
          also, GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

    FRANCIS
       (called Phœbus), King of Navarre, A. D. 1479-1503.

       Francis I. (of Lorraine), Germanic Emperor, 1745-1765.

       Francis I., King of France, 1515-1547.

       Francis I., King of Naples or the Two Sicilies, 1825-1830.

       Francis II.,
          Germanic Emperor, 1792-1806;
          Emperor of Austria, 1806-1835;
          King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1792-1835.

       Francis II., King of France, 1559-1560.

       Francis II., King of Naples or the Two Sicilies,
       A. D. 1859-18.61.

       Francis Joseph I., Emperor of Austria, 1848;

       King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1848-.

    {1397}

    FRANCISCANS.

          See MENDICANT ORDERS,
          also, BEGUINES, ETC.

    FRANCO-GERMAN, OR FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR, The.

          See FRANCE: A.. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY), to 1870-1871.

    FRANCONIA: The Duchy and the Circle.

       "Among the great duchies [of the old Germanic kingdom or
       empire of the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries], that of
       Eastern Francia, Franken, or Franconia, is of much less
       importance in European history than that of Saxony. It gave
       the ducal title to the bishops of Würzburg; but it cannot be
       said to be in any sense continued in any modern state. Its
       name gradually retreated, and the circle of Franken or
       Franconia took in only the most eastern part of the ancient
       duchy.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1493--1519.

       The western and northern part of the duchy, together with a
       good deal of territory which was strictly Lotharingian, became
       part of the two Rhenish circles. Thus Fulda, the greatest of
       German abbeys, passed away from the Frankish name. In
       north-eastern Francia, the Hessian principalities grew up to
       the north-west. Within the Franconian circle lay Würzburg, the
       see of the bishops who bore the ducal title, the other great
       bishopric of Bamberg, together with the free city of Nürnberg,
       and various smaller principalities. In the Rhenish lands, both
       within and without the old Francia, one chief characteristic
       is the predominance of the ecclesiastical principalities,
       Mainz, Köln, Worms, Speyer, and Strassburg. The chief temporal
       power which arose in this region was the Palatinate of the
       Rhine, a power which, like others, went through many unions
       and divisions, and spread into four circles, those of Upper
       and Lower Rhine, Westfalia and Bavaria. This last district,
       though united with the Palatine Electorate, was, from the
       early part of the fourteenth century, distinguished from the
       Palatinate of the Rhine as the Oberpfalz or Upper Palatinate."

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 8, section 1.

          See, also,
          ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

    FRANCONIA, The Electorate of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

    FRANCONIAN OR SALIC IMPERIAL HOUSE.

       The emperors, Conrad II., Henry III., Henry IV., and Henry V.,
       who reigned from 1024 until 1125, over the Germanic-Roman or
       Holy Roman Empire, were of the Salic or Franconian house.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 973--1122.

    FRANKALMOIGN.

          See FEUDAL TENURES.

    FRANKFORT, Treaty of.
          See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

    FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN, Origin of.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

    FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1287.
       Declared an imperial city.

          See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

    FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1525.
       Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

    FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1744.
       The "Union" formed by Frederick the Great.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

    FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1759.
       Surprised by the French.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).

    FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1801-1803.
       One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

    FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1806.
       Loss of municipal freedom.
       Transfer, as a grand duchy, to the ancient Elector of Mayence.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

    FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1810.
       Erected into a grand duchy by Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

    FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1810-1815.
       Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

          See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
          and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1848-1849.
       Meeting of the German National Assembly.
       Its work, its failure, and its end.
       Riotous outbreak in the city.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER)
          and 1848-1850.

    FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1866.
       Absorption by Prussia.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

    ----------FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: End----------

    FRANKLIN, Benjamin, and the early American Press.

          See PRINTING: A. D. 1704-1729.

    FRANKLIN, Benjamin: His plan of Union in 1754.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

    FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
       Colonial representative in England.
       Return to America.

          See PENNSYLVANIA: A.D. 1757-1762;
          and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1765-1768, 1766, 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH),
          and (APRIL-JUNE).

    FRANKLIN, Benjamin: Signing of the Declaration of Independence.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

    FRANKLIN, Benjamin: Mission to France:

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776-1778, 1778 (FEBRUARY),
          1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

    FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
       Framing of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

    FRANKLIN, The ephemeral state of.

          See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785;
          and 1785-1796.

    FRANKLIN, Tennessee, Battles at and near.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE),
          and 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

    FRANKLIN, OR FRANKLEYN, The.

       "'There is scarce a small village,' says Sir John Fortescue
       [15th century] 'in which you may not find a knight, an
       esquire, or some substantial householder (paterfamilias)
       commonly called a frankleyn, possessed of considerable estate;
       besides others who are called freeholders, and many yeomen of
       estate sufficient to make a substantial jury.' ... By a
       frankleyn in this place we are to understand what we call a
       country squire, like the frankleyn of Chaucer; for the word
       esquire in Fortescue's time was only used in its limited
       sense, for the sons of peers and knights, or such as had
       obtained the title by creation or some other legal means."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 8, part 3, with note (volume 3).

    FRANKPLEDGE.

       An old English law required all men to combine in associations
       of ten, and to become standing sureties for one another,
       --which was called "frankpledge."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          chapter 5, section 41.

    {1398}

    FRANKS: Origin and earliest history.

       "It is well known that the name of 'Frank' is not to be found
       in the long list of German tribes preserved to us in the
       'Germania' of Tacitus. Little or nothing is heard of them
       before the reign of Gordian III. In A. D. 240 Aurelian, then a
       tribune of the sixth legion stationed on the Rhine, encountered a
       body of marauding Franks near Mayence and drove them back into
       their marshes. The word 'Francia' is also found at a still
       earlier date, in the old Roman chart called the 'Charta
       Peutingeria,' and occupies on the map the right bank of the
       Rhine from opposite Coblentz to the sea. The origin of the
       Franks has been the subject of frequent debate, to which
       French patriotism has occasionally lent some asperity. ... At
       the present day, however, historians of every nation,
       including the French, are unanimous in considering the Franks
       as a powerful confederacy of German tribes, who in the time of
       Tacitus inhabited the north-western parts of Germany bordering
       on the Rhine. And this theory is so well supported by many
       scattered notices, slight in themselves, but powerful when
       combined, that we can only wonder that it should ever have
       been called in question. Nor was this aggregation of tribes
       under the new name of Franks a singular instance; the same
       took place in the case of the Alemanni and Saxons. ... The
       etymology of the name adopted by the new confederacy is also
       uncertain. The conjecture which has most probability in its
       favour is that adopted long ago by Gibbon, and confirmed in
       recent times by the authority of Grimm, which connects it with
       the German word Frank (free). ... Tacitus speaks of nearly all
       the tribes, whose various appellations were afterwards merged
       in that of Frank, as living in the neighbourhood of the Rhine.
       Of these the principal were the Sicambri (the chief people of
       the old Iscævonian tribe), who, as there is reason to believe,
       were identical with the Salian Franks. The confederation
       further comprised the Bructeri, the Chamavi, Ansibarii,
       Tubantes, Marsi, and Chasuarii, of whom the five last had
       formerly belonged to the celebrated Cheruscan league, which,
       under the hero Arminius, destroyed three Roman legions in the
       Teutoburgian Forest. The strongest evidence of the identity of
       these tribes with the Franks, is the fact that, long after
       their settlement in Gaul, the distinctive names of the
       original people were still occasionally used as synonymous
       with that of the confederation. ... The Franks advanced upon
       Gaul from two different directions, and under the different
       names of Salians, and Ripuarians, the former of whom we have
       reason to connect more particularly with the Sicambrian tribe.
       The origin of the words Salian and Ripuarian, which are first
       used respectively by Ammianus Marcellinus and Jornandes, is
       very obscure, and has served to exercise the ingenuity of
       ethnographers. There are, however, no sufficient grounds for a
       decided opinion. At the same time it is by no means improbable
       that the river Yssel, Isala or Sal (for it has borne all these
       appellations), may have given its name to that portion of the
       Franks who lived along its course. With still greater
       probability may the name Ripuarii, or Riparii, be derived from
       'Ripa,' a term used by the Romans to signify the Rhine. These
       dwellers on 'the Bank' were those that remained in their
       ancient settlements while their Salian kinsmen were advancing
       into the heart of Gaul."

          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 3, chapters 9 and 11.

          T. Smith,
          Arminius,
          part 2, chapter 3.

    FRANKS: A. D. 253.
       First appearance in the Roman world.

       "When in the year 253 the different generals of Rome were once
       more fighting each other for the imperial dignity, and the
       Rhine-legions marched to Italy to fight out the cause of their
       emperor Valerianus against ... Aemilianus of the Danube-army,
       this seems to have been the signal for the Germans pushing
       forward, especially towards the lower Rhine. These Germans
       were the Franks, who appear here for the first time, perhaps
       new opponents only in name; for, although the identification
       of them, already to be met with in later antiquity, with
       tribes formerly named on the lower Rhine--partly, the Chamavi
       settled beside the Bructeri, partly the Sugambri formerly
       mentioned subject to the Romans--is uncertain and at least
       inadequate, there is here greater probability than in the case
       of the Alamanni that the Germans hitherto dependent on Rome, on
       the right bank of the Rhine, and the Germanic tribes
       previously dislodged from the Rhine, took at that time--under
       the collective name of the 'Free'--the offensive in concert
       against the Romans."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 4.

    FRANKS: A. D. 277.
       Repulse from Gaul, by Probus.

          See GAUL: A. D. 277.

    FRANKS: A. D. 279.
       Escape from Pontus.

          See SYRACUSE: A. D. 279.

    FRANKS: A. D. 295-297.
       In Britain.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

    FRANKS: A. D. 306.
       Defeat by Constantine.

       Constantine the Great, A. D. 306, fought and defeated the
       Salian Franks in a great battle and "carried off a large
       number of captives to Treves, the chief residence of the
       emperor, and a rival of Rome itself in the splendour of its
       public buildings. It was in the circus of this city, and in
       the presence of Constantine, that the notorious 'Ludi
       Francici' were celebrated; at which several thousand Franks,
       including their kings Regaisus and Ascaricus, were compelled
       to fight with wild beasts, to the inexpressible delight of the
       Christian spectators."

          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 2.

    FRANKS: A. D. 355.
       Settlement in Toxandria.

          See GAUL: A. D. 355-361;
          also, TOXANDRIA.

    FRANKS: 5th-10th Centuries.
       Barbarities of the conquest of Gaul.
       State of society under the rule of the conquerors.
       Evolution of Feudalism.

          See GAUL: 5TH-8TH, and 5TH-10TH CENTURIES.

    FRANKS: A. D. 406-409.
       Defense of Roman Gaul.

          See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

    FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.
       The Franks join in the attack on Gaul.

       After vainly opposing the entrance of Vandals, Burgundians and
       Sueves into Gaul, A. D. 406, "the Franks, the valiant and
       faithful allies of the Roman republic, were soon [about A. D.
       410-420] tempted to imitate the invaders whom they had so
       bravely resisted. Treves, the capital of Gaul, was pillaged by
       their lawless bands; and the humble colony which they so long
       maintained in the district of Toxandria, in Brabant,
       insensibly multiplied along the banks of the Meuse and
       Scheldt, till their independent power filled the whole extent
       of the Second, or Lower, Germany. ... The ruin of the opulent
       provinces of Gaul may be dated from the establishment of these
       barbarians, whose alliance was dangerous and oppressive, and
       who were capriciously impelled, by interest or passion, to
       violate the public peace."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 31.

    {1399}

       "They [the Franks] resisted the great invasion of the Vandals
       in the time of Stilicho, but did not scruple to take part in
       the subsequent ravages. Among the confusions of that
       disastrous period, indeed, it is not improbable that they
       seized the cities of Spires, Strasburg, Amiens, Arras,
       Therouane and Tournai, and by their assaults on Trèves
       compelled the removal of the præfectural government to Arles.
       Chroniclers who flourished two centuries later refer to the
       year 418 large and permanent conquests in Gaul by a visionary
       king called Pharamund, from whom the French monarchy is
       usually dated. But history seeks in vain for any authentic
       marks of his performances."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 3, chapter 11, section 5.

    FRANKS: A. D. 448-456.
       Origin of the Merovingian dynasty.

       The royal dynasty of the kingdom of the Franks as founded by
       Clovis is called the Merovingian. "It is thought that the
       kings of the different Frankish people were all of the same
       family, of which the primitive ancestor was Meroveus
       (Meer-wig, warrior of the sea). After him those princes were
       called Merovingians (Meer-wings); they were distinguished by
       their long hair, which they never cut. A Meroveus, grandfather
       of Clovis, reigned, it is said, over the Franks between 448
       and 456; but only his name remains, in some antient
       historians, and we know absolutely nothing more either of his
       family, his power, or of the tribe which obeyed him: so that
       we see no reason why his descendants had taken his name. ...
       The Franks appear in history for the first time in the year
       241. Some great captain only could, at this period, unite
       twenty different people in a new confederation; this chief
       was, apparently, the Meroveus, whose name appeared for such a
       long time as a title of glory for his descendants, although
       tradition has not preserved any trace of his victories."

          J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
          The French under the Merovingians,
          chapter 3.

    FRANKS: A. D. 451.
       At the battle of Châlons.

          See HUNS: A. D. 451.

    FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
       The kingdom of Clovis.

       "The Salian Franks had ... associated a Roman or a Romanized
       Gaul, Aegidius, with their native chief in the leadership of
       the tribe. But, in the year 481, the native leadership passed
       into the hands of a chief who would not endure a Roman
       colleague, or the narrow limits within which, in the general
       turmoil of the world, his tribe was cramped. He is known to
       history by the name of Clovis, or Chlodvig, which through many
       transformations, became the later Ludwig and Louis. Clovis
       soon made himself feared as the most ambitious, the most
       unscrupulous, and the most energetic of the new Teutonic
       founders of states. Ten years after the fall of the Western
       empire [which was in 476], seven years before the rise of the
       Gothic kingdom of Theoderic, Clovis challenged the Roman
       patrician, Syagrius of Soissons, who had succeeded to
       Aegidius, defeated him in a pitched field, at Nogent, near
       Soissons (486), and finally crushed Latin rivalry in northern
       Gaul. Ten years later (496), in another famous battle, Tolbiac
       (Zülpich), near Cologne, he also crushed Teutonic rivalry, and
       established his supremacy over the kindred Alamanni of the
       Upper Rhine. Then he turned himself with bitter hostility
       against the Gothic power in Gaul. The Franks hated the Goths,
       as the ruder and fiercer of the same stock hate those who are
       a degree above them in the arts of peace, and are supposed to
       be below them in courage and the pursuits of war. There was
       another cause of antipathy. The Goths were zealous Arians; and
       Clovis, under the influence of his wife Clotildis, the niece
       of the Burgundian Gundobad, and in consequence, it is said, of
       a vow made in battle at Tolbiac, had received Catholic baptism
       from St. Remigius of Rheims.

          See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.

       The Frank king threw his sword into the scale against the
       Arian cause, and became the champion and hope of the Catholic
       population all over Gaul. Clovis was victorious. He crippled
       the Burgundian kingdom (500), which was finally destroyed by
       his sons (534). In a battle near Poitiers, he broke the power
       of the West Goths in Gaul; he drove them out of Aquitaine,
       leaving them but a narrow slip of coast, to seek their last
       settlement and resting-place in Spain; and, when he died, he
       was recognized by all the world, by Theoderic, by the Eastern
       emperor, who honoured him with the title of the consulship, as
       the master of Gaul. Nor was his a temporary conquest. The
       kingdom of the West Goths and the Burgundians had become the
       kingdom of the Franks. The invaders had at length arrived who
       were to remain. It was decided that the Franks, and not the
       Goths, were to direct the future destinies of Gaul and
       Germany, and that the Catholic faith, and not Arianism, was to
       be the religion of these great realms."

          R. W. Church,
          Beginning of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 2.

          J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
          The French under the Merovingians,
          translated by Bellingham,
          chapters 4-5.

          See, also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

    FRANKS: A. D. 481-768.
       Supremacy in Germany, before Charlemagne.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

    FRANKS: A. D. 496.
       Conversion to Christianity.

          See above: A. D. 481-511;
          also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

    FRANKS: A. D. 496-504.
       Overthrow of the Alemanni.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
          also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500.

    FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
       The house of Clovis.
       Ascendancy of the Austrasian Mayors of the Palace.

       On the death of Clovis, his dominion, or, speaking more
       strictly, the kingly office in his dominion, was divided among
       his four sons, who were lads, then, ranging in age from twelve
       to eighteen. The eldest reigned in Metz, the second at
       Orleans, the third in Paris, and the youngest at Soissons.
       These princes extended the conquests of their father, subduing
       the Thuringians (A. D. 515-528), overthrowing the kingdom of
       the Burgundians (A. D. 523-534), diminishing the possessions
       of the Visigoths in Gaul (A. D. 531-532), acquiring Provence
       from the Ostrogoths of Italy and securing from the Emperor
       Justinian a clear Roman-imperial title to the whole of Gaul.
       The last survivor of the four brother-kings, Clotaire I.,
       reunited the whole Frank empire under his own sceptre, and on
       his death, A. D. 561, it was again divided among his four
       sons. Six years later, on the death of the elder, it was
       redivided among the three survivors. Neustria fell to
       Chilperic, whose capital was at Soissons, Austrasia to
       Sigebert, who reigned at Metz, and Burgundia to Guntram, who
       had his seat of government at Orleans. Each of the kings took
       additionally a third of Aquitaine, and Provence was shared
       between Sigebert and Guntram. "It was agreed on this occasion
       that Paris, which was rising into great importance, should be
       held in common by all, but visited by none of the three kings
       without the consent of the others." The reign of these three
       brothers and their sons, from 561 to 613, was one long
       revolting tragedy of civil war, murder, lust, and treachery,
       made horribly interesting by the rival careers of the evil
       Fredegunda and the great unfortunate Brunhilda, queens of
       Neustria and Austrasia, respectively.
    {1400}
       In 613 a second Clotaire surviving his royal kin, united the
       Frank monarchy once more under a single crown. But power was
       fast slipping from the hands of the feeble creature who wore
       the crown, and passing to that one of his ministers who
       succeeded in making himself the representative of
       royalty--namely, the Mayor of the Palace. There was a little
       stir of energy in his son, Dagobert, but from generation to
       generation, after him, the Merovingian kings sank lower into
       that character which gave them the name of the fainéant kings
       ("rois fainéans")--the slothful or lazy kings--while the
       mayors of the palace ruled vigorously in their name and
       tumbled them, at last, from the throne. "While the Merovingian
       race in its decline is notorious in history as having produced
       an unexampled number of imbecile monarchs, the family which
       was destined to supplant them was no less wonderfully prolific
       in warriors and statesmen of the highest class. It is not
       often that great endowments are transmitted even from father
       to sou, but the line from which Charlemagne sprang presents to
       our admiring gaze an almost uninterrupted succession of five
       remarkable men, within little more than a single century. Of
       these the first three held the mayoralty of Austrasia [Pepin
       of Landen, Pepin of Heristal, and Carl, or Charles Martel, the
       Hammer]; and it was they who prevented the permanent
       establishment of absolute power on the Roman model, and
       secured to the German population of Austrasia an abiding
       victory over that amalgam of degraded Romans and corrupted
       Gauls which threatened to leaven the European world. To them,
       under Providence, we owe it that the centre of Europe is at
       this day German, and not Gallo-Latin." Pepin of Heristal,
       Mayor in Austrasia, broke the power of a rival Neustrian
       family in a decisive battle fought near the village of Testri,
       A. D. 687, and gathered the reins of the three kingdoms
       (Burgundy included) into his own hands. His still more
       vigorous son, Charles Martel, won the same ascendancy for
       himself afresh, after a struggle which was signalized by three
       sanguinary battles, at Amblève (A. D. 716), at Vinci, near
       Cambrai (717) and at Soissons (718). When firm in power at
       home, he turned his arms against the Frisians and the
       Bavarians, whom he subdued, and against the obstinate Saxons,
       whose country he harried six times without bringing them to
       submission. His great exploit in war, however, was the repulse
       of the invading Arabs and Moors, on the memorable battle-field
       of Tours (A. D.732), where the wave of Mahommedan invasion was
       rolled back in western Europe, never to advance beyond the
       Pyrenees again. Karl died in 741, leaving three sons, among
       whom his power was, in the Frank fashion, divided. But one of
       them resigned, in a few years, his sovereignty, to become a
       monk; another was deposed, and the third, Pepin, surnamed "The
       Little," or "The Short," became supreme. He contented himself, as
       his father, his grandfather, and his great grandfather had
       done, with the title of Mayor of the Palace, until 752, when,
       with the approval of the Pope and by the act of a great
       assembly of leudes and bishops at Soissons, he was lifted on
       the shield and crowned and anointed king of the Franks, while
       the last of the Merovingians was shorn of his long royal locks
       and placed in a monastery. The friendliness of the Pope in this
       matter was the result and the cementation of an alliance which
       bore important fruits. As the champion of the church, Pepin
       made war on the Lombards and conquered for the Papacy the
       first of its temporal dominions in Italy. In his own realm, he
       completed the expulsion of the Moors from Septimania, crushed
       an obstinate revolt in Aquitaine, and gave a firm footing to
       the two thrones which, when he died in 768, he left to his
       sons, Carl and Carloman, and which became in a few years the
       single throne of one vast empire, under Carl--Carl the Great--
       Charlemagne.

          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapters 3-6.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapters 12-15.

          J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
          The French under the Merovingians,
          chapters 6-13.

          See, also,
          AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, and MAYOR OF THE PALACE.

    FRANKS: A. D. 528.
       Conquest of Thuringia.

          See THURINGIANS, THE.

    FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.
       Invasion of Italy.
       Formal relinquishment of Gaul to them.

       During the Gothic war in Italy,--when Belisarius was
       reconquering the cradle of the Roman Empire for the Eastern
       Empire which still called itself Roman, although its seat was
       at Constantinople,--both sides solicited the help of the
       Franks. Theudebert, who reigned at Metz, promised his aid to
       both, and kept his word. "He advanced [A. D. 539, with 100,000
       men] toward Pavia, where the Greeks and Goths were met, about
       to encounter, and, with an unexpected impartiality, attacked
       the astonished Goths, whom he drove to Ravenna, and then,
       while the Greeks were yet rejoicing over his performance, fell
       upon them with merciless fury, and dispersed them through
       Tuscany." Theudebert now became fired with an ambition to
       conquer all Italy; but his savage army destroyed everything in
       its path so recklessly, and pursued so unbridled a course,
       that famine and pestilence soon compelled a retreat and only
       one-third of its original number recrossed the Alps.
       Notwithstanding, this treachery, the emperor Justinian renewed
       his offers of alliance with the Franks (A.D. 540), and
       "pledged to them, as the price of their fidelity to his cause,
       besides the usual subsidies, the relinquishment of every
       lingering claim, real or pretended, which the empire might
       assert to the sovereignty of the Gauls. The Franks accepted
       the terms, and 'from that time,' say the Byzantine
       authorities, 'the German chiefs presided at the games of the
       circus, and struck money no longer, as usual, with the effigy
       of the emperors, but with their own image and superscription.
       Theudebert, who was the principal agent of these transactions,
       if he ratified the provisions of the treaty, did not fulfill
       them in person, but satisfied himself with sending a few
       tributaries to the aid of his ally. But his first example
       proved to be more powerful than his later, and large swarms of
       Germans took advantage of the troubles in Italy to overrun the
       country and plunder and slay at will. For twelve years, under
       various leaders, but chiefly under two brothers of the
       Alemans, Lutherr and Bukhelin, they continued to harass the
       unhappy object of all barbaric resentments, till the sword of
       Narses finally exterminated them [A. D. 553]."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 3, chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 41.

    {1401}

    FRANKS: A. D. 547.
       Subjugation of Bavarians and Alemanni.

          See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.

    FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.
       Charlemagne, Emperor of the Romans.

       As a crowned dynasty, the Carlovingians or Carolingians or
       Carlings begin their history with Pepin the Short. As an
       established sovereign house, they find their founder in 'King
       Pepin's father, the great palace mayor, Carl, or Charles
       Martel, if not in his grandfather, Pepin Heristal. But the
       imperial splendor of the house came to it from the second of
       its kings, whom the French call 'Charlemagne,' but whom
       English readers ought to know as Charles the Great. The French
       form of the name has been always tending to represent
       'Charlemagne' as a king of France, and modern historians
       object to it for that reason. "France, as it was to be and as
       we know it, had not come into existence in his [Charlemagne's]
       days. What was to be the France of history was then but one
       province of the Frank kingdom, and one with which Charles was
       personally least connected. ... Charles, king of the Franks,
       was, above all things, a German. ... It is entirely to mistake
       his place and his work to consider him in the light of a
       specially 'French' king, a predecessor of the kings who
       reigned at Paris and brought glory upon France. ... Charles
       did nothing to make modern France. The Frank power on which he
       rose to the empire was in those days still mainly German; and
       his characteristic work was to lay the foundations of modern
       and civilized Germany, and, indirectly, of the new
       commonwealth of nations, which was to arise in the West of
       Europe."

          R. W. Church,
          The Beginnings of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 7.

       "At the death of King Pippin the kingdom of the Franks was
       divided into two parts, or rather ... the government over the
       kingdom was divided, for some large parts of the territory
       seem to have been in the hands of the two brothers together.
       The fact is, that we know next to nothing about this division,
       and hardly more about the joint reign of the brothers. The
       only thing really clear is, that they did not get along very
       well together, that Karl was distinctly the more active and
       capable of the two, and that after four years the younger
       brother, Karlmann, died, leaving two sons. Here was a chance
       for the old miseries of division to begin again; but
       fortunately the Franks seem by this time to have had enough of
       that, and to have seen that their greatest hope for the future
       lay in a united government. The widow and children of Karlmann
       went to the court of the Lombard king Desiderius and were
       cared for by him. The whole Frankish people acknowledged
       Charlemagne as their king. Of course he was not yet called
       Charlemagne, but simply Karl, and he was yet to show himself
       worthy of the addition 'Magnus.' ... The settlement of Saxony
       went on, with occasional military episodes, by the slower, but
       more certain, processes of education and religious conversion.
       It appears to us to be anything but wise to force a religion
       upon a people at the point of the sword; but the singular fact
       is, that in two generations there was no more truly devout
       Christian people, according to the standards of the time, than
       just these same Saxons. A little more than a hundred years
       from the time when Charlemagne had thrashed the nation into
       unwilling acceptance of Frankish control, the crown of the
       Empire he founded was set upon the head of a Saxon prince. The
       progress in friendly relations between the two peoples is seen in
       the second of the great ordinances by which Saxon affairs were
       regulated. This edict, called the 'Capitulum Saxonicum,' was
       published after a great diet at Aachen, in 797, at which, we
       are told, there came together not only Franks, but also Saxon
       leaders from all parts of their country, who gave their
       approval to the new legislation. The general drift of these
       new laws is in the direction of moderation. ... The object of
       this legislation was, now that the armed resistance seemed to
       be broken, to give the Saxons a government which should be as
       nearly as possible like that of the Franks. The absolute
       respect and subjection to the Christian Church is here, as it
       was formerly, kept always in sight. The churches and
       monasteries are still to be the centres from which every
       effort at civilization is to go out. There can be no doubt
       that the real agency in this whole process was the organized
       Church. The fruit of the great alliance between Frankish
       kingdom and Roman papacy was beginning to be seen. The papacy
       was ready to sanction any act of her ally for the fair promise
       of winning the great territory of North Germany to its
       spiritual allegiance. The most solid result of the campaigns
       of Charlemagne was the founding of the great bishoprics of
       Minden, Paderborn, Verden, Bremen, Osnabrück, and Halberstadt.
       ... About these bishoprics, as, on the whole, the safest
       places, men came to settle. Roads were built to connect them;
       markets sprang up in their neighborhood; and thus gradually,
       during a development of centuries, great cities grew up, which
       came to be the homes of powerful and wealthy traders, and gave
       shape to the whole politics of the North. Saxony was become a
       part of the Frankish Empire, and all the more thoroughly so,
       because there was no royal or ducal line there which had to be
       kept in place."

          E. Emerton,
          Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 13.

       Between 768 and 800 Charlemagne extinguished the Lombard
       kingdom and made himself master of Italy, as the ally and
       patron of the Pope, bearing the old Roman title of Patrician;
       he crossed the Pyrenees, drove the Saracens southward to the
       Ebro, and added a "Spanish March" to his empire (see SPAIN: A.
       D. 778); he broke the obstinate turbulence of the Saxons, in a
       series of bloody campaigns which (see SAXONS: A. D. 772-804)
       consumed a generation; he extirpated the troublesome Avars,
       still entrenched along the Danube, and he held with an always
       firm hand the whole dominion that came to him by inheritance
       from his father. "He had won his victories with Frankish arms,
       and he had taken possession of the conquered countries in the
       name of the Frankish people. Every step which he had taken had
       been with the advice and consent of the nation assembled in
       the great meetings of the springtime, and his public documents
       carefully express the share of the nation in his great
       achievements. Saxony, Bavaria, Lombardy, Aquitaine, the
       Spanish Mark, all these great countries, lying outside the
       territory of Frankland proper, had been made a part of its
       possession by the might of his arm and the wisdom of his
       counsel. But when this had all been done, the question arose,
       by what right he should hold all this power, and secure it so
       that it should not fall apart as soon as he should be gone.
    {1402}
       As king of the Franks it was impossible that he should not
       seem to the conquered peoples, however mild and beneficent his
       rule might be, a foreign prince; and though he might be able
       to force them to follow his banner in war, and submit to his
       judgment in peace, there was still wanting the one common
       interest which should bind all these peoples, strangers to the
       Franks and to each other, into one united nation. About the
       year 800 this problem seems to have been very much before the
       mind of Charlemagne. If we look at the boundaries of his
       kingdom, reaching from the Eider in the north to the Ebro and
       the Garigliano in the south, and from the ocean in the west to
       the Elbe and the Enns in the east, we shall say as the people
       of his own time did, 'this power is Imperial.' That word may
       mean little to us, but in fact it has often in history been
       used to describe just the kind of power which Charlemagne in
       the year 800 really had. ... The idea of empire includes under
       this one term, kingdoms, duchies, or whatever powers might be
       in existence; all, however, subject to some one higher force,
       which they feel to be necessary for their support. ... But
       where was the model upon which Charlemagne might build his new
       empire? Surely nowhere but in that great Roman Empire whose
       western representative had been finally allowed to disappear
       by Odoacer the Herulian in the year 476. ... After Odoacer the
       Eastern Empire, with its capital at Constantinople, still
       lived on, and claimed for itself all the rights which had
       belonged to both parts. That Eastern Empire was still alive at
       the time of Charlemagne. We have met with it once or twice in
       our study of the Franks. Even Clovis had been tickled with the
       present of the title of Consul, sent him by the Eastern
       Emperor; and from time to time, as the Franks had meddled with
       the affairs of Italy, they had been reminded that Italy was in
       name still a part of the Imperial lands. ... But now, when
       Charlemagne himself was thinking of taking the title of
       Emperor, he found himself forced to meet squarely the
       question, whether there could be two independent Christian
       Emperors at the same time. ... On Christmas Day, in the year
       800, Charlemagne was at Rome. He had gone thither at the
       request of the Pope Leo, who had been accused of dreadful
       crimes by his enemies in the city, and had been for a time
       deprived of his office. Charlemagne had acted as judge in the
       case, and had decided in favor of Leo. According to good
       Teutonic custom, the pope had purified himself of his charges
       by a tremendous oath on the Holy Trinity, and had again
       assumed the duties of the papacy. The Christmas service was
       held in great state at St. Peter's. While Charlemagne was
       kneeling in prayer at the grave of the Apostle, the pope
       suddenly approached him, and, in the presence of all the
       people, placed upon his head a golden crown. As he did so, the
       people cried out with one voice, 'Long life and victory to
       Charles Augustus, the mighty Emperor, the Peace-bringer,
       crowned by God!' Einhard, who ought to have known, assures us
       that Charles was totally surprised by the coronation, and
       often said afterward that if he had known of the plan he would
       not have gone into the church, even upon so high a festival.
       It is altogether probable that the king had not meant to be
       crowned at just that moment and in just that way; but that he
       had never thought of such a possibility seems utterly
       incredible. By this act Charlemagne was presented to the world
       as the successor of the ancient Roman Emperors of the West,
       and so far as power was concerned, he was that. But he was
       more. His power rested, not upon any inherited ideas, but upon
       two great facts: first, he was the head of the Germanic Race;
       and second, he was the temporal head of the Christian Church.
       The new empire which he founded rested on these two
       foundations."

          E. Emerton,
          Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 14.

       The great empire which Charles labored, during all the
       remainder of his life, to organize in this Roman imperial
       character, was vast in its extent. "As an organized mass of
       provinces, regularly governed by imperial officers, it seems
       to have been nearly bounded, in Germany, by the Elbe, the
       Saale, the Bohemian mountains, and a line drawn from thence
       crossing the Danube above Vienna, and prolonged to the Gulf of
       Istria. Part of Dalmatia was comprised in the duchy of Friuli.
       In Italy the empire extended not much beyond the modern
       frontier of Naples, if we exclude, as was the fact, the duchy
       of Benevento from anything more than a titular subjection. The
       Spanish boundary ... was the Ebro."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 1, part 1.

       "The centre of his realm was the Rhine; his capitals Aachen
       [or Aix-la-Chapelle] and Engilenheim [or Ingelheim]; his army
       Frankish; his sympathies as they are shewn in the gathering of
       the old hero-lays, the composition of a German grammar, ...
       were all for the race from which he sprang. ... There were in
       his Empire, as in his own mind, two elements; those two from
       the union and mutual action and reaction of which modern
       civilization has arisen. These vast domains, reaching from the
       Ebro to the Carpathian mountains, from the Eyder to the Liris,
       were all the conquests of the Frankish sword, and were still
       governed almost exclusively by viceroys and officers of
       Frankish blood. But the conception of the Empire, that which
       made it a State and not a mere mass of subject tribes, ... was
       inherited from an older and a grander system, was not Teutonic
       but Roman--Roman in its ordered rule, in its uniformity and
       precision, in its endeavour to subject the individual to the
       system--Roman in its effort to realize a certain limited and
       human perfection, whose very completeness shall exclude the
       hope of further progress." With the death of Charles in 814
       the territorial disruption of his great empire began. "The
       returning wave of anarchy and barbarism swept up violent as
       ever, yet it could not wholly obliterate the past: the Empire,
       maimed and shattered though it was, had struck its roots too
       deep to be overthrown by force." The Teutonic part and the
       Romanized or Latinized part of the empire were broken in two,
       never to unite again; but, in another century, it was on the
       German and not the Gallo-Latin side of the line of its
       disruption that the imperial ideas and the imperial titles of
       Charlemagne came to life again, and his Teutonic Roman
       Empire--the "Holy Roman Empire," as it came to be called--was
       resurrected by Otto the Great, and established for eight
       centuries and a half of enduring influence in the politics of
       the world.

       J. Bryce,
       The Holy Roman Empire,
       chapter 5.

    {1403}

       "Gibbon has remarked, that of all the heroes to whom the title
       of 'The Great' has been given, Charlemagne alone has retained
       it as a permanent addition to his name. The reason may perhaps
       be, that in no other man were ever united, in so large a
       measure, and in such perfect harmony, the qualities which, in
       their combination, constitute the heroic character, such as
       energy, or the love of action; ambition, or the love of power;
       curiosity, or the love of knowledge; and sensibility, or the
       love of pleasure--not, indeed, the love of forbidden, of
       unhallowed, or of enervating pleasure, but the keen relish for
       those blameless delights by which the burdened mind and jaded
       spirits recruit and renovate their powers. ... For the charms
       of social intercourse, the play of a buoyant fancy, the
       exhilaration of honest mirth, and even the refreshment of
       athletic exercises, require for their perfect enjoyment that
       robust and absolute health of body and of mind which none but
       the noblest natures possess, and in the possession of which
       Charlemagne exceeded all other men. His lofty stature, his
       open countenance, his large and brilliant eyes, and the
       dome-like structure of his head, imparted, as we learn from
       Eginhard, to all his attitudes the dignity which becomes a
       king, relieved by the graceful activity of a practiced
       warrior. ... Whether he was engaged in a frolic or a chase--
       composed verses or listened to homilies--fought or
       negotiated--cast down thrones or built them up--studied,
       conversed, or legislated, it seemed as if he, and he alone,
       were the one wakeful and really living agent in the midst of
       an inert, visionary, and somnolent generation. The rank held
       by Charlemagne among great commanders was achieved far more by
       this strange and almost superhuman activity than by any
       pre-eminent proficiency in the art or science of war. He was
       seldom engaged in any general action, and never undertook any
       considerable siege, excepting that of Pavia, which, in fact,
       was little more than a protracted blockade. But, during
       forty-six years of almost unintermitted warfare, he swept over
       the whole surface of Europe, from the Ebro to the Oder, from
       Bretagne to Hungary, from Denmark to Capua, with such a
       velocity of movement, and such a decision of purpose, that no
       power, civilized or barbarous, ever provoked his resentment
       without rapidly sinking beneath his prompt and irresistible
       blows. And though it be true, as Gibbon has observed, that he
       seldom, if ever, encountered in the field a really formidable
       antagonist, it is not less true that, but for his military
       skill, animated by his sleepless energy, the countless
       assailants by whom he was encompassed must rapidly have become
       too formidable for resistance. For to Charlemagne is due the
       introduction into modern warfare of the art by which a general
       compensates for the numerical inferiority of his own forces to
       that of his antagonists--the art of moving detached bodies of
       men along remote but converging lines with such mutual concert
       as to throw their united forces at the same moment on any
       meditated point of attack. Neither the Alpine marches of
       Hannibal nor those of Napoleon were combined with greater
       foresight, or executed with greater precision, than the
       simultaneous passages of Charlemagne and Count Bernard across
       the same mountain ranges, and their ultimate union in the
       vicinity of their Lombard enemies."

          Sir J. Stephen,
          Lectures on the History of France,
          lecture 3.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 49.

          See, also,
          GERMANY: A. D. 800.

    FRANKS: A. D. 814-962.
       Dissolution of the Carolingian Empire.

       Charlemagne, at his death, was succeeded by his son Ludwig, or
       Louis the Pious--the single survivor of three sons among whom
       he had intended that his great empire should be shared. Mild
       in temper, conscientious in character, Louis reigned with
       success for sixteen years, and then lost all power of control,
       through the turbulence of his family and the disorders of his
       times. He "tried in vain to satisfy his sons (Lothar, Lewis,
       and Charles) by dividing and redividing: they rebelled; he was
       deposed, and forced by the bishops to do penance, again
       restored, but without power, a tool in the hands of contending
       factions. On his death the sons flew to arms, and the first of
       the dynastic quarrels of modern Europe was fought out on the
       field of Fontenay. In the partition treaty of Verdun [A. D.
       843] which followed, the Teutonic principle of equal division
       among heirs triumphed over the Roman one of the transmission
       of an indivisible Empire: the practical sovereignty of all
       three brothers was admitted in their respective territories, a
       barren precedence only reserved to Lothar, with the imperial
       title which he, as the eldest, already enjoyed. A more
       important result was the separation of the Gaulish and German
       nationalities. ... Modern Germany proclaims the era of A. D.
       843 the beginning of her national existence and celebrated its
       thousandth anniversary [in 1843]. To Charles the Bald was
       given Francia Occidentalis; that is to say, Neustria and
       Aquitaine; to Lothar, who as Emperor must possess the two
       capitals, Rome and Aachen, a long and narrow kingdom
       stretching from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, and
       including the northern half of Italy; Lewis (surnamed, from
       his kingdom, the German) received all east of the Rhine,
       Franks, Saxons, Bavarians, Austria, Carinthia, with possible
       supremacies over Czechs and Moravians beyond. Throughout these
       regions German was spoken; through Charles's kingdom a corrupt
       tongue, equally removed from Latin and from modern French.
       Lothar's, being mixed and having no national basis, was the
       weakest of the three, and soon dissolved into the separate
       sovereignties of Italy, Burgundy and Lotharingia, or, as we
       call it, Lorraine. On the tangled history of the period that
       follows it is not possible to do more than touch. After
       passing from one branch of the Carolingian line to another,
       the imperial sceptre was at last possessed and disgraced by
       Charles the Fat, who united all the dominions of his
       great-grandfather. This unworthy heir could not avail himself
       of recovered territory to strengthen or defend the expiring
       monarchy. He was driven out of Italy in A. D. 887 and his
       death in 888 has been usually taken as the date of the
       extinction of the Carolingian Empire of the West. ... From all
       sides the torrent of barbarism which Charles the Great had
       stemmed was rushing down upon his empire. ... Under such
       strokes the already loosened fabric swiftly dissolved. No one
       thought of common defence or wide organization: the strong
       built castles, the weak became their bondsmen, or took shelter
       under the cowl: the governor--count, abbot, or
       bishop--tightened his grasp, turned a delegated into an
       independent, a personal into a territorial authority, and
       hardly owned a distant and feeble suzerain. ... In Germany,
       the greatness of the evil worked at last its cure.

    [1404 moved to end of FRANKS.]
    {1405}

       When the male line of the eastern branch of the Carolingians
       had ended in Lewis (surnamed the Child), son of Arnulf [A. D.
       911], the chieftains chose and the people accepted Conrad the
       Franconian, and after him Henry the Saxon duke, both
       representing the female line of Charles. Henry laid the
       foundations of a firm monarchy, driving back the Magyars and
       Wends, recovering Lotharingia, founding towns to be centres of
       orderly life and strongholds against Hungarian irruptions. He
       had meant to claim at Rome his kingdom's rights, rights which
       Conrad's weakness had at least asserted by the demand of
       tribute; but death overtook him, and the plan was left to be
       fulfilled by Otto his son."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 6.

       "The division of 888 was really the beginning of the modern
       states and the modern divisions of Europe. The Carolingian
       Empire was broken up into four separate kingdoms: the Western
       Kingdom, answering roughly to France, the Eastern Kingdom or
       Germany, Italy, and Burgundy. Of these, the three first remain
       as the greatest nations of the Continent: Burgundy, by that
       name, has vanished; but its place as a European power is
       occupied, far more worthily than by any King or Cæsar, by the
       noble confederation of Switzerland."

          E. A. Freeman,
          The Franks and the Gauls.
          (Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7.)

          ALSO IN:
          E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
          book 2, numbers 3.

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapter 18.

          R. W. Church,
          The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 8.

          F. Guizot,
          History of Civilization,
          lecture 24.

          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and France,
          volumes 1-2.

          See, also,
          GERMANY: A. D. 843-962;
          and FRANCE: A. D. 843, and after.

    FRANKS: A. D. 843-962.
       Kingdom of the East Franks.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

    ----------End: FRANKS ----------

    CENTRAL EUROPE AT THE PEACE OF VERDUN 843 A. D.

    CENTRAL EUROPE 888 A. D.

    ----------------------------------

    FRATRES MINORES.

          See MENDICANT ORDERS.

    FRATRICELLI, The.

          See BEGUINES, ETC.

    FRAZIER'S FARM, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

    FREDERICIA, Battle of (1849).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

    FREDERICIA, Siege of (1864).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

    FREDERICK I.
       (called Barbarossa), Emperor, A. D. 1155-1190;
       King of Germany, 1152-1190;
       King of Italy, 1155-1190.

       Frederick I., King of Denmark and Norway, 1523-1533.

       Frederick I., King of Prussia, 1701-1713;

       Frederick III., Elector of Brandenburg, 1688-1713.

       Frederick I., Elector of Brandenburg, 1417-1440.

       Frederick II.,
       Emperor, 1220-1250;
       King of Germany, 1212-1250.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250;
          and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

       Frederick II., King of Denmark and Norway, 1558-1588.

       Frederick II., King of Naples, 1496-1503.

       Frederick II. (called The Great),
       King of Prussia, 1740-1786.

       Frederick II., King of Sicily, 1295-1337.

       Frederick II., Elector of Brandenburg, 1440-1470.

       Frederick III., Emperor, and King of Germany, 1440-1493.

       Frederick III., German Emperor and King of Prussia,
       1888, March-June.

       Frederick III., King of Denmark and Norway, 1648-1670.

       Frederick III., King of Sicily, 1355-1377.

       Frederick IV., King of Denmark and Norway, 1609-1730.

       Frederick V., King of Denmark and Norway, 1746-1766.

       Frederick V., Elector of the Palatinate
       (and King-elect of Bohemia),
       and the Thirty Years' War.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620, 1620, 1621-1623,
          1631-1632, and 1648.

       Frederick VI.,
          King of Denmark and Norway, 1808-1814;
          King of Denmark, 1814-1839.

       Frederick VII., King of Denmark, 1848-1863.

       Frederick Augustus I.,
          Elector of Saxony, 1694-1733;
          King of Poland,1697-1704 (deposed), and 1709-1733.

       Frederick Augustus II.,
       Elector of Saxony and King of Poland, 1733-1763.

       Frederick Henry, Stadtholder of the United Provinces,
       1625-1647.

       Frederick William (called The Great Elector),
       Elector of Brandenburg, 1640-1688.

       Frederick William I., King of Prussia, 1713-1740.

       Frederick William II., King of Prussia, 1786-1797.

       Frederick William III., King of Prussia, 1797-1840.

       Frederick William IV., King of Prussia, 1840-1861.

    ----------FREDERICK: End----------

    FREDERICKSBURG, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D.1862 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: VIRGINIA).

    FREDERICKSBURG:
       Sedgwick's demonstration against.

          See
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

    ----------FREDERICKSBURG: End----------

    FREDERICKSHALL.
       Siege by the Swedes.
       Death of Charles XII. (1718).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

    FREDERICKSHAMM, Peace of (1809).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

    FREDLINGEN, Battle of (1703).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

    FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.

    FREE CITIES.

          See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
          also, ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152, and after.

    FREE COMPANIES, The.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393;
          and FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

    FREE LANCES.

          See LANCES, FREE.

    FREE MASONS.

       "The fall of the Knights Templars has been connected with the
       origin of the Freemasons, and the idea has prevailed that the
       only secret purpose of the latter was the reestablishment of
       the suppressed order. Jacques de Molai, while a prisoner in
       Paris, is said to have created four new lodges, and the day
       after his execution, eight knights, disguised as masons, are
       said to have gone to gather up the ashes of their late Grand
       Master. To conceal their designs, the new Templars assumed the
       symbols of the trade, but took, it is said, the name of Francs
       'Maçons' to distinguish themselves from ordinary craftsmen,
       and also in memory of the general appellation given to them in
       Palestine. Even the allegories of Freemasonry, and the ceremonies
       of its initiations, have been explained by a reference to the
       history of the persecutions of the Templars. The Abbé Barruel
       says, that 'every thing--the signs, the language, the names of
       grand master, of knight, of temple--all, in a word, betray the
       Freemasons as descendants of the proscribed knights.' Lessing,
       in Germany, gave some authority to this opinion, by asserting
       positively that 'the lodges of the Templars were in the very
       highest repute in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and
       that out of such a lodge, which had been constantly kept up in
       London, was established the society of Freemasons, in the
       seventeenth century, by Sir Christopher Wren.'
    {1406}
       Lessing is of opinion that the name Mason has nothing to do
       with the English meaning of the word, but comes from
       Massonney, a 'lodge' of the Knights Templars. This idea may
       have caused the Freemasons to amalgamate the external ritual
       of the Templars with their own, and to found the higher French
       degrees which have given colour to the very hypothesis which
       gave rise to their introduction. But the whole story appears
       to be most improbable, and only rests upon the slight
       foundation of fancied or accidental analogies. Attempts have
       also been made to show that the Freemasons are only a
       continuation of the fraternities of architects which are
       supposed to have originated at the time of the building of
       Solomon's Temple. The Egyptian priests are supposed to have
       taught those who were initiated a secret and sacred system of
       architecture; this is said to have been transmitted to the
       Dionysiac architects, of whom the first historical traces are
       to be found in Asia Minor, where they were organized into a
       secret fraternity. ... It is, however; a mere matter of
       speculation whether the Jewish and Dionysiac architects were
       closely connected, but there is some analogy between the
       latter and the Roman guilds, which Numa is said to have first
       introduced, and which were probably the prototypes of the
       later associations of masons which flourished until the end of
       the Roman Empire. The hordes of barbarians which then
       ruthlessly swept away whatever bore the semblance of luxury
       and elegance, did not spare the noblest specimens of art, and
       it was only when they became converted to Christianity, that
       the guilds were re-established. During the Lombard rule they
       became numerous in Italy. ... As their numbers increased,
       Lombardy no longer sufficed for the exercise of their art, and
       they travelled into all the countries where Christianity, only
       recently established, required religious buildings. ... These
       associations, however, became nearly crushed by the power of
       the monastic institutions, so that in the early part of the
       Middle Ages the words artist and priest became nearly
       synonymous; but in the twelfth century they emancipated
       themselves, and sprang into new life. The names of the authors
       of the great architectural creations of this period are almost
       all unknown; for these were not the work of individuals, but
       of fraternities. ... In England guilds of masons are said to
       have existed in the year 926, but this tradition is not
       supported by history; in Scotland similar associations were
       established towards the end of the fifteenth century. The Abbé
       Grandidier regards Freemasonry as nothing more than a servile
       imitation of the ancient and useful fraternity of true masons
       established during the building of the Cathedral of Strasburg,
       one of the masterpieces of Gothic architecture, and which caused
       the fame of its builders to spread throughout Europe. In many
       towns similar fraternities were established. ... The origin of
       the Freemasons of the present day is not to be attributed to
       these fraternities, but to the Rosicrucians [see ROSICRUCIANS]
       who first appeared at the beginning of the seventeenth
       century."

          A. P. Marras,
          Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
          chapters 7-8.

          ALSO IN:
          J. G. Findel,
          History of Freemasonry.

          C. W. Heckethorn,
          Secret Societies of all Ages and Countries,
          book 8 (volume 1).

    FREE-SOIL PARTY, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

    FREE SPIRIT, Brethren and Sisters of the.

          See BEGUINES.

    FREE TRADE IN ENGLAND.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839;
          1842; 1845-1846; and 1846-1879.

    FREEDMEN OF THE SOUTH.

       The emancipated slaves of the United States of America.

    FREEDMEN'S BUREAU, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866.

    FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
       Expiration of the Censorship law in England.

          See PRINTING: A. D. 1695.

    FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1734.
       Zenger's trial at New York.
       Vindication of the rights of the colonial Press.

          See NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.

    FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1755.
       Liberty attained in Massachusetts.

          See PRINTING: A. D. 1535-1709.

    FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1762-1764.
       Prosecution of John Wilkes.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.

    FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1771.
       Last contest of the British Parliament with the Press.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

    FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1817.
       The trials of William Hone.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

    ----------FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: End----------

    FREEHOLD.

          See FEUDAL TENURES.

    FREEMAN'S FARM, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

    FREGELLÆ.

       Fregellæ, a Latin colony, founded by the Romans, B. C. 329, in
       the Volscian territory, on the Liris, revolted in B. C. 125.
       and was totally destroyed. A Roman colony, named Fabrateria,
       was founded near the site.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 1, chapter 17.

    FREIBURG (in the Breisgau).

       Freiburg became a free city in 1120, but lost its freedom a
       century later, and passed, in 1368, under the domination of
       the Hapsburgs.

    FREIBURG: A. D. 1638.
       Capture by Duke Bernhard.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

    FREIBURG: A. D. 1644.
       Siege and capture by the Imperialists.
       Attempted recovery by Condé and Turenne.
       The three days battle.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

    FREIBURG: A. D. 1677.
       Taken by the French.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

    FREIBURG: A. D. 1679.
       Retained by France.

          See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

    FREIBURG: A. D. 1697.
       Restored to Germany.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

    FREIBURG: A. D. 1713-1714.
       Taken and given up by the French.

       See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    FREIBURG: A. D. 1744-1748.
       Taken by the French and restored to Germany.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745;
          and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

    ----------FREIBURG: End----------

    FREJUS, Origin of.

          See FORUM JULII.

    FREMONT, General John C.,
       The conquest of California.

          See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

       Defeat in Presidential election.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.

       Command in the west.
       Proclamation of Freedom.
       Removal.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI),
          and (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

       Command in West Virginia.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862. (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

    {1407}

    FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR.

       The four intercolonial wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, in
       America, commonly known, respectively, as "King William's
       War," "Queen Anne's War," "King George's War," and the French
       and Indian War, were all of them conflicts with the French and
       Indians of Canada, or New France; but the last of the series
       (coincident with the "Seven Years War" in Europe) became
       especially characterized in the colonies by that designation.
       Its causes and chief events are to be found related under the
       following headings:

          CANADA: A.D. 1750-1753,1755, 1756, 1756-1757, 1758,
          1759,1760;
          NOVA SCOTIA: A. D.1749-1755, 1755;
          OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
          CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760;
          also, for an account of the accompanying Cherokee War,
          SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

    FRENCH FURY, The.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

    FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.

    FRENCHTOWN (now Monroe, Mich.), Battle at.

          See
          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

          HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

    FRENTANIANS, The.

          See SABINES.

    FRIARS.
       "Carmelite Friars,"
       "White Friars."

          See CARMELITE FRIARS.

       Austin Friars;

          See AUSTIN CANONS.

       "Preaching Friars,"
       "Begging Friars,"
       "Minor Friars,"
       "Black Friars,"
       "Grey Friars."

          See MENDICANT ORDERS.

    FRIEDLAND, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

    FRIEDLINGEN, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1702.

    FRIENDS, The Society of.

          See QUAKERS.

    FRIENDS OF THE PEOPLE; The Society of the.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.

    FRIESLAND.
       Absorbed in the dominions of the House of Burgundy (1430).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

    FRIGIDUS, Battle of the (A. D. 394).

          See ROME: A. D. 379-395.

    FRILING, The.

          See LÆTI.

    FRIMAIRE, The month.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

    FRISIANS, The.

       "Beyond the Batavians, upon the north, dwelt the great Frisian
       family, occupying the regions between the Rhine and Ems. The
       Zuyder Zee and the Dollart, both caused by the terrific
       inundations of the 13th century, and not existing at this
       period [the early Roman Empire], did not then interpose
       boundaries between kindred tribes."

          J. L. Motley,
          Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          introduction, section. 2.

       "The Frisians, adjoining [the Batavi] ... in the coast
       district that is still named after them, as far as the lower
       Ems, submitted to Drusus and obtained a position similar to
       that of the Batavi. There was imposed on them instead of
       tribute simply the delivery of a number of bullocks' hides for
       the wants of the army; on the other hand they had to furnish
       comparatively large numbers of men for the Roman service. They
       were the most faithful allies of Drusus as afterwards of
       Germanicus."

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 4.

    FRISIANS: A. D. 528-729.
       Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

    FRITH-GUILDS.

          See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

    FROEBEL AND THE KINDERGARTEN.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.: 1816-1892.

    FROG'S POINT, Battle At.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

    FRONDE, FRONDEURS, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648, 1649, 1650-1651, 1651-1653;
          and BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

    FRONT ROYAL, Stonewall Jackson's capture of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

    FRONTENAC, Count, in New France.

          See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687, to 1696.

    FRONTENAC, Fort.

          See KINGSTON, CANADA.

    FRUCTIDOR, The Month.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

    FRUCTIDOR: The Coup d'Etat of the Eighteenth of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

    FRUELA I.,
       King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 757-768.

       Fruela II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,
       A. D. 923-925.

    FRUMENTARIAN LAW, The First.

          See ROME: B. C. 133-121.

    FUEGIANS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

    FUENTES D'ONORO, Battle of (1811).

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

    FUFIAN LAW, The.

          See ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS.

    FUGGERS, The.

       "Hans Fugger was the founder of the Fugger family, whose
       members still possess extensive estates and authority as
       princes and counts in Bavaria and Wurtemburg. He came to
       Augsburg in 1365 as a poor but energetic weaver's apprentice,
       acquired citizenship by marrying a burgher's daughter, and,
       after completing an excellent masterpiece, was admitted into
       the guild of weavers. ... Hans Fugger died in 1409, leaving
       behind him a fortune of 3,000 florins, which he had made by
       his skill and diligence. This was a considerable sum in those
       days, for the gold mines of the New World had not yet been
       opened up, and the necessaries of life sold for very low
       prices. The sons carried on their father's business, and with
       so much skill and success that they were always called the
       rich Fuggers. The importance and wealth of the family
       increased every day. By the year 1500 it was not easy to find
       a frequented route by sea or land where Fugger's wares were
       not to be seen. On one occasion the powerful Hanseatic league
       seized twenty of their ships, which were sailing with a cargo
       of Hungarian copper, down the Vistula to Cracow and Dantzic.
       Below ground the miner worked for Fugger, above it the
       artisan. In 1448 they lent 150,000 florins to the then
       Archdukes of Austria, the Emperor Frederick the Third (father
       of Maximilian) and his brother Albert. In 1509 a century had
       passed since the weaver Hans Fugger had died leaving his
       fortune of 3,000 florins, acquired by his laborious industry.
       His grand-children were now the richest merchants in Europe;
       without the aid of their money the mightiest princes of the
       continent could not complete any important enterprise, and
       their family was connected with the noblest houses by the ties
       of relationship. They were raised to the rank of noblemen and
       endowed with honourable privileges by the Emperor Maximilian
       the First."

          A. W. Grube,
          Heroes of History and Legend,
          chapter 13.

    {1408}

    FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, AND ITS REPEAL.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1850, and 1864 (JUNE).

    FULAHS, The.

          See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

    FULFORD, Battle of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (SEPTEMBER).

    FULTON'S FIRST STEAMBOAT.

          See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

    FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT OF NEW HAVEN.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

    FUNDAMENTAL ORDERS OF CONNECTICUT.

          See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.

    FUORUSCITI.

       In Italy, during the Guelf and Ghibelline contests of the 13th
       and 14th centuries (see ITALY: A. D. 1215-1293), "almost every
       city had its body of 'fuorusciti';--literally, 'those who had
       gone out';--proscripts and exiles, in fact, who represented
       the minorities ... in the different communities;--Ghibelline
       fuorusciti from Guelph cities, and Guelph fuorusciti from
       Ghibelline cities."

          T. A. Trollope,
          History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
          volume 1, page 380.

    FÜRST.
       Prince; the equivalent German title.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

    FURY, The French.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

    FURY, The Spanish.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

    FUSILLADES.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    FUTTEH ALI SHAH,

       Shah of Persia, A. D. 1798-1834.

    FUTTEHPORE, Battle of (1857).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

    FYLFOT-CROSS, The.

          See TRI-SKELION.

    FYRD, The.

       "The one national army [in Saxon England, before the Norman
       Conquest] was the fyrd, a force which had already received in
       the Karolingian legislation the name of landwehr by which the
       German knows it still. The fyrd was in fact composed of the
       whole mass of free landowners who formed the folk: and to the
       last it could only be summoned by the voice of the folk-moot.
       In theory therefore such a host represented the whole
       available force of the country. But in actual warfare its
       attendance at the king's war-call was limited by practical
       difficulties. Arms were costly; and the greater part of the
       fyrd came equipped with bludgeons and hedge-stakes, which
       could do little to meet the spear and battleaxe of the
       invader."

          J. R. Green,
          The Conquest of England,
          p. 133.

    G.

    GA, The.

          See GAU.

    GABELLE The.

       "In the spring of the year 1343, the king [Philip de Valois,
       king of France] published an ordinance by which no one was
       allowed to sell salt in France unless he bought it from the
       store-houses of the crown, which gave him the power of
       committing any degree of extortion in an article that was of
       the utmost necessity to his subjects. This obnoxious tax,
       which at a subsequent period became one of the chief sources
       of the revenue of the crown of France, was termed a gabelle, a
       word of Frankish or Teutonic origin, which had been in use
       from the earliest period to signify a tax in general, but
       which was from this time almost restricted to the
       extraordinary duty on salt. ... This word gabelle is the same
       as the Anglo-Saxon word 'gafol,' a tax."

          T. Wright,
          History of France,
          volume 1, page 364, and foot-note.

          See, also, TAILEE AND GABELLE.

    GABINIAN LAW, The.

          See ROME: B.C. 69-63.

    GACHUPINES AND GUADALUPES.

       In the last days of Spanish rule in Mexico, the Spanish
       official party bore the name of Gachupines, while the native
       party, which prepared for revolution, were called Guadalupes.

          E. J. Payne,
          History of European Colonies,
          p. 303.

       The name of the Guadalupes was adopted by the Mexicans "in
       honour of 'Our Lady of Guadalupe,' the tutelar protectress of
       Mexico;" while that of the Gachupines "was a sobriquet
       gratuitously bestowed upon the Spanish faction."

          W. H. Chynoweth,
          The Fall of Maximilian,
          page 3.

    GADEBUSCH, Battle of (1712).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

    GADENI, The.

          See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

    GADES (Modern Cadiz); Ancient commerce of.

       "At this period [early in the last century before Christ]
       Gades was undoubtedly one of the most important emporiums of
       trade in the world: her citizens having absorbed a large part
       of the commerce that had previously belonged to Carthage. In
       the time of Strabo they still retained almost the whole trade
       with the Outer Sea, or Atlantic coasts."

          E. H. Bunbury,
          History of Ancient Geography,
          chapter 18, section 6 (volume 2).

          See, also, UTICA.

    GADSDEN PURCHASE, The.

          See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

    GAEL.

          See CELTS.

    GAETA: A. D. 1805-1806.
       Siege and Capture by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

    GAETA: A. D. 1848.
       The refuge of Pope Pius IX.

          See ITALY: A.. D. 1848-1849.

    GAFOL.

       A payment in money, or kind, or work, rendered in the way of
       rent by a villein-tenant to his lord, among the Saxons and
       early English. The word signified tribute.

          F. Seebohm,
          English Village Community,
          chapters 2 and 5.

    GAG, The Atherton.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.

    GAGE, General Thomas, in the command and government at Boston.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL);
          1775 (APRIL), (APRIL-MAY), and (JUNE).

    GAI SABER, El.

          See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

    GAINAS, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

    GAINES' MILL, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

    GALATA, The Genoese colony.

          See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299;
          also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453, and 1348-1355.

    {1409}

    GALATÆ, The.

          See GAULS.

    GALATIA.-GALATIANS.

       In 280 B. C. a body of Gauls, or Celts, invaded Greece, under
       Brennus, and in the following year three tribes of them
       crossed into Asia Minor. There, as in Greece, they committed
       terrible ravages, and were a desolating scourge to the land,
       sometimes employed as mercenaries by one and another of the
       princes who fought over the fragments of Alexander's Empire,
       and sometimes roaming for plunder on their own account.
       Antiochus, son of Seleueus, of Syria, is said to have won a
       great victory over them; but it was not until 239 B. C. that
       they were seriously checked by Attalus, King of Pergamus, who
       defeated them in a great battle and forced them to settle in
       the part of ancient Phrygia which afterwards took its name
       from them, being called Galatia, or Gallo-Græcia, or Eastern
       Gaul. When the Romans subjugated Asia Minor they found the
       Galatæ among their most formidable enemies. The latter were
       permitted for a time to retain a certain degree of
       independence, under tetrarchs, and afterwards under kings of
       their own. But finally Galatia became a Roman province. "When
       St. Paul preached among them, they seemed fused into the
       Hellenistic world, speaking Greek like the rest of Asia; yet
       the Celtic language long lingered among them and St. Jerome
       says he found the country people still using it in his day
       (fourth century A. D.)."

          J. P. Mahaffy,
          Story of Alexander's Empire,
          chapter 8.

          See, also, GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
          INVASION OF GREECE.

    GALBA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 68-69.

    GALEAZZO MARIO, Duke of Milan, A.D. 1466-1476.

    GALERIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 305-311.

    GALICIA (Spain), Settlement of Sueves and Vandals in.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

    GALILEE.

       The Hebrew name Galil, applied originally to a little section
       of country, became in the Roman age, as Galilæa, the name of
       the whole region in Palestine north of Samaria and west of the
       river Jordan and the Sea of Galilee. Ewald interprets the name
       as meaning the "march" or frontier land; but in Smith's
       "Dictionary of the Bible" it is said to signify a "circle" or
       "circuit." It had many heathen inhabitants and was called
       Galilee of the Gentiles.

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 5, section 1.

    GALLAS, The.

          See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES;
          and ABYSSINIA: 15th-19th CENTURIES.

    GALLATIN, Albert, Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

    GALLDACHT.

          See PALE, THE ENGLISH.

    GALLEON OR GALEON.--GALERA.--GALEAZA.--GALEASSES.

          See CARAVELS;
          also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1588;
          also, PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

    GALLI, The.

          See GAULS.

    GALLIA.

          See GAUL.

    GALLIA BRACCATA, COMATA AND TOGATA.

       "The antient historians make some allusion to another division
       of Gaul, perhaps introduced by the soldiers, for it was
       founded solely upon the costume of the inhabitants. Gallia
       Togata, near the Rhone, comprehended the Gauls who had adopted
       the toga and the Roman manners. In Gallia Comata, to the north
       of the Loire, the inhabitants wore long plaited hair, which we
       find to this day among the Bas Britons. Gallia Bracata, to the
       south of the Loire, wore, for the national costume, trousers
       reaching from the hips to the ancles, called 'braccæ.'"

          J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
          The French under the Merovingians,
          translated by Bellingham,
          chapter 2, note.

    GALLIA CISALPINA.

          See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

    GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1268.
       The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.

    GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1438.
       The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII., affirming some of the
       decrees of the reforming Council of Basel.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1438.

    GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1515-1518.
       Abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction.
       The Concordat of Bologna.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

    GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1653-1713.
       The conflict of Jesuits and Jansenists.
       Persecution of the latter.
       The Bull Unigenitus and its tyrannical enforcement.

          See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

    GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1791-1792.
       The civil constitution of the clergy.
       The oath prescribed by the National Assembly.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791; 1790-1791;
          and 1791-1792.

    GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1793.
       Suppression of Christian worship in Paris and other parts of
       France.
       The worship of Reason.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).

    GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1802.
       The Concordat of Napoleon.
       Its Ultramontane influence.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

    GALLICAN CHURCH: A. D. 1833-1880.
       The Church and the Schools.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1889.

    ----------GALLICAN CHURCH: End----------

    GALLICIA, The kingdom of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

    GALLIENUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253-268.

    GALLOGLASSES.

       The heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the
       Irish in their battles with the
       English during the 14th century.

          See, also, RAPPAREE.

    GALLS.

       See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

    GALLUS, Trebonianus, Roman Emperor, A. D. 251-253.

    GAMA, Voyage of Vasco da.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.

    GAMBETTA AND THE DEFENSE OF FRANCE.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER),
          and 1870-1871.

    GAMMADION, The.

          See TRI-SKELION.

    GAMORI.

          See GEOMORI.

    GANAWESE OR KANAWHAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

    GANDARIANS, The.

          See GEDROSIANS.

    GANDASTOGUES, OR CONESTOGAS, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

    GANGANI, The.

          See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

    {1410}

    GANGWAY, The.

       On the floor of the English House of Commons, "the long lines
       of seats rise gradually on each side of the chair--those to
       the Speaker's right being occupied by the upholders of the
       Government, and those to the left accommodating the
       Opposition. One length of seating runs in an unbroken line
       beneath each of the side galleries, and these are known as the
       'back benches.' The other lengths are divided into two nearly
       equal parts by an unseated gap of about a yard wide. This is
       'the gangway.' Though nothing more than a convenient means of
       access for members, this space has come to be regarded as the
       barrier that separates the thick and thin supporters of the
       rival leaders from their less fettered colleagues--that is to
       say, the steady men from the Radicals, Nationalists, and
       free-lances generally."

          Popular Account of Parliamentary Procedure,
          page 6.

    GAON.-THE GAONATE.

          See JEWS: 7th CENTURY.

    GARAMANTES, The.

       The ancient inhabitants of the north African region now called
       Fezzan, were known as the Garamantes.

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

    GARCIA,
       King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 910-914.

       Garcia I., King of Navarre, 885-891.

       Garcia II., King of Spain, 925-970.

       Garcia III., King of Navarre, 1035-1054.

       Garcia IV., King of Navarre, 1134-1150.

    GARFIELD, General James A.
       Campaign in Kentucky.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY; KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

       Presidential election.
       Administration.
       Assassination.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880, and 1881.

    GARIBALD, King of the Lombards, A. D. 672-673.

    GARIBALDI'S ITALIAN CAMPAIGNS.

          See ITALY; A. D. 1848-:1849; 1856-1859;
          1859-1861; 1862-1866; and 1867-1870.

    GARIGLIANO, Battle of the (1503).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

    GARITIES, The.

          See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

    GARRISON, William Lloyd, and the American Abolitionists.

          See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

    GARTER, Knights of the Order of the.

       "About this time [A. D. 1343] the king of England [Edward
       III.] resolved to rebuild and embellish the great castle of
       Windsor, which king Arthur had first founded in time past, and
       where he had erected and established that noble round table
       from whence so many gallant knights had issued forth, and
       displayed the valiant prowess of their deeds at arms over the
       world. King Edward, therefore, determined to establish an
       order of knighthood, consisting of himself, his children, and
       the most gallant knights in Christendom, to the number of
       forty. He ordered it to be denominated 'knights of the blue
       garter,' and that the feast should be celebrated every year at
       Windsor, upon St. George's day. He summoned, therefore, all
       the earls, barons, and knights of his realm, to inform them of
       his intentions; they heard it with great pleasure; for it
       appeared to them highly honourable, and capable of increasing
       love and friendship. Forty knights were then elected,
       according to report and estimation the bravest in Christendom,
       who sealed, and swore to maintain and keep the feast and the
       statutes which had been made. The king founded a chapel at
       Windsor, in honour of St. George, and established canons,
       there to serve God, with a handsome endowment. He then issued
       his proclamation for this feast by his heralds, whom he sent
       to France, Scotland, Burgundy, Hainault, Flanders, Brabant,
       and the empire of Germany, and offered to all knights and
       squires, that might come to this ceremony, passports to last
       for fifteen days after it was over. The celebration of this
       order was fixed for St. George's day next ensuing, to be held
       at Windsor, 1344."

          Froissart (Johnes),
          Chronicles,
          book 1, chapter 100.

       "The popular tradition, derived from Polydore Vergil, is that,
       having a festival at Court, a lady chanced to drop her garter,
       when it was picked up by the King. Observing that the incident
       made the bye-standers smile significantly, Edward exclaimed in
       a tone of rebuke, 'Honi soit qui mal y pense'--'Dishonoured
       be he who thinks evil of it': and to prevent any further
       innuendos, he tied the garter round his own knee. This
       anecdote, it is true, has been characterized by some as an
       improbable fable; why, we know not. ... Be the origin of the
       institution, however, what it may, no Order in Europe is so
       ancient, none so illustrious, for 'it exceeds in majesty,
       honour and fame all chivalrous fraternities in the world.' ...
       By a Statute passed on the 17th January, 1805, the Order is to
       consist of the Sovereign and twenty-five Knights Companions,
       together with such lineal descendants of George III. as may be
       elected, always excepting the Prince of Wales, who is a
       constituent part of the original institution. Special Statutes
       have since, at different times, been proclaimed for the
       admission of Sovereigns and extra Knights."

          Sir B. Burke,
          Book of Orders of Knighthood,
          page 98.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Buswell,
          Historical Account of the Knights of the Garter.

          C. M. Yonge,
          Cameos from English History,
          2d series, chapter 3.

    GARUMNI, The Tribe of the.

          See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

    GASCONY.--GASCONS: Origin.

          See AQUITAINE: A. D. 681-768.

    GASCONY: A. D. 778.
       The ambuscade at Roncesvalles.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

    GASCONY: A. D. 781.
       Embraced in Aquitaine.

          See AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.

    GASCONY: 11th Century.
       The Founding of the Dukedom.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

    ----------GASCONY: End----------

    GASIND, The.

          See COMITATUS.

    GASPE, The burning of the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.

    GASTEIN, Convention of (1865).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

    GATES, General Horatio, and the American Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
          1777 (JULY-OCTOBER);
          1777-1778; 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1780-1781.

    GATH.

          See PHILISTINES.

    GATHAS, The.

          See ZOROASTRIANS.

    {1411}

    GAU, OR GA, The.

       "Next [after the Mark, in the settlements of the Germanic
       peoples] in order of constitution, if not of time, is the
       union of two, three, or more Marks in a federal bond for
       purposes of a religious, judicial, or even political
       character. The technical name for such a union is in Germany a
       Gau or Bant; in England the ancient name Ga has been almost
       universally superseded by that of Scir or Shire. For the most
       part the natural divisions of the country are the divisions
       also of the Ga; and the size of this depends upon such
       accidental limits as well as upon the character and
       dispositions of the several collective bodies which we have
       called Marks. The Ga is the second and final form of unsevered
       possession; for every larger aggregate is but the result of a
       gradual reduction of such districts, under a higher political
       or administrative unity, different only in degree and not in
       kind from what prevailed individually in each. The kingdom is
       only a larger Ga than ordinary; indeed the Ga itself was the
       original kingdom. ... Some of the modern shire-divisions of
       England in all probability have remained unchanged from the
       earliest times; so that here and there a now existent Shire
       may be identical in territory with an ancient Ga. But it may
       be doubted whether this observation can be very extensively
       applied."

          J. M. Kemble,
          The Saxons in England.
          book 1, chapter 8.

    GAUGAMELA, OR ARBELA, Battle of (B. C. 331).

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 384-380.

    GAUL: described by Cæsar.

       "Gallia, in the widest sense of the term, is divided into
       three parts, one part occupied by the Belgae, a second by the
       Aquitani, and a third by a people whom the Romans name Galli,
       but in their own tongue they are named Celtae. These three
       people differ in language and social institutions. The Garumna
       (Garonne) is the boundary between the Aquitani and the Celtae:
       the rivers Matrona (Marne, a branch of the Seine) and the
       Sequana (Seine) separate the Celtae from the Belgae. ... That
       part of Gallia which is occupied by the Celtae begins at the
       river Rhone: it is bounded by the Garonne, the Ocean and the
       territory of the Belgae; on the side of the Sequani and the
       Helvetii it also extends to the Rhine. It looks to the north.
       The territory of the Belgae begins where that of the Celtae
       ends: it extends to the lower part of the Rhine; it looks
       towards the north and the rising sun. Aquitania extends from
       the Garonne to the Pyrenean mountains and that part of the
       Ocean which borders on Spain. It looks in a direction between
       the setting sun and the north."

          Julius Cæsar,
          Gallic Wars,
          book 1, chapter 1;
          translated by G. Long
          (Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 8, chapter 22).

    GAUL: B. C. 125-121.
       First Roman conquests.

          See SALYES; ALLOBROGES; and ÆDUI.

    GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
       Cæsar's conquest.

       Cæsar was consul for the year 695 A. U. (B. C. 59). At the
       expiration of his consulship he secured, by vote of the
       people, the government of the two Gauls (see ROME: B. C.
       68-58), not for one year, which was the customary term, but
       for five years--afterwards extended to ten. Cisalpine Gaul
       (northern Italy) had been fully subjugated and was tranquil;
       Transalpine Gaul (Gaul west and north of the Alps, or modern
       France, Switzerland and Belgium) was troubled and threatening.
       In Transalpine Gaul the Romans had made no conquests beyond
       the Rhone, as yet, except along the coast at the south. The
       country between the Alps and the Rhone, excepting certain
       territories of Massilia (Marseilles) which still continued to
       be a free city, in alliance with Rome, had been fully
       appropriated and organized as a province--the Provence of
       later times. The territory between the Rhone and the Cevennes
       mountains was less fully occupied and controlled. Cæsar's
       first proceeding as proconsul in Gaul was to arrest the
       migration of the Helvetii, who had determined to abandon their
       Swiss valleys and to seize some new territory in Gaul. He blocked
       their passage through Roman Gaul, then followed them in their
       movement eastward of the Rhone, attacked and defeated them
       with great slaughter, and forced the small remnant to return
       to their deserted mountain homes. The same year (B. C. 58) he
       drove out of Gaul a formidable body of Suevic Germans who had
       crossed the Rhine some years before under their king,
       Ariovistus. They were almost annihilated. The next year (B. C.
       57) he reduced to submission the powerful tribes of the
       Belgian region, who had provoked attack by leaguing themselves
       against the Roman intrusion in Gaul. The most obstinate of
       those tribes--the Nervii--were destroyed. In the following
       year (B. C. 56) Cæsar attacked and nearly exterminated the
       Veneti, a remarkable maritime people, who occupied part of
       Armorica (modern Brittany); he also reduced the coast tribes
       northwards to submission, while one of his lieutenants,
       Crassus, made a conquest of Aquitania. The conquest of Gaul
       was now apparently complete, and next year (B. C. 55), after
       routing and cutting to pieces another horde of Germanic
       invaders--the Usipetes and Tenctheri--who had ventured across
       the lower Rhine, Cæsar traversed the channel and invaded
       Britain. This first invasion, which had been little more than
       a reconnoissance, was repeated the year following (B. C. 54),
       with a larger force. It was an expedition having small
       results, and Cæsar returned from it in the early autumn to
       find his power in Gaul undermined everywhere by rebellious
       conspiracies. The first outbreak occurred among the Belgæ, and
       found its vigorous leader in a young chief of the Eburones,
       Ambiorix by name. Two legions, stationed in the midst of the
       Eburones, were cut to pieces while attempting to retreat. But
       the effect of this great disaster was broken by the bold
       energy of Cæsar, who led two legions, numbering barely 7,000
       men, to the rescue of his lieutenant Cicero (brother of the
       orator) whose single legion, camped in the Nervian territory,
       was surrounded and besieged by 60,000 of the enemy. Cæsar and
       his 7,000 veterans sufficed to rout the 60,000 Belgians.
       Proceeding with similar vigor to further operations, and
       raising new legions to increase his force, the proconsul had
       stamped the rebellion out before the close of the year 58 B.
       C., and the Eburones, who led in it, had ceased to exist. But
       the next year (B. C. 52) brought upon him a still more serious
       rising, of the Gallic tribes in central Gaul, leagued with the
       Belgians. Its leader was Vercingetorix, a gallant and able
       young chief of the Arverni. It was begun by the Carnutes, who
       massacred the Roman settlers in their town of Genabum
       (probably modern Orleans, but some say Gien, farther up the
       Loire). Cæsar was on the Italian side of the Alps when the
       news reached him, and the Gauls expected to be able to prevent
       his joining the scattered Roman forces in their country. But
       his energy baffled them, as it had baffled them many times
       before. He was across the Alps, across the Rhone, over the
       Cevennes--through six feet of snow in the passes--and in
       their midst, with such troops as he could gather in the
       Province, before they dreamed of lying in wait for him. Then,
       leaving most of these forces with Decimus Brutus, in a strong
       position, he stole away secretly, recrossed the Cevennes, put
       himself at the head of a small body of cavalry at Vienne on
       the Rhone, and rode straight through the country of the
       insurgents to join his veteran legions, first at Langres and
       afterwards at Sens.
    {1412}
       In a few weeks he was at the head of a strong army, had taken
       the guilty town of Genabum and had given it up to fire and the
       sword. A little later the capital of the Bituriges, Avaricum
       (modern Bourges), suffered the same fate. Next, attempting to
       reduce the Arvernian town of Gergovia, he met with a check and
       was placed in a serious strait. But with the able help of his
       lieutenant Labienus, who defeated a powerful combination of
       the Gauls near Lutetia (modern Paris), he broke the toils,
       reunited his army, which he had divided, routed Vercingetorix
       in a great battle fought in the valley of the Vingeanne, and
       shut him up, with 80,000 men, in the city of Alesia. The siege
       of Alesia (modern Alise-Sainte-Reine, west of Dijon) which
       followed, was the most extraordinary of Cæsar's military
       exploits in Gaul. Holding his circumvallation of the town,
       against 80,000 within its walls and thrice as many swarming
       outside of it, he scattered the latter and forced the
       surrender of the former. His triumph was his greatest shame.
       Like a very savage, he dragged the knightly Vercingetorix in
       his captive train, exhibited him at a subsequent "triumph" in
       Rome, and then sent him to be put to death in the ghastly
       Tullianum. The fall of Alesia practically ended the revolt;
       although even the next year found some fighting to be done,
       and one stronghold of the Cadurci, Uxellodunum (modern
       Puy-d'Issolu, near Vayrac), held out with great obstinacy. It
       was taken by tapping with a tunnel the spring which supplied
       the besieged with water, and Cæsar punished the obstinacy of
       the garrison by cutting off their hands. Gaul was then deemed
       to be conquered and pacified, and Cæsar was prepared for the
       final contest with his rivals and enemies at Rome.

          Cæsar,
          Gallic War.

          ALSO IN:
          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 4.

          Napoleon III.,
          History of Cæsar.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapters 6-7, 10, and 12 (volumes 1-2).

          T. A. Dodge,
          Cæsar,
          chapters 4-25.

    GAUL: 2d-3d Century.
       Introduction of Christianity.

          See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312 (GAUL).

    GAUL: A. D. 277.
       The invaders driven back by Probus.

       "The most important service which Probus [Roman Emperor, A. D.
       276-282] rendered to the republic was the deliverance of Gaul,
       and the recovery of seventy flourishing cities oppressed by
       the barbarians of Germany, who, since the death of Aurelian,
       had ravaged that great province with impunity. Among the
       various multitude of those fierce invaders, we may
       distinguish, with some degree of clearness, three great
       armies, or rather nations, successively vanquished by the
       valour of Probus. He drove back the Franks into their
       morasses; a descriptive circumstance from whence we may infer
       that the confederacy known by the manly appellation of 'Free'
       already occupied the flat maritime country, intersected and
       almost overflown by the stagnating waters of the Rhine, and
       that several tribes of the Frisians and Batavians had acceded
       to their alliance. He vanquished the Burgundians [and the
       Lygians]. ... The deliverance of Gaul is reported to have cost
       the lives of 400,000 of the invaders--a work of labour to the
       Romans, and of expense to the emperor, who gave a piece of
       gold for the head of every barbarian."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 12.

          See, also, LYGIANS.

    GAUL: A. D. 287.
       Insurrection of the Bagauds.

          See BAGAUDS;
          also, DEDITITIUS.

    GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
       Julian's recovery of the province from the barbarians.

       During the civil wars and religious quarrels which followed
       the death of Constantine the Great--more especially in the
       three years of the usurpation of Magnentius, in the west (A.
       D. 350-353), Gaul was not only abandoned, for the most part,
       to the barbarians of Germany, but Franks and Alemanni were
       invited by Constantius to enter it. "In a little while a large
       part of the north and east of Gaul were in their almost
       undisputed possession. The Alamans seized upon the countries
       which are now called Alsace and Lorraine; the Franks secured
       for themselves Batavia and Toxandria: forty-five flourishing
       cities, among them Cologne, Treves, Spires, Worms, and
       Strasburg, were ravaged; and, in short, from the sources of
       the Rhine to its mouth, forty miles inland, there remained no
       safety for the population but in the strongly fortified
       towns." In this condition of the Gallic provinces, Julian, the
       young nephew of the emperor, was raised to the rank of Cæsar
       and sent thither with a trifling force of men to take the
       command. "During an administration of six years [A. D.
       355-361] this latest Cæsar revived in Gaul the memory of the
       indefatigable exploits and the vigorous rule of the first
       Cæsar. Insufficient and ill-disciplined as his forces were,
       and baffled and betrayed as he was by those who should have
       been his aids, he drove the fierce and powerful tribes of the
       Alamans, who were now the hydra of the western provinces,
       beyond the Upper Rhine; the Chamaves, another warlike tribe,
       he pursued into the heart of their native forests; while the
       still fiercer and more warlike Franks were dislodged from
       their habitations on the Meuse, to accept of conditions from
       his hands. ... A part of these, called the Salians, and
       destined to figure hereafter, were allowed to settle in
       permanence in Toxandria, between the Meuse and the Scheld,
       near the modern Tongres. ... By three successful expeditions
       beyond the Rhine [he] restored to their friends a multitude of
       Roman captives, recovered the broken and down-trodden lines of
       the empire, humiliated many of the proud chiefs of the
       Germans, and impressed a salutary awe and respect upon their
       truculent followers. ... He spent the intervals of peace which
       his valor procured in recuperating the wasted energies of the
       inhabitants. Their dilapidated cities were repaired, the
       excesses of taxation retrenched, the deficient harvests
       compensated by large importations of corn from Britain, and
       the resources of suspended industry stimulated into new
       action. Once more, says Libanius, the Gauls ascended from the
       tombs to marry, to travel, to enjoy the festivals, and to
       celebrate the public games."

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 2, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 19.

    GAUL: A. D. 365-367.
       Expulsion of the Alemanni by Valentinian.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.

    GAUL: A. D. 378.
       Invasion of the Alemanni.
       Their destruction by Gratian.

          See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.

    {1413}

    GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
       The breaking of the Rhine barrier.

       The same year (A. D. 406) in which Radagaisus, with his motley
       barbaric horde, invaded Italy and was destroyed by Stilicho, a
       more fatal assault was made upon Gaul. Two armies, in which
       were gathered up a vast multitude of Suevi, Vandals, Alans and
       Burgundians, passed the Rhine. The Franks opposed them as
       faithful allies of the Roman power, and defeated a Vandal army
       in one great battle, where 20,000 of the invaders were slain;
       but the Alans came opportunely to the rescue of their friends
       and forced the Frank defenders of Gaul to give way. "The
       victorious confederates pursued their march, and on the last
       day of the year, in a season when the waters of the Rhine were
       most probably frozen, they entered without opposition the
       defenceless provinces of Gaul. This memorable passage of the
       Suevi, the Vandals, the Alani, and the Burgundians, who never
       afterwards retreated, may be considered as the fall of the
       Roman empire in the countries beyond the Alps; and the
       barriers which had so long separated the savage and the
       civilized nations of the earth were, from that fatal moment,
       levelled with the ground. ... The flourishing city of Mentz
       was surprised and destroyed, and many thousand Christians were
       inhumanly massacred in the church. Worms perished after a long
       and obstinate siege; Strasburg, Spires, Rheims, Tournay,
       Arras, Amiens, experienced the cruel oppression of the German
       yoke; and the consuming flames of war spread from the banks of
       the Rhine over the greatest part of the seventeen provinces of
       Gaul. That rich and extensive country, as far as the ocean,
       the Alps, and the Pyrenees, was delivered to the barbarians,
       who drove before them in a promiscuous crowd the bishop, the
       senator, and the virgin, laden with the spoils of their houses
       and altars."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 30.

    GAUL: A. D. 407-411.
       Reign of the usurper Constantine.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

    GAUL: A. D. 410-419.
       Establishment of the Visigoths in the kingdom of Toulouse.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

    GAUL: A. D. 410-420.
       The Franks join in the attack on Gaul.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.

    GAUL: 5th-8th Centuries.
       Barbarities of the Frank conquest.

       The conquests of the Franks in Gaul, under Clovis, began in
       486 and ended with his death in 511 (see FRANKS: A. D.
       481-511). "In the year 532, Theoderik, one of the sons and
       successors of Chlodowig, said to those Frankish warriors whom
       he commanded: 'Follow me as far as Auvergne, and I will make
       you enter a country where you will take as much gold and
       silver as you possibly can desire; where you can carry away in
       abundance flocks, slaves, and garments.' The Franks took up
       arms and once more crossing the Loire, they advanced on the
       territory of the Bituriges and Arvernes. These paid with
       interest for the resistance they had dared to the first
       invasion. Everything amongst them was devastated; the churches
       and monasteries were razed to their foundations. The young men
       and women were dragged, their hands bound, after the luggage
       to be sold as slaves. The inhabitants of this unfortunate
       country perished in large numbers or were ruined by the
       pillage. Nothing was left them of what they had possessed,
       says an ancient chronicle, except the land, which the
       barbarians could not carry away. Such were the neighbourly
       relations kept up by the Franks with the Gallic populations
       which had remained beyond their limits. Their conduct with
       respect to the natives of the northern provinces was hardly
       less hostile. When Hilperik, the son of Chlother, wished, in
       the year 584, to send his daughter in marriage to the king of
       the West Goths, or Visigoths, settled in Spain, he came to
       Paris and carried away from the houses belonging to the 'fisc'
       a great number of men and women, who were heaped up in
       chariots to accompany and serve the bride elect. Those who
       refused to depart, and wept, were put in prison: several
       strangled themselves in despair. Many people of the best
       families enlisted by force into this procession, made their
       will, and gave their property to the churches. 'The son,' says
       a contemporary, 'was separated from his father, the mother
       from her daughter; they departed sobbing, and pronouncing deep
       curses; so many persons in Paris were in tears that it might
       be compared to the desolation of Egypt.' In their domestic
       misfortunes the kings of the Franks sometimes felt remorse,
       and trembled at the evil they had done. ... But this momentary
       repentance soon yielded to the love of riches, the most
       violent passion of the Franks. Their incursions into the south
       of Gaul recommenced as soon as that country, recovered from its
       terrors and defeats, no longer admitted their garrisons nor
       tax collectors. Karle, to whom the fear of his arms gave the
       surname of Marteau, made an inroad as far as Marseilles; he
       took possession of Lyons, Arles, and Vienne, and carried off
       an immense booty to the territory of the Franks. When this
       same Karle, to insure his frontiers, went to fight the
       Saracens in Aquitania, he put the whole country to fire and
       sword; he burnt Bérgiers, Agde, and Nûnes; the arenas of the
       latter city still bear traces of the fire. At death of Karle,
       his two sons, Karlemann and Peppin, continued the great
       enterprise of replacing the inhabitants of the south, to whom
       the name of Romans was still given, under the yoke of the
       Franks. ... Southern Gaul was to the sons of the Franks what
       entire Gaul had been to their fathers; a country, the riches
       and climate of which attracted them incessantly, and saw them
       return as enemies, as soon as it did not purchase peace of
       them."

          A. Thierry,
          Narratives of the Merovingian Era, Historical Essays, etc.,
          essay 24.

    GAUL: 5th-10th Centuries.
       The conquerors and the conquered.
       State of society under the barbarian rule.
       The evolution of Feudalism.

       "After the conclusion of the great struggles which took place
       in the fourth and fifth centuries, whether between the German
       conquerors and the last forces of the empire, or between the
       nations which had occupied different portions of Gaul, until
       the Franks remained sole masters of the country, two races,
       two populations, which had nothing in common but religion,
       appear forcibly brought together, and, as it were, face to
       face with each other, in one political community. The
       Gallo-Roman population presents under the same law very
       different and very unequal conditions; the barbarian
       population comprises, together with its own peculiar
       classifications of ranks and conditions, distinct laws and
       nationalities. In the first we find citizens absolutely free,
       coloni, or husbandmen belonging to the lands of a proprietor,
       and domestic slaves deprived of all civil rights; in the
       second, we see the Frankish race divided into two tribes, each
       having its own peculiar law [the law of the Salic Franks or Salic
       law, and the law of the Ripuarian Franks or Ripuarian law];
       the Burgundians, the Goths, and the rest of the Teutonic
       races, who became subjected, either of their own accord or by
       force, to, the Frankish empire, governed by other and entirely
       different laws; but among them all, as well as among the
       Franks, we find at least three social conditions--two degrees
       of liberty, and slavery.
    {1414}
       Among these incongruous states of existence, the criminal law
       of the dominant race established, by means of the scale of
       damages for crime or personal injury, a kind of hierarchy--
       the starting-point of that movement towards an assimilation
       and gradual transformation, which, after the lapse of four
       centuries, from the fifth to the tenth, gave rise to the
       society of the feudal times. The first rank in the civil order
       belonged to the man of Frankish origin, and to the Barbarian who
       lived under the law of the Franks; in the second rank was
       placed the Barbarian, who lived under the law of his own
       country; next came the native freeman and proprietor, the
       Roman possessor, and, in the same degree, the Lidus or German
       colonus; after them, the Roman tributary--i. e., the native
       colonus; and, last of all, the slave, without distinction of
       origin. These various classes, separated on the one hand by
       distance of rank, on the other by difference of laws, manners,
       and language, were far from being equally distributed between
       the cities and the rural districts. All that was elevated in
       the Gallo-Roman population, of whatever character it might be,
       was found in the cities, where its noble, rich, and
       industrious families dwelt, surrounded by their domestic
       slaves; and, among the people of that race, the only constant
       residents in the country were the half-servile coloni and the
       agricultural slaves. On the contrary, the superior class of
       the German population established itself in the country, where
       each family, independent and proprietary, was maintained on
       its own domain by the labour of the Lidi whom it had brought
       thither, or of the old race of coloni who belonged to the
       soil. The only Germans who resided in the cities were a small
       number of officers in the service of the Crown, and of
       individuals without family and patrimony, who, in spite of
       their original habits, sought a livelihood by following some
       employment. The social superiority of the dominant race rooted
       itself firmly in the localities inhabited by them, and passed,
       as has been already remarked, from the cities to the rural
       districts. By degrees, also, it came to pass that the latter
       drew off from the former the upper portion of their
       population, who, in order to raise themselves still higher,
       and to mix with the conquerors, imitated, as far as they were
       able, their mode of life. ... While Barbarism was thus
       occupying or usurping all the vantage points of the social
       state, and civil life in the intermediate classes was arrested
       in its progress, and sinking gradually to the lowest
       condition, even to that of personal servitude, an ameliorating
       movement already commenced before the fall of the empire,
       still continued, and declared itself more and more loudly. The
       dogma of a common brotherhood in the eyes of God, and of one
       sole redemption for all mankind, preached by the Church to the
       faithful of every race, touched the heart and awakened the
       mind in favour of the slave, and, in consequence,
       enfranchisements became more frequent, or a treatment more
       humane was adopted on the part of the masters, whether Gauls
       or Germans by origin. The latter, moreover, had imported from
       their country, where the mode of life was simple and without
       luxury, usages favourable to a modified slavery. The rich
       barbarian was waited upon by free persons--by the children of
       his relatives, his clients and his friends; the tendency of
       his national manners, different from that of the Roman,
       induced him to send the slave out of his house, and to
       establish him as a labourer or artisan on some portion of land
       to which he then became permanently attached, and the
       destination of which he followed, whether it were inherited or
       sold. ... Domestic slavery made the man a chattel, a mere
       piece of moveable property. The slave, settled on a spot of
       land, from that time entered into the category of real
       property. At the same time that this last class, which
       properly bore the name of serfs, was increased at the expense
       of the first, the classes of the coloni and Lidi would
       naturally multiply simultaneously, by the very casualties of
       ruin and adverse circumstances which, at a period of incessant
       commotions, injured the condition of the freemen. ... In the
       very heart of the Barbarian society, the class of small
       proprietors, which had originally formed its strength and
       glory, decreased, and finally became extinct by sinking into
       vassalage, or a state of still more ignoble dependence, which
       partook more or less of the character of actual servitude. ...
       The freemen depressed towards servitude met the slave who had
       reached a sort of half liberty. Thus, through the whole extent
       of Gaul, was formed a vast body of agricultural labourers and
       rural artisans, whose lot, though never uniform, was brought
       more and more to a level of equality; and the creative wants
       of society produced a new sphere of industry in the country,
       while the cities remained stationary, or sank more and more
       into decay. ... On every large estate where improvement
       flourished, the cabins of those employed, Lidi, coloni or
       slaves, grouped as necessity or convenience suggested, were
       multiplied and peopled more numerously, till they assumed the
       form of a hamlet. When these hamlets were situated in a
       favourable position ... they continued to increase till they
       became villages. ... The building of a church soon raised the
       village to the rank of a parish; and, as a consequence, the
       new parish took its place among the rural circonscriptions.
       ... Thence sprung, altogether spontaneously, under the
       sanction of the intendant, joined to that of the priest, rude
       outlines of a municipal organization, in which the church
       became the depository of the acts which, in accordance with
       the Roman law, were inscribed on the registers of the city. It
       is in this way that beyond the towns, the cities, and the
       boroughs, where the remains of the old social condition
       lingered in an increasing state of degradation, elements of
       future improvement were formed. ... This modification, already
       considerably advanced in the ninth century, was completed in
       the course of the tenth. At that period, the last class of the
       Gallo-Frankish society disappeared--viz., that of persons
       held as chattels, bought, exchanged, transferred from one
       place to another, like any other kind of moveable goods. The
       slave now belonged to the soil rather than to the person; his
       service, hitherto arbitrary, was changed into customary dues
       and regulated employment; he had a settled abode, and, in
       consequence, a right of possession in the soil on which he was
       dependent. This is the earliest form in which we distinctly
       trace the first impress of the modern world upon the civil
       state.
    {1415}
       The word serf henceforward took its definite meaning; it
       became the generic name of a mixed condition of servitude and
       freedom, in which we find blended together the states of the
       colonus and Lidus--two names which occur less and less
       frequently in the tenth century, till they entirely disappear.
       This century, the point to which all the social efforts of the
       four preceding ones which had elapsed since the Frankish
       conquest had been tending, saw the intestine struggle between
       the Roman and German manners brought to a conclusion by an
       important revolution. The latter definitively prevailed, and
       from their triumph arose the feudal system; that is to say, a
       new form of the state, a new constitution of property and
       domestic life, a parcelling out of the sovereignty and
       jurisdiction, all the public powers transformed into demesnial
       privileges, the idea of nobility devoted to the profession of
       arms, and that of ignobility to industry and labour. By a
       remarkable coincidence, the complete establishment of this
       system is the epoch when the distinction of races terminates
       in Frankish Gaul--when all the legal consequences of
       diversity of origin between Barbarians and Romans, conquerors
       and subjects, disappear. The law ceases to be personal, and
       becomes local; the German codes and the Roman code itself are
       replaced by custom; it is the territory and not the descent
       which distinguishes the inhabitant of the Gallic soil;
       finally, instead of national distinctions, one mixed
       population appears, to which the historian is able
       henceforward to give the name of French."

          A. Thierry,
          Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
          volume 1, chapter 1.

    GAUL: A. D. 412-453.
       The mixed administration, Roman and barbarian.

       "A prætorian prefect still resided at Trèves; a vicar of the
       seventeen Gallic provinces at Aries: each of these provinces
       had its Roman duke; each of the hundred and fifteen cities of
       Gaul had its count; each city its curia, or municipality. But,
       collaterally with this Roman organisation, the barbarians,
       assembled in their 'mallum,' of which their kings were
       presidents, decided on peace and war, made laws, or
       administered justice. Each division of the army had its Graf
       Jarl, or Count; each subdivision its centenary, or
       hundred-man; and all these fractions of the free population
       had the same right of deciding by suffrage in their own
       mallums, or peculiar courts, all their common affairs. In
       cases of opposition between the barbarian and the Roman
       jurisdiction, the overbearing arrogance of the one, and the
       abject baseness of the other, soon decided the question of
       supremacy. In some provinces the two powers were not
       concurrent: there were no barbarians between the Loire and the
       Meuse, nor between the Alps and the Rhone; but the feebleness
       of the Roman government was only the more conspicuous. A few
       great proprietors cultivated a part of the province with the
       aid of slaves; the rest was desert, or only inhabited by
       Bagaudæ, runaway slaves, who lived by robbery. Some towns
       still maintained a show of opulence, but not one gave the
       slightest sign of strength; not one enrolled its militia, nor
       repaired its fortifications. ... Honorius wished to confer on
       the cities of southern Gaul a diet, at which they might have
       deliberated on public affairs: he did not even find public
       spirit enough to accept the offered privilege."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 7 (volume 1).

    GAUL: A. D. 451.
       Attila's invasion.

          See HUNS: A. D. 451.

    GAUL: A. D. 453-484.
       Extension of the Visigothic kingdom.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 453-484.

    GAUL: A. D. 457-486.
       The last Roman sovereignty.

       The last definite survival of Roman sovereignty in Gaul
       lingered until 486 in a district north of the Seine, between
       the Marne and the Oise, which had Soissons for its capital. It
       was maintained there, in the first instance, by Ægidius, a
       Gallic noble whom Marjorian, one of the last of the emperors
       at Rome, made Master-General of Gaul. The respect commanded by
       Ægidius among the surrounding barbarians was so great that the
       Salian Franks invited him to rule over them, in place of a
       licentious young king, Childeric, whom they had driven into
       exile. He was king of these Franks, according to Gregory of
       Tours, for eight years (457-464), until he died. Childeric
       then returned, was reinstated in his kingdom and became the
       father of Clovis (or Chlodwig), the founder of the great Frank
       monarchy. But a son of Ægidius, named Syagrius, was still the
       inheritor of a kingdom, known as, the "Kingdom of Syagrius,"
       embracing, as has been said, the country around Soissons,
       between the Seine, the Marne and the Oise, and also including,
       in the opinion of some writers, Troyes and Auxerre. The first
       exploit of Clovis--the beginning of his career of
       conquest--was the overthrow of this "king of the Romans," as
       Syagrius was called, in a decisive battle fought at Soissons,
       A. D. 486, and the incorporation of his kingdom into the Frank
       dominions. Syagrius escaped to Toulouse, but was surrendered
       to Clovis and put to death.

          P. Godwin,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          book 3, chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 2.

    GAUL: A. D. 474.
       Invasion of Ostrogoths.

          See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-474.

    GAUL: A. D. 507-509.
       Expulsion of the Visigoths.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

    GAUL: A. D. 540.
       Formal relinquishment of the country to the Franks by
       Justinian.

          See FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.

    GAULS.

       "The Gauls, properly so called, the Galatæ of the Greeks, the
       Galli of the Romans, and the Gael of modern history, formed
       the van of the great Celtic migration which had poured
       westward at various intervals during many hundred years. ...
       Having overrun the south of Gaul and penetrated into Spain,
       they lost a part of the territory thus acquired, and the
       restoration of the Iberian fugitives to Aquitania placed a
       barrier between the Celts in Spain and their brethren whom
       they had left behind them in the north. In the time of the
       Romans the Galli were found established in the centre and east
       of the country denominated Gaul, forming for the most part a
       great confederation, at the head of which stood the Arverni.
       It was the policy of the Romans to raise the Ædui into
       competition with this dominant tribe. ... The Arverni, whose
       name is retained in the modern appellation of Auvergne,
       occupied a large district in the middle and south of Gaul, and
       were surrounded by tributary or dependent clans. The Ædui lay
       more to the north and east, and the centre of their
       possessions is marked by the position of their capital
       Bibracte, the modern Autun, situated in the highlands which
       separate the waters of the Loire, the Seine and the Saone. ...
    {1416}
       Other Gallic tribes stretched beyond the Saone: the Sequani,
       who afterwards made an attempt to usurp this coveted
       preeminence (the valley of the Doubs formed the centre of the
       Sequanese territory, which reached to the Jura and the Rhine);
       the Helvetii and other mountain races, whose scanty pastures
       extended to the sources of the Rhine; the Allobroges, who
       dwelt upon the Isere and Rhone, and who were the first of
       their race to meet and the first to succumb before the prowess
       of the Roman legions. According to the classification both of
       Cæsar and Strabo, the Turones, Pictones and Santones must be
       comprised under the same general denomination."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

          See, also, CELTS.

    GAUL: B. C. 390-347.
       Invasions of Italy.
       Destruction of Rome.

          See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

    GAUL: B. C. 295-191.
       Roman conquest of the Cisalpine tribes.

          See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

    GAUL: B. C. 280-279.
       Invasion of Greece.

       In the year 280 B. C. the Gauls, who had long before passed
       from northern Italy around the Adriatic to its eastern coast,
       made their first appearance in Macedonia and northern Greece.
       The Macedonian throne was occupied at the time by the infamous
       usurper, Ptolemy Ceraunus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280), and
       the Celtic savages did one good service to Greece by slaying
       him, in the single battle that was fought. The whole open
       country was abandoned to them, for a time, and they swept it,
       as far southward as the valley of the Peneus, in Thessaly; but
       the walled cities were safe. After ravaging the country for
       some months the Gauls appear to have retired; but it was only
       to return again the next year in more formidable numbers and
       under a chief, Brennus, of more vigor and capability. On this
       occasion the country suffered fearfully from the barbaric
       swarm, but defended itself with something like the spirit of
       the Greece of two centuries before. The Ætolians were
       conspicuous in the struggle; the Peloponnesian states gave
       little assistance. The policy of defense was much the same as
       at the time of the Persian invasion, and the enemy was
       confronted in force at the pass of Thermopylæ. Brennus made a
       more desperate attempt to force the pass than Xerxes had done
       and was beaten back with a tremendous slaughter of his Gauls.
       But he found traitors, as Xerxes had done, to guide him over
       the mountains, and the Greeks at Thermopylæ, surrounded by the
       enemy, could only escape by sea. The Gauls marched on Delphi,
       eager for the plunder of the great temple, and there they met
       with some fatal disaster. Precisely what occurred is not
       known. According to the Greeks, the god protected his
       sanctuary, and the accounts they have left are full of
       miracles and prodigies--of earthquakes, lightnings, tempests,
       and disease. The only clear facts seem to be that Delphi was
       successfully defended; that the Gauls retreated in disorder
       and were destroyed in vast numbers before the remnant of them
       got away from the country. Brennus is said to have killed
       himself to escape the wrath of his people for the failure of
       the expedition. One large body of the great army had separated
       from the rest and gone eastward into Thrace, before the
       catastrophe occurred. These subsequently passed over to Asia
       and pursued there an adventurous career, leaving a historic
       name in the country.

          See GALATIA.

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 60.

    ----------GAUL: End----------

    GAULS, Præfect of the.

          See PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

    GAUSARAPOS, OR GUUCHIES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    GAVELKIND, Irish.

       "The Irish law of succession in landed property, known as that
       of Irish gavelkind, was a logical consequence of the theory of
       tribal ownership. If a member of the tribe died, his piece of
       land did not descend by right to his eldest son, or even to
       all his children equally. Originally, it reverted to its sole
       absolute owner, the tribe, every member of which had a right
       to use proportionate to his tribal status. This was
       undoubtedly the essential principle of inheritance by
       gavelkind."

          S. Bryant,
          Celtic Ireland,
          chapter 6.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir H. Maine,
          Early History of Institutions,
          lecture 7.

    GAVELKIND, Kentish.

          See FEUDAL TENURES.

    GAVEREN, Battle of (1453).

          See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.

    GAZA: Early history.

          See PHILISTINES.

    GAZA: B. C. 332.
       Siege by Alexander.

       In his march from Phœnicia to Egypt (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C.
       334-330), Alexander the Great was compelled to pause for
       several months and lay siege to the ancient Philistine city of
       Gaza. It was defended for the Persian king by a brave eunuch
       named Batis. In the course of the siege, Alexander received a
       severe wound in the shoulder, which irritated his savage
       temper. When the town was at length taken by storm, he gave no
       quarter. Its male inhabitants were put to the sword and the
       women and children sold to slavery. The eunuch Batis, being
       captured alive, but wounded, was dragged by the feet at the
       tail of a chariot, driven at full speed by Alexander himself.
       The "greatest of conquerors" proved himself often enough, in
       this way, to be the greatest of barbarians--in his age.

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 93.

    GAZA: B. C. 312.
       Battle between Ptolemy and Demetrius.

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310.

    GAZA: B. C. 100.
       Destruction by Alexander Jannæus.

       Gaza having sided with the Egyptian king, in a war between
       Alexander Jannæus, one of the Asmonean kings of the Jews, and
       Ptolemy Lathyrus of Egypt and Cyprus, the former laid siege to
       the city, about 100 B. C., and acquired possession of it after
       several months, through treachery. He took his revenge by
       massacring the inhabitants and reducing the city to ruins. It
       was rebuilt not long afterwards by the Romans.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 3, chapter 9.

    GAZA: A. D. 1516.
       Defeat of the Mamelukes by the Turks.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

    ----------GAZA: End----------

    GAZACA.

          See ECBATANA.

    GAZARI, The.

          See CATHARISTS.

    GAZNEVIDES, OR GHAZNEVIDES.

          See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

    GEARY ACT, The.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

    GEDDES, Jenny, and her stool.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

    {1417}

    GEDROSIANS, The.

       "Close to the Indus, and beyond the bare, hot, treeless shores
       of the ocean, the southern part of the plain [of eastern Iran]
       consists of sandy flats, in which nothing grows but prickly
       herbs and a few palms. The springs are a day's journey from
       each other, and often more. This region was possessed by a
       people whom Herodotus calls Sattagydæ and the companions of
       Alexander of Macedonia, Gedrosians. ... Neighbours of the
       Gandarians, who, as we know, dwelt on the right bank of the
       Indus down to the Cabul, the Gedrosians led a wandering,
       predatory life; under the Persian kings, they were united into
       one satrapy with the Gandarians."

          M. Duncker,
          History of Antiquity,
          book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).

    GEIZA II., King of Hungary, A. D. 1141-1160.

    GELA, Founding of.

          See SYRACUSE, FOUNDING OF.

    GELASIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1118-1119.

    GELEONTES.

          See PHYLÆ.

    GELHEIM, Battle of (1298).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

    GELONI, The.

       An ancient colony of Greeks intermixed with natives which
       shared the country of the Budini, on the steppes between the
       Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea.

          G. Grote, History of Greece,
          part 2, volume 3, chapter 17.

    GELVES, Battle of (1510).

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

    GEMARA, The.

          See TALMUD.

    GEMBLOURS, Battle of (1578).

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

    GEMEINDE.--GEMEINDERATH.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

    GEMOT.

       A meeting, assembly, council, moot.

          See WITENAGEMOT.

    GENABUM, OR CENABUM.

       The principal town of the Gallic tribe called the Carnutes;
       identified by most archæologists with the modern city of
       Orleans, France, though some think its site was at Gien.

          See GAUL, CÆSAR'S CONQUEST OF.

    GENAUNI, The.

          See RHÆTIANS.

    GENERAL PRIVILEGE OF ARAGON.

          See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

    GENERALS, Execution of the Athenian.

          See GREECE: B. C. 406.

    GENET, "Citizen," the mission of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.

    GENEVA: Beginnings of the city.

          See HELVETII, THE ARRESTED MIGRATION OF THE.

    GENEVA: A. D. 500.
       Under the Burgundians.

          See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

    GENEVA: 10th Century.
       In the kingdom of Arles.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

    GENEVA: A. D. 1401.
       Acquisition of the Genevois, or County, by the House of Savoy.
       The city surrounded.

          See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

    GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.
       The emancipation of the city from the Vidomme and the
       Prince-Bishop.
       Triumph of the Reformation.

       "Geneva was nominally a free city of the Empire, but had in
       reality been governed for some centuries by its own bishop,
       associated with a committee of lay-assessors, and controlled
       by the general body of the citizens, in whose hands the
       ultimate power of taxation, and of election of the magistrates
       and regulation of the police, rested. The prince-bishop did
       not exercise his temporal jurisdiction directly, but through
       an officer called the Vidomme (vice-dominus), whose rights had
       in the 15th century become hereditary in the dukes of Savoy.
       These rights appear to have been exercised without any
       considerable attempt at encroachment till the beginning of the
       following century, when Charles III. succeeded to the ducal
       crown (1504). To his ambition the bishop, John, a weak and
       willing tool of the Savoy family, to which he was nearly
       allied, ceded everything; and the result was a tyrannical
       attempt to destroy the liberties of the Genevese. The Assembly
       of the citizens rose in arms; a bitter and sanguinary contest
       ensued between the Eidgenossen [Confederates] or Patriot party
       on the one side, and the Mamelukes or monarchical party on the
       other side. By the help of the free Helvetian states,
       particularly Berne and Friburg, the Patriots triumphed, the
       friends of Savoy were banished, the Vidommate abolished, and
       its powers transferred to a board of magistrates. The conduct
       of the bishops in this conflict ... helped greatly, as may be
       imagined, to shake the old hierarchical authority in Geneva;
       and when, in 1532, Farel first made his appearance in the
       city, he found a party not indisposed to join him in his eager
       and zealous projects of reform. He had a hard fight for it,
       however, and was at first obliged to yield, and leave the city
       for a time; and it was not till August 1535 that he and Viret
       and Froment succeeded in abolishing the mass, and establishing
       the Protestant faith."

          J. Tulloch,
          Leaders of the Reformation,
          pages 161-162.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Planta,
          History of the Helvetic Confederacy,
          book 2, chapter 6 (volume 2).

          I. Spon,
          History of the City and State of Geneva,
          book 2.

          See, also, SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.

    GENEVA: A. D. 1536.
       The coming of Calvin.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

    GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.
       Calvin's Ecclesiastical State.

       "Humanly speaking, it was a mere accident which caused Calvin
       to yield to the entreaties of his friends to remain in the
       city where he was to begin his renowned efforts in the cause
       of reform. Geneva had been from ancient times one of the most
       flourishing imperial cities of the Burgundian territory; it
       was situated on the frontiers of several countries where the
       cross roads of various nationalities met. The city, which in
       itself was remarkable, belonged originally to the German
       empire; the language of its inhabitants was Romanic; it was
       bounded on one side by Burgundy, on the other by German
       Switzerland. ... Geneva was apparently in a state of
       political, ecclesiastical, and moral decay. With the
       puritanical strictness of Geneva, as it afterwards became,
       before the mind's eye, it is difficult to picture the Geneva
       of that day. An unbridled love of pleasure, a reckless
       wantonness, a licentious frivolity had taken possession of
       Genevan life, while the State was the plaything of intestine
       and foreign feuds. ... Reformers had already appeared in the
       city: Vinet, Farel, Theodore Beza; they were Frenchmen, Farel
       a near neighbour of Geneva. These French Reformers are of
       quite a different stamp from our Germans, who, according as
       Luther or Melancthon is taken as their type, have either a
       plebeian popular, or learned theological character. They are
       either popular orators of great power and little polish, or
       they belong to the learned circles, and keep strictly to this
       character. In France they were mostly men belonging not to the
       lower, but to the middle and higher ranks of society, refined
       and cultivated; and in this fact lay the weakness of
       Calvinism, which knew well how to rule the masses, but never
       to gain their affection. ...
    {1418}
       His [Calvin's] greatness ... was shown in the fanatical zeal
       with which he entered the city, ready to stake his life for
       his cause. He began to teach, to found a school, to labour on
       the structure which was the idea of his life, to introduce
       reforms in doctrine, worship, the constitution and discipline
       of the Church, and he preached with that powerful eloquence
       only possessed by those in whom character and teaching are in
       unison. The purified worship was to take place within bare,
       unadorned walls; no picture of Christ, nor pomp of any kind,
       was to disturb the aspirations of the soul. Life outside the
       temple was also to be a service of God; games, swearing,
       dancing, singing, worldly amusements, and pleasure were
       regarded by him as sins, as much as real vice and crime. He
       began to form little congregations, like those in the early
       ages of the Church, and it need scarcely be said that even in
       this worldly and pleasure-loving city the apparition of this
       man, in the full vigour of life, all conviction and
       determination, half prophet and half tribune, produced a
       powerful impression. The number of his outward followers
       increased, but they were outward followers only. Most of them
       thought it would be well to make use of the bold Reformer to
       oppose the bishop, and that he would find means of
       establishing a new and independent Church, but they seemed to
       regard freedom as libertinism. Calvin therefore regarded the
       course things were taking with profound dissatisfaction. ...
       So he delivered some extremely severe sermons, which half
       frightened and half estranged his hearers; and at Easter,
       1538, when the congregation came to partake of the Lord's
       Supper, he took the unheard-of step of sending them all back
       from the altar, saying, 'You are not worthy to partake of the
       Lord's body; you are just what you were before; your
       sentiments, your morals, and your conduct are unchanged.' This
       was more than could be hazarded without peril to his life. The
       effect was indescribable; his own friends disapproved of the
       step. But that did not dismay him. He had barely time to flee
       for his life, and he had to leave Geneva in a state of
       transition--a chaos which justified a saying of his own, that
       defection from one Church is not renovation by another. He was
       now once more an exile. He wandered about on the frontiers of
       his country, in the German cities of Strasburg, Basle, &c.,
       and we several times meet with him in the religious
       discussions between 1540 and 1550. ... But a time came when
       they wished him back at Geneva. ... In September, 1541, he
       returned and began his celebrated labours. Endowed with
       supreme power, like Lycurgus at Sparta, he set to work to make
       Geneva a city of the Lord--to found an ecclesiastical state in
       which religion, public life, government, and the worship of
       God were to be all of a piece, and an extraordinary task it
       was. Calvinistic Geneva became the school of reform for
       western Europe, and scattered far and wide the germs of
       similar institutions. In times when Protestantism elsewhere
       had become cool, this school carried on the conflict with the
       mediæval Church. Calvin was implacable in his determination to
       purify the worship of God of all needless adjuncts. All that
       was calculated to charm and affect the senses was abolished;
       spiritual worship should be independent of all earthly things,
       and should consist of edification by the word, and simple
       spiritual songs. All the traditional externals that Luther had
       retained--altars, pictures, ceremonials, and decorations of
       every kind--were dispensed with. ... Calvin next established a
       system of Church discipline which controlled the individual in
       every relation of life, and ruled him from the cradle to the
       grave. He retained all the means by which ecclesiastical
       authority enforced obedience on the faithful in the Middle
       Ages--baptism, education up to confirmation, penance, penal
       discipline, and excommunication. ... Calvin began his labours
       late in the autumn of 1541, and he acquired and maintained
       more power than was ever exercised by the most powerful popes.
       He was indeed only the 'preacher of the word,' but through his
       great influence he was the lawgiver, the administrator, the
       dictator of the State of Geneva. There was nothing in the
       commonwealth that had not been ordained by him, and this
       indicates a remarkable aspect of his character. The
       organization of the State of Geneva began with the ordinances
       of the 2nd of January, 1542. There were four orders of
       officials--pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons. The
       Consistory was formed of the pastors and elders. ... It was
       the special duty of the Consistory, which was composed of the
       clergy and twelve laymen, to see that the ordinances were duly
       observed, and it was the supreme tribunal of morals. The
       twelve laymen were elected for a year, by the council of two
       hundred, on the nomination by the clergy. The Consistory met
       every Thursday to see that everything in the church was in
       order. They had the power of excommunication, but this only
       consisted in exclusion from the community of the faithful, and
       the loss of the privilege of partaking of the Lord's Supper.
       It also decided questions relating to marriage. The deacons
       had the care of the poor and of almsgiving. Calvin himself was
       the soul of the whole organization. But he was a cold, stiff,
       almost gloomy being, and his character produces a very
       different impression from the genial warmth of Luther, who
       could be cheerful and merry with his family. Half Old
       Testament prophet, half Republican demagogue, Calvin could do
       anything in his State, but it was by means of his personal
       influence, the authority of his words, 'the majesty of his
       character,' as was said by a magistrate of Geneva after his
       death. He was to the last the simple minister, whose frugal
       mode of life appeared to his enemies like niggardliness. After
       a reign of twenty-three years, he left behind him the
       possessions of a mendicant monk. ... No other reformer
       established so rigid a church discipline. ... All noisy games,
       games of chance, dancing, singing of profane songs, cursing
       and swearing, were forbidden, and ... church-going and
       Sabbath-keeping were strictly enjoined. The moral police took
       account of everything. Every citizen had to be at home by nine
       o'clock, under heavy penalties. Adultery, which had previously
       been punished by a few days' imprisonment and a small fine,
       was now punished by death. ... At a time when Europe had no
       solid results of reform to show, this little State of Geneva
       stood up as a great power; year by year it sent forth apostles
       into the world, who preached its doctrines everywhere, and it
       became the most dreaded counterpoise to Rome, when Rome no
       longer had any bulwark to defend her. ... It formed a weighty
       counterpoise to the desperate efforts which the ancient Church
       and monarchical power were making to crush the spirit of the
       Reformation.
    {1419}
       It was impossible to oppose Caraffa, Philip II., and the
       Stuarts, with Luther's passive resistance; men were wanted who
       were ready to wage war to the knife, and such was the
       Calvinistic school. It everywhere accepted the challenge;
       throughout all the conflicts for political and religious
       liberty, up to the time of the first emigration to America, in
       France, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland, we recognise
       the Genevan school. A little bit of the world's history was
       enacted in Geneva, which forms the proudest portion of the
       sixteenth and seventeenth centuries."

          L. Häusser,
          The Period of the Reformation,
          chapter 18.

          ALSO IN:
          P. Henry,
          Life and Times of Calvin,
          parts 2-3.

          J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
          History of the Reformation in the time of Calvin,
          books 9 and 11.

          F. P. Guizot,
          Calvin,
          chapters 12-22.

          L. von Ranke,
          Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, 16th-17th Centuries,
          chapter 8.

    GENEVA: A. D. 1570.
       Treaty with the Duke of Savoy.
       Agreement of non-molestation.

          See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

    GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.
       The escalade of the Savoyards and its repulse.
       Treaty of St. Julien.

       Finding a pretext in some hostile manifestations which had
       appeared among the Genevese during a conflict between the
       French king and himself, Charles Emanuel I., duke of Savoy,
       chose to consider himself at war with Geneva, and "determined
       to fight out his quarrel without further notice. The night of
       the 11th to the 12th of December, 1602.. is forever memorable
       in the annals of Geneva. 4,000 Savoyards, aided by darkness,
       attempted the escalade of its walls; an unforeseen accident
       disconcerted them; the citizens exhibited the most heroic
       presence of mind; the ladders by which the aggressors ascended
       were shot down by a random cannon-ball; the troops outside
       fell into confusion; those who had already entered the town
       were either mowed down in fight or hung on the scaffold on the
       morrow; thus the whole enterprise miscarried. It was in vain
       that the Duke came forward with his whole host, and tried to
       prevail by open force where stratagem had failed. He was
       thwarted by the intervention of the French and Swiss, and
       compelled by their threats to sign the Treaty of St. Julien
       (July 21st, 1603), which secured the independence of the
       Genevese. Charles nevertheless did not, to his last day, give
       up his designs upon that city."

          A. Gallenga,
          History of Piedmont,
          volume 3, chapter 2.

    GENEVA: A. D. 1798.
       Forcibly united to the French Republic.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

    GENEVA: A. D. 1814.
       United with the Swiss Confederation.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

    GENEVA: A. D. 1815.
       United as a canton to the Swiss Confederation, by the Congress
       of Vienna.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    ----------GENEVA: End----------

    GENEVA CONVENTION, The.

          See RED CROSS.

    GENEVA TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION.

          See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871, and 1871-1872.

    GENEVOIS, The.

          See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

    GENGHIS KHAN, The conquests of.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

    GENOA:
       Origin and rise of the city.

       "Genoa, anciently Genua, was the chief maritime city of
       Liguria, and afterwards a Roman municipium. Under the Lombards
       the constant invasions of the Saracens united the professions
       of trade and war, and its greatest merchants became also its
       greatest generals, while its naval captains were also
       merchants. The Crusades were of great advantage to Genoa [see
       CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111] in enabling it to establish trading
       settlements as far as the Black Sea; but the power of Pisa in
       the East, as well as its possession of Corsica and Sardinia,
       led to wars between it and Genoa, in which the Genoese took
       Corsica [see CORSICA: EARLY HISTORY] and drove the Pisans out
       of Sardinia. By land the Genoese territory was extended to
       Nice on one side and to Spezia on the other."

          A. J. C. Hare,
          Cities of Northern and Central Italy,
          volume 1, page 30.

    GENOA: A. D. 1256-1257.
       Battles with the Venetians at Acre.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.

    GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
       The supplanting of Venice at Constantinople and in the Black
       Sea trade.
       Colonies in the Crimea.
       Wars with Venice.
       Victory at Curzola and favorable treaty of peace.

       During the Latin dynasty in Constantinople the Genoese never
       gained the first place in the commerce of the Black Sea. ...
       It was Venice who held the key of all this commerce, at
       Constantinople; when, after diverting the whole course of the
       fourth Crusade, she induced Christendom to waste its energies
       on subduing the Greek empire for her benefit [see BYZANTINE
       EMPIRE: A.D. 1203-1204]. With the exiled Greek dynasty,
       however, the Genoese were always on the best of terms, at
       Trebizond, Nicea, and in Roumania; and recognizing that as
       long as the Latins were all-powerful in Constantinople she
       would have to relinquish the cream of the Black Sea commerce
       to the Queen of the Adriatic, she at length determined to
       strike a bold stroke and replace a Greek again on the throne."
       This was accomplished in 1261, when Baldwin II. fled from the
       Byzantine capital and Michael Paleologus took possession of
       his throne and crown (see GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D.
       1204-1261). For the assistance given in that revolution, the
       Genoese obtained the treaty of Ninfeo, "which firmly
       established their influence in the Black Sea. ... Thus did the
       brave mariner-town of Genoa turn the scale of the vast, but
       rotten, Eastern Empire; and her reward was manifold. The
       grateful emperor gave her streets and quays in Constantinople,
       immunity from tribute, and a free passage for her commerce.
       ... In addition to these excellent terms in the treaty of
       Ninfeo, the emperor conceded to various Genoese private
       families numerous islands in the Archipelago. ... But the
       great nucleus of this power was the streets, churches, and
       quays in Constantinople which were allotted to the Genoese,
       and formed a vast emporium of strength and commerce, which
       must have eventually led to entire possession of
       Constantinople, had not the 'podesta,' or ruler of the Genoese
       colony there, thought fit, from personal motives, or from large
       offers made him by the Venetians, to attempt a restoration of
       the Latin line. ... His conspiracy was discovered, and the
       Genoese were sent away in a body to Eraclea. However, on
       representation from home that it was none of their doing, and
       that Guercio had been acting entirely on his own account, the
       emperor yielded in perpetuity to the Genoese the town of Pera,
       on the sole condition that the governors should do him homage
       [see, also, CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453]. ...
    {1420}
       Thus were the Genoese established in this commanding position;
       here they had a separate government of their own, from here
       they ruled the road of commerce from China to Europe; and,
       taking advantage of the weakness of the emperors, they were
       able to do much as they wished about building fortresses and
       palaces, with gardens to the water's edge; and thus from Pera,
       with its citadel of Galata behind it, they were enabled to
       dictate what terms they pleased to ships passing to and from
       the Bosphorus." In the Black Sea, "from time immemorial, the
       small tongue of land now known as the Crimea, then as the
       Tauric Chersonese, was the mart towards which all the caravan
       trade of Asia was directed by this northern road, and upon
       this tongue of land sprang up a group of noble cities which,
       until finally seized by the Turks, were without exception
       Genoese property. Of these, Caffa was the chief. When this
       city was built on the ruins of Theodosia, and by whom, is
       somewhat shrouded in mystery. Certain it is that Genoa had a
       colony here soon after the first Crusade. ... Second only to
       Caffa in importance, and better known to us by name, was the
       town of Crim, which gave its name eventually to the whole
       peninsula, which originally it had got from the Crim Tatars.
       ... Prior to its cession to the Genoese, it had been the
       residence of a Tatar emperor. ... Here, then, in this narrow
       tongue of land, which we now call the Crimea, was the kernel
       of Genoese prosperity. As long as she flourished here she
       flourished at home. And when at length the Turkish scourge
       swept over this peninsula and swallowed up her colonies, the
       Ligurian Republic, by a process of slow decay, withered like a
       sapless tree." The supplanting of the Venetians at
       Constantinople by the Genoese, and the great advantages gained
       by the latter in the commerce of the Black Sea, led
       necessarily to war between the rival republics. "To maintain
       her newly acquired influence in the East, Genoa sent forth a
       fleet under the joint command of Pierino Grimaldi, a noble,
       and Perchelto Mallone, the people's representative. They
       encountered the Venetian squadron at Malvasia [1263] which was
       greatly inferior to their own. But as the combatants were just
       warming to their work, Mallone, actuated by party spirit,
       withdrew his ships and sailed away. The Venetians could
       scarcely believe what they saw; they anticipated some deep
       laid stratagem, and withdrew for a while from the contest.
       When however they beheld Mallone's galleys fairly under sail,
       they wonderingly attacked Grimaldi and his 13 ships and
       obtained an easy victory. Grimaldi fell at his post. ... This
       fatal day of Malvasia [sometimes called the battle of Sette
       Pozzi] might easily have secured Venice her lost place in the
       Black Sea had she been able to follow up her victory, but with
       inexplicable want of vigour she remained inactive." Genoa,
       meantime, recovered from the disaster and sent out another
       fleet which captured a rich squadron of Venetian merchant
       ships in the Adriatic, taking large booty. "It surprises us
       immensely to find how for the next thirty years Genoa was able
       to keep up a desultory warfare with Venice, when she was at
       the height of her struggle with Pisa; and it surprises us
       still more that Venice raised not a hand to assist Pisa,
       though she was on most friendly terms with her, and when by so
       doing she could have ruined Genoa. ... After the fall of Pisa
       at Meloria, in 1296 [1284], Genoa could transfer her attention
       with all the greater vigour to her contest against Venice.
       Four years after this victory men's minds were again bent on
       war. Venice cared not to pay a tax to her rival on all ships
       which went to Caffa, Genoa resented the treatment she had
       received in Cyprus, and thus the rivals prepared for another
       and more determined contest for supremacy." The Venetians sent
       a fleet to operate in the Black Sea. "Fire was set to the
       houses of Galata, irreparable damage was done to Caffa, and in
       the Archipelago everything Genoese was burnt, and then off
       they sailed for Cyprus, whilst the Genoese were squabbling
       amongst themselves. With much trouble the many rulers of Genoa
       succeeded at length in adjusting their difference, and a
       goodly array of 76 galleys was entrusted to the care of Lamba
       D'Oria to punish the Venetians for their depredations. ...
       Much larger was the force Venice produced for the contest, and
       when the combatants met off Curzola, amongst the Dalmatian
       islands, the Genoese were anxious to come to terms, and sought
       them, but the Venetians haughtily refused. ... This battle of
       Curzola [September 8, 1298] was a sharp and vehement struggle,
       and resulted in terrible loss to the Venetians, four of whose
       galleys alone escaped to tell the tale. ... Had Lamba D'Oria
       but driven the contest home, Venice was ill-prepared to meet
       him; as it was, he determined to sail off to Genoa, taking
       with him the Venetian admiral ... Dandolo. Chained to the mast
       of his own vessel, and unable to sustain the effects of his
       humiliation, there, as he stood, Dandolo dashed his head
       against the mast and died. ... The natural result of such a
       victory was a most favourable peace for Genoa, signed under
       the direction of Matteo Visconti, lord of Milan, in 1299; and
       thus the century closed on Genoa as without doubt the most
       powerful state in Italy, and unquestionably the mistress of
       the Mediterranean. ... The next outbreak of war between the
       two Republics had its origin in the occupation of the island
       of Chios, in 1349," and Genoa in that struggle encountered not
       the Venetians alone, but the Greeks and Catalans in alliance
       with them.

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

          J. T. Bent,
          Genoa: How the Republic rose and fell,
          chapters 6 and 8.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Hazlitt,
          History of the Venetian Republic,
          chapter 11 (volume 2).

    GENOA: A. D. 1282-1290.
       War with Pisa.
       The great victory of Meloria.
       Capture of the chain of the Pisan harbor.

          See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

    GENOA: A. D. 1313.
       Alliance with the Emperor Henry VII. against Naples.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

    GENOA: A. D. 1318-1319.
       Feuds of the four great families.
       Siege of the city by the exiles and the Lombard princes, and
       its defense by the King of Naples.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

    GENOA: A. D. 1348-1355.
       War with the Greeks, Venetians and Aragonese.

          See CONSTANTINOPLE: AD. 1348-1355.

    GENOA: A. D. 1353.
       Annexed by the Visconti to their Milanese principality.

          See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

    GENOA: A. D. 1378-1379.
       Renewed war with Venice.
       The victory at Pola.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.

    {1421}

    GENOA: A. D. 1379-1381.
       The disastrous war of Chioggia.
       Venice triumphant.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.

    GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.
       A succession of foreign masters.
       The King of France, the Marquis of Monferrat
       and the Duke of Milan.

       The history of Genoa for more than a century after the
       disastrous War of Chioggia "is one long and melancholy tissue
       of internal and external troubles, coming faster and faster
       upon one another as the inherent vitality of the Republic grew
       weaker. ... During this period we have a constant and
       unhealthy craving for foreign masters, be they Marquises of
       Monferrato, Dukes of Milan, or the more formidable subverters
       of freedom, the kings of France. ... In 1396 ... Adorno [then
       doge of Genoa], finding himself unable to tyrannize as he
       wished, decided on handing over the government to Charles VI.
       of France. In this he was ably backed up by many members of
       the old nobility, as the signatures to the treaty testify. The
       king was to be entitled 'Defender of the Commune and People,'
       and was to respect in every way the existing order of things.
       So on the 27th of November, in that year, the great bell in
       the tower of the ducal palace was rung, the French standard
       was raised by the side of the red cross of Genoa, and in the
       great council hall, where her rulers had sat for centuries,
       now sat enthroned the French ambassadors, whilst Antoniotto
       Adorno handed over to them the sceptre and keys of the city.
       These symbols of government were graciously restored to him,
       with the admonition that he should no longer be styled 'doge,'
       but 'governor' in the name of France. Thus did Adorno sell his
       country for the love of power, preferring to be the head of
       many slaves, rather than to live as a subordinate in a free
       community. The first two governors sent by France after
       Adorno's death were unable to cope with the seething mass of
       corruption they found within the city walls, until the Marshal
       Boucicault was sent, whose name was far famed for cruelty in
       Spain against the Moors, in Bulgaria against the Turks, and in
       France against the rebels." The government of Boucicault was
       hard and cruel, and "his name is handed down by the Genoese as
       the most hateful of her many tyrants." In 1409 they took
       advantage of his absence from the city to bring in the Marquis
       of Monferrato, who established himself in his place. "It was
       but for a brief period that the Genoese submitted to the
       Marquis of Monferrato; they preferred to return to their doges
       and internal quarrels. ... Throughout the city nothing was
       heard but the din of arms. Brother fought against brother,
       father against son, and for the whole of an unusually chill
       December, in 1414, there was not a by-path in Genoa which was
       not paved with lances, battle-axes and dead bodies. ... Out of
       this fiery trial Genoa at length emerged with Tommaso
       Campofregoso as her doge, one of the few bright lights which
       illumined Liguria during the early part of this century. ...
       The Genoese arms during this time of quiescence again shone
       forth with something of their ancient brilliancy. Corsica was
       subdued, and a substantial league was formed with Henry V. of
       England, ... 1421, by which perpetual friendship and peace by
       land and sea was sworn. Short, however, was the period during
       which Genoa could rest contented at home. Campofregoso was
       driven from the dogeship, and Filippo Maria, Visconti of
       Milan, was appointed protector of the Republic [1422], and
       through this allegiance the Genoese were drawn into an
       unprofitable war for the succession in Naples, in which the
       Duke of Milan and the Pope supported the claims of Queen
       Joanna and her adopted son, Louis of Anjou, against Alphonso
       of Aragon."

          J. T. Bent,
          Genoa,
          chapter 9.

          The Universal History,
          chapter 73, sections 3-4 (volume 25).

    GENOA: A. D. 1385-1386.
       Residence of Pope Urban VI.

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

    GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.
       The Bank of St. George.

       "The Bank of St. George was founded in Genoa in the year 1407.
       It was an immense success and a great support to the
       government. It gradually became a republic within the
       republic, more peaceful and better regulated than its
       mistress." In 1448 the administration of Corsica and of the
       Genoese colonies in the Levant was transferred to the Bank,
       which thenceforward appointed governors and conducted colonial
       affairs.

          G. B. Malleson,
          Studies from Genoese History,
          page 75.

          ALSO IN:
          J. T. Bent,
          Genoa,
          chapter 11.

          See, also,
          CORSICA: EARLY HISTORY.

    GENOA: A. D. 1421-1435.
       Submission to the Duke of Milan, and recovery of the freedom
       of the city.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

    GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.
       Renewed struggles of domestic faction and changes of foreign
       masters.
       Submission to the Dukes of Milan.

       "Genoa, wearied with internal convulsions, which followed each
       other incessantly, had lost all influence over the rest of
       Italy; continually oppressed by faction, it no longer
       preserved even the recollection of liberty. In 1458, it had
       submitted to the king of France, then Charles VII.; and John
       of Anjou, duke of Calabria, had come to exercise the functions
       of governor in the king's name. He made it, at the same time,
       his fortress, from whence to attack the kingdom of Naples.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

       But this war had worn out the patience of the Genoese; they
       rose against the French; and, on the 17th of July, 1461,
       destroyed the army sent to subdue them by René of Anjou. The
       Genoese had no sooner thrown off a foreign yoke than they
       became divided into two factions,--the Adorni and the Fregosi,
       [severally partisans of two families of that name which
       contended for the control of the republic]: both had at
       different times, and more than once, given them a doge. The
       more violent and tyrannical of these factious magistrates was
       Paolo Fregoso, also archbishop of Genoa, who had returned to
       his country, in 1462, as chief of banditti; and left it again,
       two years afterwards, as chief of a band of pirates. The
       Genoese, disgusted with their independence, which was
       disgraced by so many crimes and disturbances, had, on the 13th
       of April, 1464, yielded to Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan;
       and afterwards remained subject to his son Galeazzo."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          B. Duffy,
          The Tuscan Republics,
          chapter 23.

    GENOA: A. D. 1475.
       Loss of possessions in the Crimea.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.

    {1422}

    GENOA: A. D. 1500-1507.
       Capitulation to Louis XII. of France, conqueror of Milan.
       Revolt and subjugation.

       By the conquest of Milan (see ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500), Louis
       XII. of France acquired the signoria of Genoa, which had been
       held by the deposed duke, Ludovico Sforza. "According to the
       capitulation, one half of the magistrates of Genoa should be
       noble, the other half plebeian. They were to be chosen by the
       suffrages of their fellow-citizens; they were to retain the
       government of the whole of Liguria, and the administration of
       their own finances, with the reservation of a fixed sum
       payable yearly to the king of France. But the French could
       never comprehend that nobles were on an equality with
       villains; that a king was bound by conditions imposed by his
       subjects; or that money could be refused to him who had force.
       All the capitulations of Genoa were successively violated; while
       the Genoese nobles ranged themselves on the side of a king
       against their country: they were known to carry insolently
       about them a dagger, on which was inscribed, 'Chastise
       villains'; so impatient were they to separate themselves from
       the people, even by meanness and assassination. That people
       could not support the double yoke of a foreign master and of
       nobles who betrayed their country. On the 7th of February,
       1507, they revolted, drove out the French, proclaimed the
       republic, and named a new doge; but time failed them to
       organize their defence. On the 3d of April, Louis advanced
       from Grenoble with a powerful army. He soon arrived before
       Genoa: the newly-raised militia, unable to withstand veteran
       troops, were defeated. Louis entered Genoa on the 29th of
       April; and immediately sent the doge and the greater number of
       the generous citizens, who had signalized themselves in the
       defence of their country, to the scaffold."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          History of the Italian Republics,
          chapter 14.

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
          from 1494 to 1514,
          page 260.

    GENOA: A. D. 1527-1528.
       French dominion momentarily restored and then overthrown by
       Andrew Doria.
       The republic revived.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

    GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.
       The conspiracy of Fiesco and its failure.
       Revolt and recovery of Corsica.

       "Sustained by the ability of Doria, and protected by the arms
       of Charles V., the Republic, during near nineteen years
       subsequent to this auspicious revolution, continued in the
       enjoyment of dignified independence and repose. But, the
       memorable conspiracy of Louis Fiesco, Count of Lavagna, the
       Catiline of Liguria, had nearly subverted Genoa, and reduced
       it anew to the obedience of France, or exposed it once more to
       all the misfortunes of anarchy. The massacre of Doria and his
       family constituted one of the primary objects of the plot;
       while the dissimulation, intrepidity, and capacity, which
       marked its leader ... have rendered the attempt one of the
       most extraordinary related in modern history. It was
       accompanied with complete success till the moment of its
       termination. Jeannetin Doria, the heir of that house, having
       perished by the dagger, and Andrew, his uncle, being with
       difficulty saved by his servants, who transported him out of
       the city, the Genoese Senate was about to submit
       unconditionally to Fiesco, when that nobleman, by a sudden and
       accidental death, at once rendered abortive his own hopes and
       those of his followers. The government, resuming courage,
       expelled the surviving conspirators; and Doria, on his return
       to the city, sullied the lustre of his high character, by
       proceeding to acts of cruelty against the brothers and
       adherents of the Count of Lavagna. Notwithstanding this
       culpable and vindictive excess, he continued invariably firm
       to the political principles which he had inculcated, for
       maintaining the freedom of the Commonwealth. Philip, Prince of
       Spain, son of Charles V., having visited Genoa in the
       succeeding year, attempted to induce the senate, under
       specious pretences of securing their safety, to consent to the
       construction of a citadel, garrisoned by Spaniards. But he found
       in that assembly, as well as in Doria, an insurmountable
       opposition to the measure, which was rejected with unanimous
       indignation. The island of Corsica, which had been subjected
       for ages to Genoa, and which was oppressed by a tyrannical
       administration, took up arms at this period [1558-1559]; and
       the French having aided the insurgents, they maintained a long
       and successful struggle against their oppressors. But the
       peace concluded at Cateau between Philip, King of Spain, and
       Henry II., in which the Spanish court dictated terms to
       France, obliged that nation to evacuate their Corsican
       acquisitions, and to restore the island to the Genoese.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

       Soon afterwards [1559], at the very advanced age of ninety,
       Andrew Doria expired in his own palace, surrounded by the
       people on whom he had conferred freedom and tranquillity;
       leaving the Commonwealth in domestic repose and undisturbed by
       foreign war."

          Sir N. W. Wraxall,
          History of France, 1574-1610,
          volume 2, pages 43-44.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          Studies from Genoese History,
          chapter 1-3.

    GENOA: A. D. 1625-1626.
       Unsuccessful attack by France and Savoy.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

    GENOA: A. D. 1745.
       The republic sides with Spain and France in the War of the
       Austrian Succession.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

    GENOA: A. D. 1746-1747.
       Surrendered to the Austrians.
       Popular rising.
       Expulsion of the Austrian garrison.
       Long siege and deliverance of the city.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

    GENOA: A. D. 1748.
       Territory secured by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

          See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.

    GENOA: A. D. 1768.
       Cession of Corsica to France.

          See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

    GENOA: A. D. 1796.
       Treaty of peace with France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).

    GENOA: A. D. 1797.
       Revolution forced by Bonaparte.
       Creation of the Ligurian Republic.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

    GENOA: A. D. 1800.
       Siege by the Austrians.
       Masséna's defense.
       Surrender of the city.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

    GENOA: A. D. 1805.
       Surrender of independence.
       Annexation to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

    GENOA: A. D. 1814.
       Reduction of the forts by English troops.
       Surrender of the French garrison.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

    GENOA: A. D. 1814-1815.
       Annexation to the kingdom of Sardinia.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
          and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    ----------GENOA: End----------

    GENOLA, Battle of (1799).

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

    {1423}

    GENS, GENTES, GENTILES.

       "When Roman history begins, there were within the city, and
       subordinate to the common city government, a large number of
       smaller bodies, each of which preserved its individuality and
       some semblance of governmental machinery. These were clans
       [gens], and in prehistoric times each of them is taken to have
       had an independent political existence, living apart, worshiping
       its own gods, and ruled over by its own chieftain. This clan
       organization is not supposed to have been peculiar at all to
       Rome, but ancient society in general was composed of an
       indefinite number of such bodies, which, at the outset,
       treated with each other in a small way as nations might treat
       with each other to-day. It needs to be noted, however, that,
       at any rate, so far as Rome is concerned, this is a matter of
       inference, not of historical proof. The earliest political
       divisions in Latium of which we have any trace consisted of
       such clans united into communities. If they ever existed,
       separately, therefore their union must have been deliberate
       and artificial, and the body thus formed was the canton
       ('civitas' or 'populus'). Each canton had a fixed common
       stronghold ('capitolium,' 'height,' or 'arx'--cf. 'arceo'
       --'citadel') situated on some central elevation. The clans
       dwelt around in hamlets ('vici' or 'pagi') scattered through
       the canton. Originally, the central stronghold was not a place
       of residence like the 'pagi,' but a place of refuge ... and a
       place of meeting. ... In all of this, therefore, the clan
       seems to lie at the very foundation. ... Any clan in the
       beginning, of course, must have been simply a family. When it
       grew so large as to be divided into sections, the sections
       were known as families ('familiæ') and their union was the
       clan. In this view the family, as we find it existing in the
       Roman state, was a subdivision of the clan. In other words,
       historically, families did not unite to form clans, but the
       clan was the primitive thing, and the families were its
       branches. Men thus recognized kinship of a double character.
       They were related to all the members of their clan as
       'gentiles,' and again more closely to all the members of their
       branch of the clan at once as 'gentiles' and also as 'agnati.'
       As already stated, men belonged to the same family ('agnati')
       when they could trace their descent through males from a
       common ancestor who gave its name to the family, or, what is
       the same thing, was its eponym. Between the members of a clan
       the chief evidence of relationship in historical times was
       tradition. ... We have thus outlined what is known as the
       patriarchal theory of society, and hinted at its application
       to certain facts in Roman history. It should be remembered,
       however, that it is only a theory, and that it is open to some
       apparent and to some real criticism."

          A. Tighe,
          Development of the Roman Constitution,
          chapter 2.

          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome, book 1,
          chapter 5.

       "The patricians were divided into certain private
       associations, called Gentes, which we may translate Houses or
       Clans. All the members of each Gens were called gentiles; and
       they bore the same name, which always ended in -ius; as for
       instance, every member of the Julian Gens was a Julius; every
       member of the Cornelian Gens was a Cornelius, and so on. Now
       in every Gens there were a number of Families which were
       distinguished by a name added to the name of the Gens. Thus
       the Scipios, Sullas, Cinnas, Cethegi, Lentuli, were all
       families of the Cornelian Gens. Lastly, every person of every
       Family was denoted by a name prefixed to the name of the Gens.
       The name of the person was, in Latin, prænomen; that of the
       Gens or House, nomen, that of the Family, cognomen. Thus Caius
       Julius Cæsar was a person of the Cæsar Family in the Julian
       Gens; Lucius Cornelius Scipio was a person of the Scipio
       Family in the Cornelian Gens; and so forth."

          H. G. Liddell,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 3.

       "There is no word in the English language which satisfactorily
       renders the Latin word 'gens.' The term 'clan' is apt to
       mislead; for the Scotch Highland clans were very different
       from the Roman 'gentes.' The word 'House' is not quite
       correct, for it always implies relationship, which was not
       essential in the 'gens'; but for want of a better word we
       shall use 'House' to express 'gens,' except where the spirit
       of the language rejects the term and requires 'family'
       instead. The German language has in the word 'Geschlecht' an
       almost equivalent term for the Latin 'gens'."

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 1, chapter 13, foot-note.

          ALSO IN:
          Fustel de Coulanges,
          The Ancient City,
          book 2, chapter 10.

          On the Greek gens, see PHYLÆ.

    GENSERIC AND THE VANDALS.

          See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

    GENTILES.

          See GENS.

    GENUCIAN LAW, The.

       A law which prohibited the taking of interest for loans is
       said to have been adopted at Rome, B. C. 342, on the proposal
       of the tribune Genucius; but modern historians are skeptical
       as to the actual enactment of the law.

          W. Ihne,
          History of Rome,
          book 3, chapter 5.

    GEOK TEPE, Siege and capture of (1881).

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.

    GEOMORI, OR GAMORI, The.

       "As far as our imperfect information enables us to trace,
       these early oligarchies of the Grecian states, against which
       the first usurping despots contended, contained in themselves
       more repulsive elements of inequality, and more mischievous
       barriers between the component parts of the population, than
       the oligarchies of later days. ... The oligarchy was not (like
       the government so denominated in subsequent times) the
       government of a rich few over the less rich and the poor, but
       that of a peculiar order, sometimes a Patrician order, over
       all the remaining society. ... The country-population, or
       villagers who tilled the land, seem in these early times to
       have been held to a painful dependence on the great
       proprietors who lived in the fortified town, and to have been
       distinguished by a dress and habits of their own, which often
       drew upon them an unfriendly nickname. ... The governing
       proprietors went by the name of the Gamori, or Geomori,
       according as the Doric or Ionic dialect might be used in
       describing them, since they were found in states belonging to
       one race as well as to the other. They appear to have
       constituted a close order, transmitting their privileges to
       their children, but admitting no new members to a
       participation. The principle called by Greek thinkers a
       Timocracy (the apportionment of political rights and
       privileges according to comparative property) seems to have
       been little, if at all, applied in the earlier times. We know
       no example of it earlier than Solon."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 9.

    GEONIM, The.

          See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

    GEORGE I.,
       King of England (first of the Hanoverian or Brunswick line),
       A. D. 1714-1727.

       George II., King of England," 1727-1760.

       George III., King of England, 1760-1820.

       George IV., King of England, 1820-1830.

       George Podiebrad, King of Bohemia, 1458-1471.

       George William, Elector of Brandenburg, 1619-1640.

    ----------GEORGE: End----------

    {1424}

    GEORGIA: The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES,
          MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1539-1542.
       Traversed by Hernando de Soto.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1629.
       Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1663.
       Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk,
       Clarendon, and others.

          See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
       Oglethorpe's colony.

       "Among the members of Parliament during the rule of Sir Robert
       Walpole was one almost unknown to us now, but deserving of
       honour beyond most men of his time. His name was James
       Oglethorpe. He was a soldier, and had fought against the Turks
       and in the great Marlborough wars against Louis XIV. In
       advanced life he became the friend of Samuel Johnson. Dr.
       Johnson urged him to write some account of his adventures. 'I
       know no one,' he said, 'whose life would be more interesting:
       if I were furnished with materials I should be very glad to
       write it.' Edmund Burke considered him 'a more extraordinary
       person than any he had ever read of.' John Wesley 'blessed God
       that ever he was born.' Oglethorpe attained the great age of
       ninety-six, and died in the year 1785. ... In Oglethorpe's
       time it was in the power of a creditor to imprison, according
       to his pleasure, the man who owed him money and was not able
       to pay it. It was a common circumstance that a man should be
       imprisoned during a long series of years for a trifling debt.
       Oglethorpe had a friend upon whom this hard fate had fallen.
       His attention was thus painfully called to the cruelties which
       were inflicted upon the unfortunate and helpless. He appealed
       to Parliament, and after inquiry a partial remedy was
       obtained. The benevolent exertions of Oglethorpe procured
       liberty for multitudes who but for him might have ended their
       lives in captivity. This, however, did not content him.
       Liberty was an incomplete gift to men who had lost, or perhaps
       had scarcely ever possessed, the faculty of earning their own
       maintenance. Oglethorpe devised how lie might carry these
       unfortunates to a new world, where, under happier auspices,
       they might open a fresh career. He obtained [A. D. 1732] from
       King George II. a charter by which the country between the
       Savannah and the Alatamaha, and stretching westward to the
       Pacific, was erected into the province of Georgia. It was to
       be a refuge for the deserving poor, and next to them for
       Protestants suffering persecution. Parliament voted £10,000 in
       aid of the humane enterprise, and many benevolent persons were
       liberal with their gifts. In November the first exodus of the
       insolvent took place. Oglethorpe sailed with 120 emigrants,
       mainly selected from the prisons--penniless, but of good
       repute. He surveyed the coasts of Georgia, and chose a site
       for the capital of his new State. He pitched his tent where
       Savannah now stands, and at once proceeded to mark out the
       line of streets and squares. Next year the colony was joined
       by about a hundred German Protestants, who were then under
       persecution for their beliefs. ... The fame of Oglethorpe's
       enterprise spread over Europe. All struggling men, against
       whom the battle of life went hard, looked to Georgia as a land
       of promise. They were the men who most urgently required to
       emigrate; but they were not always the men best fitted to
       conquer the difficulties of the immigrant's life. The progress
       of the colony was slow. The poor persons of whom it was
       originally composed were honest but ineffective, and could not
       in Georgia more than in England find out the way to become
       self-supporting. Encouragements were given which drew from
       Germany, from Switzerland, and from the Highlands of Scotland
       men of firmer texture of mind--better fitted to subdue the
       wilderness and bring forth its treasures. With Oglethorpe
       there went out, on his second expedition to Georgia [1736],
       the two brothers John and Charles Wesley. Charles went as
       secretary to the Governor. John was even then, although a very
       young man, a preacher of unusual promise. ... He spent two
       years in Georgia, and these were unsuccessful years. His
       character was unformed; his zeal out of proportion to his
       discretion. The people felt that he preached 'personal
       satires' at them. He involved himself in quarrels, and at last
       had to leave the colony secretly, fearing arrest at the
       instance of some whom he had offended. He returned to begin
       his great career in England, with the feeling that his
       residence in Georgia had been of much value to himself, but of
       very little to the people whom he sought to benefit. Just as
       Wesley reached England, his fellow-labourer George Whitefield
       sailed for Georgia. ... He founded an Orphan-House at
       Savannah, and supported it by contributions--obtained easily
       from men under the power of his unequalled eloquence. He
       visited Georgia very frequently, and his love for that colony
       remained with him to the last. Slavery was, at the outset,
       forbidden in Georgia. It was opposed to the gospel, Oglethorpe
       said, and therefore not to be allowed. He foresaw, besides, what
       has been so bitterly experienced since, that slavery must
       degrade the poor white labourer. But soon a desire sprung up
       among the less scrupulous of the settlers to have the use of
       slaves. Within seven years from the first landing, slave-ships
       were discharging their cargo at Savannah."

          R. Mackenzie,
          America: A History,
          book 1, chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          T. M. Harris,
          Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe,
          chapters 1-10.

          R. Wright,
          Memoir of General James Oglethorpe,
          chapters 1-9.

       For text of charter, etc., see in

          G. White,
          Historical Collections of Georgia,
          pages. 1-20.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1734.
       The settlement of the Salzburgers.

       "As early as October the 12th, 1732, the 'Society for the
       Propagation of Christian Knowledge' expressed to the Trustees
       a desire 'that the persecuted Salzburgers should have an
       asylum provided for them in Georgia.' ... These Germans
       belonged to the Archbishopric of Salzburg, then the most
       eastern district of Bavaria; but now forming a detached
       district in upper Austria, and called Salzburg from the broad
       valley of the Salzer, which is made by the approximating of
       the Norric and Rhetian Alps. Their ancestors, the Vallenges of
       Piedmont, had been compelled by the barbarities of the Dukes
       of Savoy, to find a shelter from the storms of persecution in
       the Alpine passes and vales of Salzburg and the Tyrol, before
       the Reformation; and frequently since had they been hunted out
       by the hirelings and soldiery of the Church of Rome. ...
    {1425}
       The quietness which they had enjoyed for nearly half a century
       was now rudely broken in upon by Leopold, Count of Firmian and
       Archbishop of Salzburg, who determined to reduce them to the
       Papal faith and power. He began in the year 1729, and, ere he
       ended in 1732, not far from 30,000 had been driven from their
       homes, to seek among the Protestant States of Europe that
       charity and peace which were denied them in the glens and
       fastnesses of their native Alps. More than two-thirds settled
       in the Prussian States; the rest spread themselves over
       England, Holland, and other Protestant countries. Thrilling is
       the story of their exile. The march of these Salzburgers
       constitutes an epoch in the history of Germany. ... The
       sympathies of Reformed Christendom were awakened on their
       behalf, and the most hospitable entertainment and assistance
       were everywhere given them." Forty-two families, numbering 78
       persons, accepted an invitation to settle in Georgia,
       receiving allotments of land and provisions until they could
       gather a harvest. They arrived at Savannah in March, 1734, and
       were settled at a spot which they selected for themselves,
       about thirty miles in the interior. "Oglethorpe marked out for
       them a town; ordered workmen to assist in building houses; and
       soon the whole body of Germans went up to their new home at
       Ebenezer."

           W. B. Stevens,
           History of Georgia,
           book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          F. Shoberl,
          Persecutions of Popery,
          chapter 9 (volume 2).

          E. B. Speirs,
          The Salzburgers
          (English History Review, October, 1890).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.
       The Slavery question.
       Original exclusion and subsequent admission of negro slaves.

       Among the fundamental regulations of the Trustees was one
       prohibiting negro slavery in the colony. "It was policy and
       not philanthropy which prohibited slavery; for, though one of
       the Trustees, in a sermon to recommend charity, declared, 'Let
       avarice defend it as it will, there is an honest reluctance in
       humanity against buying and selling, and regarding those of
       our own species as our wealth and possessions'; and though
       Oglethorpe himself, speaking of slavery as against 'the gospel
       as well as the fundamental law of England', asserted, 'we
       refused, as Trustees, to make a law permitting such a horrid
       crime'; yet in the official publications of that body its
       inhibition is based only on political and prudential, and not
       on humane and liberal grounds; and even Oglethorpe owned a
       plantation and negroes near Parachucla in South Carolina,
       about forty miles above Savannah. ... Their [the Trustees']
       design was to provide for poor but honest persons, to erect a
       barrier between South Carolina and the Spanish settlements,
       and to establish a wine and silk-growing colony. It was
       thought by the Trustees that neither of these designs could be
       secured if slavery was introduced. ... But while the Trustees
       disallowed negroes, they instituted a system of white slavery
       which was fraught with evil to the servants and to the colony.
       These were white servants, consisting of Welch, English, or
       German, males and females--families and individuals--who were
       indented to individuals or the Trustees, for a period of from
       four to fourteen years. ... On arriving in Georgia, their
       service was sold for the term of indenture, or apportioned to
       the inhabitants by the magistrates, as their necessities
       required. ... Two years had not elapsed since the landing of
       Oglethorpe before many complaints originated from this cause;
       and in the summer of 1735 a petition, signed by seventeen
       freeholders, setting forth the unprofitableness of white
       servants, and the necessity for negroes, was carried by Mr.
       Hugh Sterling to the Trustees, who, however, resented the
       appeal as an insult to their honour. ... The plan for
       substituting white for black labour failed through the
       sparseness of the supply and the refractoriness of the
       servants. As a consequence of the inability of the settlers to
       procure adequate help, the lands granted them remained
       uncleared, and even those which the temporary industry of the
       first occupants prepared remained uncultivated. ... There
       accumulated on the Trustees' hands a body of idle, clamourous,
       mischief-making men, who employed their time in declaiming
       against the very government whose charity both fed and clothed
       them. ... For nearly fifteen years from 1735, the date of the
       first petition for negroes, and the date of their express law
       against their importation, the Trustees refused to listen to
       any similar representations, except to condemn them," and they
       were supported by the Salzburgers and the Highlanders, both of
       whom opposed the introduction of negro slaves. But finally, in
       1749, the firmness of the Trustees gave way and they yielded
       to the clamor of the discontented colony. The importation of
       black slaves was permitted, under certain regulations intended
       to diminish the evils of the institution. "The change in the
       tenure of grants, and the permission to hold slaves, had an
       immediate effect on the prosperity of the colony."

          W. B. Stevens,
          History of Georgia,
          book 2, chapter 9 (volume 1).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
       War with the Spaniards of Florida.
       Discontents in the colony.

       "The assiento enjoyed under the treaty of Utrecht by the
       English South Sea Company, the privilege, that is, of
       transporting to the Spanish colonies a certain number of
       slaves annually, ... was made a cover for an extensive
       smuggling trade on the part of the English, into which private
       merchants also entered. ... To guard against these systematic
       infractions of their laws, the Spaniards maintained a numerous
       fleet of vessels in the preventive service, known as 'guarda
       costas,' by which some severities were occasionally exercised
       on suspected or detected smugglers. These severities, grossly
       exaggerated, and resounded throughout the British dominions,
       served to revive in England and the colonies a hatred of the
       Spaniards, which, since the time of Philip II., had never
       wholly died out. Such was the temper and position of the two
       nations when the colonization of Georgia was begun, of which
       one avowed object was to erect a barrier against the
       Spaniards, among whom the runaway slaves of South Carolina
       were accustomed to find shelter, receiving in Florida an
       assignment of lands, and being armed and organized into
       companies, as a means of strengthening that feeble colony. A
       message sent to St. Augustine to demand the surrender of the
       South Carolina runaways met with a point blank refusal, and
       the feeling against the Spaniards ran very high in
       consequence. ... Oglethorpe ... returned from his second visit
       to England [Sept. 1738], with a newly-enlisted regiment of
       soldiers, and the appointment, also, of military commander for
       Georgia and the Carolinas, with orders 'to give no offense,
       but to repel force by force.' Both in Spain and England the
       administrators of the government were anxious for peace. ...
       The ferocious clamors of the merchants and the mob ...
       absolutely forced Walpole into a war.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.--THE WAR OF JENKINS' EAR.

    {1426}

       Travelling 300 miles through the forests, Oglethorpe held at
       Coweta, on the Chattahoochee, just below the present site of
       Columbus, a new treaty with the Creeks, by which they
       confirmed their former cessions, acknowledged themselves
       subject to the King of Great Britain, and promised to exclude
       from their territories all but English settlers. After
       finishing the treaty, Oglethorpe returned through the woods by
       way of Augusta to Savannah, where he found orders from England
       to make an attack on Florida. He called at once on South
       Carolina and the Creeks for aid, and in the mean time made an
       expedition, in which he captured the Fort of Picolata, over
       against St. Augustine, thus securing the navigation of the St.
       John's, and cutting off the Spaniards from their forts at St.
       Mark's and Pensacola. South Carolina entered very eagerly into
       the enterprise. Money was voted; a regiment, 500 strong, was
       enlisted, partly in North Carolina and Virginia. This addition
       raised Oglethorpe's force to 1,200 men. The Indians that
       joined him were as many more. Having marched into Florida, he
       took a small fort or two, and, assisted by several ships of
       war, laid siege to St. Augustine. But the garrison was 1,000
       strong, besides militia. The fortifications proved more
       formidable than had been expected. A considerable loss was
       experienced by a sortie from the town, falling heavily on the
       Highland Rangers. Presently the Indians deserted, followed by
       part of the Carolina regiment, and Oglethorpe was obliged to
       give over the enterprise. ... From the time of this repulse,
       the good feeling of the Carolinians toward Oglethorpe came to
       an end. Many of the disappointed Georgia emigrants had removed
       to Charleston, and many calumnies against Oglethorpe were
       propagated, and embodied in a pamphlet published there. The
       Moravians also left Georgia, unwilling to violate their
       consciences by bearing arms. Most unfortunately for the new
       colony, the Spanish war withdrew the Highlanders and others of
       the best settlers from their farms to convert them into
       soldiers."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          chapter 25 (volume 2).

       "After the late incursion into Florida, the General kept
       possession of a southern region which the Spaniards had
       claimed as their own; and, as they had taken encouragement
       from the successful defence of St. Augustine, and the
       well-known dissensions on the English side, it was to be
       expected that they would embrace the earliest opportunity of
       taking their revenge. ... The storm, which had been so long
       anticipated, burst upon the colony in the year 1742. The
       Spaniards had ... fitted out, at Havana, a fleet said to
       consist of 56 sail and 7,000 or 8,000 men. The force was
       probably not quite so great; if it was, it did not all reach
       its destination," being dispersed by a storm, "so that only a
       part of the whole number succeeded in reaching St. Augustine.
       The force was there placed under the command of Don Manuel de
       Monteano, the Governor of that place. ... The fleet made its
       appearance on the coast of Georgia on the 21st of June"; but
       all its attempts, first to take possession of the Island of
       Amelia, and afterwards to reduce the forts at Frederica, were
       defeated by the vigor and skill of General Oglethorpe. After
       losing heavily in a fight called the Battle of the Bloody
       Marsh, the Spaniards retreated about the middle of July. The
       following year they prepared another attempt; but Oglethorpe
       anticipated it by a second demonstration on his own part
       against St. Augustine, which had no other result than to
       disconcert the plans of the enemy.

          W. B. O. Peabody,
          Life of Oglethorpe
          (Library of American Biographies, 2d series, volume 2),
          chapters 11-12.

       "While Oglethorpe was engaged in repelling the Spaniards, the
       trustees of Georgia had been fiercely assailed by their
       discontented colonists. They sent Thomas Stevens to England
       with a petition containing many charges of mismanagement,
       extravagance, and peculation, to which the trustees put in an
       answer. After a thorough examination of documents and
       witnesses in committee of the whole, and hearing counsel, the
       House of Commons resolved that 'the petition of Thomas Stevens
       contains false, scandalous, and malicious charges'; in
       consequence of which Stevens, the next day, was brought to the
       bar, and reprimanded on his knees. ... Oglethorpe himself had
       been a special mark of the malice and obloquy of the
       discontented settlers. ... Presently his lieutenant colonel, a
       man who owed everything to Oglethorpe's favor, re-echoing the
       slanders of the colonists, lodged formal charges against him.
       Oglethorpe proceeded to England to vindicate his character,
       and the accuser, convicted by a court of inquiry of falsehood,
       was disgraced and deprived of his commission. Appointed a
       major general, ordered to join the army assembled to oppose
       the landing of the Pretender, marrying also about this time,
       Oglethorpe did not again return to Georgia. The former scheme
       of administration having given rise to innumerable complaints,
       the government of that colony was intrusted to a president and
       four counselors."

          R. Hildreth,
          History of the United States,
          chapter. 25 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          C. C. Jones,
          History of Georgia,
          chapters 17-22 (volume 1).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1743-1764.
       Surrender to the Crown.
       Government as a royal province.

       "On Oglethorpe's departure [1743], William Stephens, the
       secretary, was made President, and continued in office until
       1751, when he was succeeded by Henry Parker. The colony, when
       Stephens came into office, comprised about 1,500 persons. It
       was almost at a stand-still. The brilliant prospects of the
       early days were dissipated, and immigration had ceased, thanks
       to the narrow policy and feeble government of the Trustees. An
       Indian rising, in 1749, headed by Mary Musgrove, Oglethorpe's
       Indian interpreter, and her husband, one Bosomworth, who laid
       claim to the whole country, came near causing the destruction
       of the colony, and was only repressed by much negotiation and
       lavish bribes. The colony, thus feeble and threatened,
       struggled on, until it was relieved from danger from the
       Indians and from the restrictive laws, and encouraged by the
       appointment of Parker, and the establishment of a
       representative government. This produced a turn in the affairs
       of Georgia. Trade revived, immigration was renewed, and
       everything began to wear again a more hopeful look. Just at
       this time, however, the original trust was on the point of
       expiring by limitation.
    {1427}
       There was a party in the colony who desired a renewal of the
       charter; but the Trustees felt that their scheme had failed in
       every way, except perhaps as a defence to South Carolina, and
       when the limit of the charter was reached, they turned the
       colony over to the Crown. ... A form of government was
       established similar to those of the other royal provinces, and
       Captain John Reynolds was sent out as the first Governor." The
       administration of Reynolds produced wide discontent, and in
       1757 he was recalled, being "succeeded by Henry Ellis as
       Lieutenant-governor. The change proved fortunate, and brought
       rest to the colony. Ellis ruled peaceably and with general
       respect for more than two years, and was then promoted to the
       governorship of Nova Scotia. In the same year his successor
       arrived at Savannah, in the person of James Wright, who
       continued to govern the province until it was severed from
       England by the Revolution. The feebleness of Georgia had
       prevented her taking part in the union of the colonies, and
       she was not represented in the Congress at Albany. Georgia
       also escaped the ravages of the French war, partly by her
       distant situation, and partly by the prudence of Governor
       Ellis; and the conclusion of that war gave Florida to England,
       and relieved the colony from the continual menace of Spanish
       aggression. A great Congress of southern Governors and Indian
       chiefs followed, in which Wright, more active than his
       predecessor, took a prominent part. Under his energetic and
       firm rule, the colony began to prosper greatly, and trade
       increased rapidly; but the Governor gained at the same time so
       much influence, and was a man of so much address, that he not
       only held the colony down at the time of the Stamp Act, but
       seriously hampered its action in the years which led to
       revolution."

          H. C. Lodge,
          Short History of the English Colonies in America,
          chapter 9.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1760-1775.
       Opening events of the Revolution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1760-1775, to 1775.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.
       The end of royal government.
       Constitutional organization of the state."

       The news of the battle of Lexington reached Savannah on the
       night of the 10th of May, 1775, and produced intense
       excitement among all classes. On the night of the 11th, Noble
       Wimberly Jones, Joseph Habersham, Edward Telfair, and a few
       others, impressed with the necessity of securing all military
       stores, and preserving them for colonial use, took from the
       King's magazine, in Savannah, about 500 pounds of powder. ...
       Tradition asserts that part of this powder was sent to Boston,
       and used by the militia at the battle of Bunker Hill. ... The
       activity of the Liberty party, and its rapid increase, ...
       gave Governor Wright just cause for alarm; and he wrote to
       General Gage, expressing his amazement that these southern
       provinces should be left in the situation they are, and the
       Governors and King's officers, and friends of Government,
       naked and exposed to the resentment of an enraged people.' ...
       The assistance so earnestly solicited in these letters would
       have been promptly rendered, but that they never reached their
       destination. The Committee of Safety at Charleston withdrew them
       from their envelopes, as they passed through the port, and
       substituted others, stating that Georgia was quiet, and there
       existed no need either of troops or vessels." The position of
       Governor Wright soon became one of complete powerlessness and
       he begged to be recalled. In January, 1776, however, he was
       placed under arrest, by order of the Council of Safety, and
       gave his parole not to leave town, nor communicate with the
       men-of-war which had just arrived at Tybee; notwithstanding
       which he made his escape to one of the King's ships on the
       11th of February. "The first effective organization of the
       friends of liberty in the province took place among the
       deputies from several parishes, who met in Savannah, on the
       18th January, 1775, and formed what has been called 'A
       Provincial Congress.' Guided by the action of the other
       colonies, a 'Council of Safety' was created, on the 22d June,
       1775, to whom was confided the general direction of the
       measures proper to be pursued in carrying out resistance to
       the tyrannical designs of the King and Parliament. William
       Ewen was the first President of this Council of Safety, and
       Seth John Cuthbert was the Secretary. On the 4th July, the
       Provincial Congress (now properly called such, as every parish
       and district was represented) met in Savannah, and elected as
       its presiding officer Archibald Bulloch. This Congress
       conferred upon the 'Council of Safety,' 'full power upon every
       emergency during the recess of Congress.'" Soon finding the
       need of a more definite order of government, the Provincial
       Congress, on the 15th of April, 1776, adopted provisionally,
       for six months, a series of "Rules and Regulations," under
       which Archibald Bulloch was elected President and
       Commander-in-chief of Georgia, and John Glen, Chief Justice.
       After the Declaration of Independence, steps were taken toward
       the settling of the government of the state on a permanent
       basis. On the proclamation of President Bulloch a convention
       was elected which met in Savannah in October, and which framed
       a constitution that was ratified on the 5th of February, 1777.

          W. B. Stevens,
          History of Georgia,
          book 4, chapter 2,
          and book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1776-1778.
       The war in the North.
       The Articles of Confederation.
       The alliance with France.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A.D. 1776, to 1778.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1778-1779.
       Savannah taken and the state subjugated by the British.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1779.
       Unsuccessful attack on Savannah by the French and Americans.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1780.
       Successes of the British arms in South Carolina.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
       Greene's campaign in the South.
       Lafayette and Washington in Virginia.
       Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis.
       Peace.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
          A. D. 1780, to 1783.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1787-1788.
        The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

           See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
           A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1802.
       Cession of Western land claims to the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  A. D. 1781-1786
          and MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1813-1814.
       The Creek War.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1816-1818.
       The First Seminole War.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

    {1428}

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1861 (January).
       Secession from the Union.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1861 (October-December).
       Savannah threatened.
       The Union forces in possession of the mouth of the river.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
       Reduction of Fort Pulaski and sealing up of the port of
       Savannah by the National Forces.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (May-September).
       Sherman's campaign against Atlanta.
       The capture of the city.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),
          and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
       Military occupation of Atlanta.
       Removal of the inhabitants.
       Hood's Raid to Sherman's rear.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1864 (November-December).
       Destruction of Atlanta.
       Sherman's March to the Sea.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1865 (March-May).
       Wilson's Raid.
       Capture of Jefferson Davis.
       End of the Rebellion.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

    GEORGIA: A. D. 1865-1868.
       Reconstruction.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.

    ----------GEORGIA: End----------

    GEOUGEN, The.

          See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

    GEPIDÆ, The.

          See GOTHS: ORIGIN OF;
          HUNS; LOMBARDS: EARLY HISTORY;
          and AVARS.

    GERALDINES, The.

        The Geraldines of Irish history were descendants of Maurice
        and William Fitzgerald, two of the first among the
        Anglo-Norman adventurers to engage in the conquest of
        Ireland, A. D. 1169-1170. Their mother was a Welsh princess,
        named Nest, or Nesta, who is said to have been the mistress
        of Henry I. of England, and afterwards to have married the
        Norman baron, Gerald Fitz Walter, who became the father of
        the Fitzgeralds.  "Maurice Fitzgerald, the eldest of the
        brothers, became the ancestor both of the Earls of Kildare
        and Desmond; William, the younger, obtained an immense grant
        of land in Kerry from the McCarthys, indeed as time went on
        the lordship of the Desmond Fitzgeralds grew larger and
        larger, until it covered nearly as much ground as many a
        small European kingdom. Nor was this all. The White Knight,
        the Knight of Glyn, and the Knight of Kerry were all three
        Fitzgeralds, all descended from the same root, and all owned
        large tracts of country. The position of the Geraldines of
        Kildare was even more important, on account of their close
        proximity to Dublin. In later times their great keep at
        Maynooth dominated the whole Pale, while their followers
        swarmed everywhere, each man with a 'G' embroidered upon his
        breast in token of his allegiance. By the beginning of the
        16th century their power had reached to, perhaps, the highest
        point ever attained in these islands by any subject. Whoever
        might be called the Viceroy in Ireland it was the Earl of
        Kildare who practically governed the country."

          Hon. E. Lawless,
          The Story of Ireland,
          chapter 14.

          See, also,
          IRELAND: A. D. 1515;
          and for some account of the subsequent rebellion and fall
          of the Geraldines, see
          IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

    GERALDINES, League of the.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

    GERBA, OR JERBA, The disaster at. (1560).

          See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

    GEREFA.

       "The most general name for the fiscal, administrative and
       executive officer among the Anglosaxons was Gerefa, or as it
       is written, in very early documents geroefa: but the peculiar
       functions of the individuals comprehended under it were
       further defined by a prefix compounded with it, as scirgerefa,
       the reeve of the shire or sheriff: tungerefa, the reeve of the
       farm or bailiff. The exact meaning and etymology of this name
       have hitherto eluded the researches of our best scholars."

          J. M. Kemble,
          The Saxons in England,
          book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2).

          See, also, SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

    GERGESENES, The.

       One of the tribes of the Canaanites, whose territory is
       believed by Lenormant to have "included all Decapolis and even
       Galilee," and whose capital he places at Gerasa, now Djerash,
       in Perea.

          F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
          Manual of Ancient History,
          book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    GERGITHIAN SIBYL.

          See CUMÆ.

    GERGITHIANS, The.

          See TROJA;
          and, ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

    GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.

       "The site of Gergovia of the Arverni is supposed to be a hill
       on the bank of the Allier, two miles from the modern Clermont
       in Auvergne. The Romans seem to have neglected Gergovia, and
       to have founded the neighbouring city, to which they gave the
       name Augustonemetum. The Roman city became known afterwards as
       Civitas Arvernorum, in the middle ages Arverna, and then, from
       the situation of its castle, clarus mons, Clermont."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 12 (volume 2, page 20, foot-note).

       For an account of Cæsar's reverse at Gergovia of the Arverni,

          See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

    GERGOVIA OF THE BOIANS.

          See BOIANS.

    GERIZIM.

       "The sacred centre of the Samaritans is Gerizim, the 'Mount of
       Blessings.' On. its summit a sacred rock marks the site where,
       according to their tradition, Joshua placed the Tabernacle and
       afterwards built a temple, restored later by Sanballat on the
       return of the Israelites from captivity. On the slope of the
       mountain the Feast of the Passover is still celebrated in
       accordance with the injunctions of the Law."

          C. R. Conder,
          Syrian Stone Lore,
          chapter 4.

    GERMAN, High and Low.

       The distinction, made between High German and Low German is
       that resulting from differences of language, etc., between the
       Germanic peoples which dwelt anciently in the low, flat
       countries along the German Ocean and the Baltic, and those
       which occupied the higher regions of the upper Rhine, Elbe and
       Danube.

    GERMAN EAST AFRICAN AND WEST AFRICAN ASSOCIATIONS.

          See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

    GERMAN EMPIRE, The Constitution of the new.

          See CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.

    ----------------------------------
    A Logical Outline of German History

    Ethnological
    Social and political.
    Intellectual, moral and religious.
    Foreign.

    IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
    INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

    3d-5th Centurles. The Wanderinag of the nations.

       Germany was slow in finding the definite place in geography
       and history that belongs to it at the present day. It was no
       more at first than a name, applied with large vagueness to the
       country beyond the Rhine and the Danube, where many restless
       tribes, of kindred language and character, were unstably
       distributed. In time, the tribes crowded one another into wide
       wandering movements, were pushed and pressed together into
       confederacies and nations, and went swarming over the Danube
       and the Rhine into Roman provinces, to take possession of them
       and to be the new masters of the European world; but it was
       the Germans, not Germany, who began then to be historic.

    5th-9th Centuries--Empire of the Franks.

       As a fact in history, Germany emerged first with the Franks,
       out of the dust-clouds of the wandering time and the darker
       clouds of the Gallic conquest. Fast seated on the great
       dividing river, the Rhine, the Franks reached backward into
       the land which gave them birth, and forward into the land
       which took their name, and gathered a broad empire out of
       both. But always the two parts of it refused to be held
       together. Neither by Clovis, the first conqueror, nor by
       Charlemagne, after three hundred years, were the Kingdom of
       the East Franks and the Kingdom of the West Franks bound fast
       into one.  Under Charlemagne's successors, the Kingdom of the
       East Franks began to be Germany, in the growing of the fact as
       well as the name.

    A. D. 962.--The Holy Roman Empire.

       But no sooner had a Kingdom of Germany been created than it
       was strangely deprived of the distinctness needful to the
       making of a nation. The adventurous Otho, its second Saxon
       king, who reclaimed Italy and revived the imperial sovereignty
       of Charlemagne, diminished the weight and dignity of his
       Germanic realm as much as he advanced himself and his
       successors in title and rank. By that elevation of its kings
       to a pseudo-Roman throne, Germany lost its own proper place in
       history, and was obscured by the shadow of an empire which
       soon existed as a shadow only. Its elective kings, forsaking
       the title of Kings of Germany, and calling themselves Kings of
       the Romans, even while they waited for an imperial coronation
       at the hands of the Pope, made the nationalizing of Germany,
       as France was being nationalized, by its monarchy, impossible.

    10th-18th Centuries.--Contests In Italy.

       For three centuries, the ambitions and the interests of the
       imperialized monarchy were ultramontane. Its Teutonic seat was
       a mere resting-place between Italian expeditions. Its quarrels
       with the Popes cast all questions of German politics into the
       background. It took no root in German feeling, rallied no
       national sentiment, gathered no increase of authority, sent
       out from itself no centralizing influences, judicial or
       administrative, to resist the dissolving forces of feudalism.
       And nowhere else in Europe was the action of those forces so
       destructive of political unity. That great Fatherland of the
       German peoples, where the slow solidification of a nation
       should have been going on as surely as in France, was crumbled
       by them into petty principalities, which time only hardened in
       their separateness.

    A. D. 1273-1440--Rise of the House of Hapsburg.

       When, at last, the crown came to be settled in one fast-rooted
       and enduring House, it was not fortunately placed. Territorially
       the Hapsburgs were planted on the verge of the Teutonic land,
       where they fronted the Hungarians and the Svavs and were
       threatened by the approaching Turks. Speaking figuratively,
       they stood with their backs to Germany, facing their greater
       dangers and their greater opportunities, east and south.

       Their personal dominions were acquired for the most part
       outside of the Teutonic line. Their immediate subjects were of
       many alien races, with a few of Greman blood. Their kingship
       of Hungary was more substantial in its political weight than
       any Germanic sovereignty that they held. From the beginning of
       its remarkable dynastic career, the House of Austria was in
       all respects quite at one side of the great people whose crown
       had unhappily passed to its keeping. The emperor-kings, throned
       with less reality at Vienna than at Presburg and Prague, lost
       more and more their German character, receded more and more
       from the range of German influence. Thus Germany was robbed
       again of the centralizing constraints which a vigorous, rising
       monarchy of the true stamp, not falsified by a fictitious
       imperialization, would have brought to bear upon it, for the
       unifying of a great nation.

    A. D. 1477-1496.--Burgundian and Spanish marriages.

       The marriagcs which linked the Austrian House with the
       sovereign families of Burgundy and Spain only drew it still
       farther away, and made it more alien than before to the people
       of the German North. The imperial government was brought then
       under influences from Spain which opposed every tendency of
       their feeling and thought. While the strong Teutonic mind
       worked its slow way towards personal freedom,--towards
       fearless inquiry and independent belief,--a contrary movement
       went on in the Austrian court. Between Germany at large and
       the circle in which Vienna stood really a center and a
       capital, a widening inteliectual breach began when the
       Hapsburg brain was narrowed by the astringent blood of
       Castile. This appeared, not alone in the rupture of the
       religious Reformation, but in all the advances that were made,
       from the sixteenth century down, in science, philosophy,
       literature and art.

       Some advance was always made; but the modern impulses which
       woke early in the German race were wastefully spent, during
       many generations, for want of any national concentration. No
       large channel opened to them; no worthy spirit directed them.
       The pettiness of petty politics and courts belittled in most
       ways, for a lamentable time, the workings of German energy and
       genius.

    A. D. 1618.--Brandenburg—Prussia.

       The Thirty Years War made chaos in Germany complete. No
       semblance of substance in the empire remained. The Kaiser had
       become a sovereign less honored than the King of France,
       and Vienna a capital less considered than Paris. But the
       first nucleus of nationality took form in that chaos, when
       Brandenburg drew Prussia to itself, in the union which
       produced a new kingdom at the North. The rise of Prussia was
       the rise of German nationality. It brought to bear on the
       German people the first centralizing influence that had acted
       upon them since their kings took the crown of Rome. For the
       first time in their history they felt the pull of a force
       which drew them towards common lines of action.

    A. D. 1740-1786.--Frederick the Great.
    A. D. 1800-1813.--Struggle with Napoleon.

       The aggrandizement of Prussia by Frederick the Great, though
       iniquitous when considered in itself, was splendid work for
       Germany. It prepared, for the perils of the next generation, a
       power which Napoleon could humble at the moment, but which he
       could not crush. It gave footing for the great heroic rally of
       the Germanic people, whereby they conquered their place in the
       world and secured their future.

    A. D. 1866.--The Seven Weeks War
    A. D. 1870-1871.--The Franco-German War.
    A. D. 1871.--The Empire.

       In all that has come to pass since Leipsic and Waterloo, the
       logical sequence is plainer than history is wont to show it.
       From men of the first decade in this century, who put the
       school and the camp side by side in Prussian training, there
       came more than from Bismarck or Moltke of the power which
       triumphed at Sadowa and Sedan, which has constructed a new and
       true Empire of Germany, with its capital at Berlin, and which
       has dismissed Austria from German reckonings as mistress or as
       rival, but to make of her an ally and a friend.

       Within the last third of the nineteenth century, the Germans
       may be said to have opened a great national career, such as
       the English, their kinsmen, had entered upon nearly two
       hundred years before. The energies of their powerful race have
       been centered at last, and are acting with new potency, in
       commerce and colonization, abroad, and in all modes of human
       advancement, at home.

    ----------End: A Logical Outline of German History ------

    {1429}

    GERMAN FLATS: A. D.1765.
       Treaty with the Indians.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

    GERMAN FLATS: A. D. 1778.
       Destruction by Brant.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

    GERMAN NATIONS, The wandering of.

          See GOTHS; FRANKS; ALEMANNI; MARCOMANNI;
          QUADI; GEPIDÆ; SAXONS; ANGLES; BURGUNDIANS;
          VANDALS; SUEVI; LOMBARDS.

    GERMAN UNIVERSITIES.

          See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

    GERMANIA.

       "On the origin of the name Germania see Waitz D. V. G. i. 24;
       he rejects all German derivations and concludes that it is
       originally Gallic, the name given (as Tacitus indicates) by
       the Gauls first to the Tungri, and afterwards to all the
       kindred tribes. The meaning may be either 'good shouters'
       (Grimm), or, according to other writers, 'East-men,' or
       'neighbours.'"

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          volume 1, page 17, note.

    GERMANIANS, The.

          See CARMANIANS.

    GERMANIC CONFEDERATION,
       The First.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

       The Second.

             See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

    GERMANIC DIET, The.

          See DIET, GERMANIC.

    GERMANIC PEOPLES OF THE ALEMANNIC LEAGUE.

          See ALEMANNI: A.-D. 213.

    GERMANICUS, Campaigns of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.

    GERMANTOWN, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

    GERMANY:
       The national name.

       "The nations of the Germania had no common name recognised by
       themselves, and were content, when, ages after, they had
       realised their unity of tongue and descent, to speak of their
       language simply as the Lingua Theotisca, the language of the
       people (theod).  ... Whence the name 'Deutsch.' Zeuss derives
       it rather from the root of 'deuten,' to explain, so that
       'theotisc' should mean 'significant.' But the root of 'theod'
       and 'deuten' is the same. ... The general name by which the
       Romans knew them [Germani] was one which they had received
       from their Gallic neighbours."

          W. Stubbs,
          Constitutional History of England,
          volume 1, chapter 3, and foot-note.

       "In Gothic we have 'thiuda,' people; 'thiudisks,' belonging to
       the people. ... The High-German, which looks upon Sanskrit 't'
       and Gothic 'th' as 'd,' possesses the same word, as 'diot,'
       people; 'diutisc,' popularis; hence Deutsch, German, and
       'deuten,' to explain, literally to Germanize."

          F. Max Müller,
          Lectures on the Science of Language,
          2d series, lecture. 5.

       The account which Tacitus gives of the origin of the name
       Germany is this: "The name Germany ... they [the Germans] say,
       is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes
       which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are
       now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was
       the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed,
       till all called themselves by this self-invented name of
       Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire
       terror."

          Tacitus,
          Germany;
          translated by Church and Brodribb, chapter 2.

       "It is only at the mouth of the Elbe that the Germany of the
       really historical period begins: and this is a Germany only in
       the eyes of scholars, antiquarians, and generalizing
       ethnologists. Not one of the populations to whom the name is
       here extended would have attached any meaning to the word,
       except so far as they had been instructed by men who had
       studied certain Latin writers. There was no name which was, at
       one and the same time, native and general. There were native
       names, but they were limited to special populations. There was
       a general name, but it was one which was applied by strangers
       and enemies. What this name was for the northern districts, we
       know beforehand. It was that of Saxones and Saxonia in Latin;
       of Sachsen and Sachsenland in the ordinary German. Evidence,
       however, that any German population ever so named itself is
       wholly wanting, though it is not impossible that some
       unimportant tribe may have done so: the only one so called
       being the Saxons of Ptolemy, who places them, along with
       several others, in the small district between the Elbe and the
       Eyder, and on three of the islands off the coast. ... The
       Franks gave it its currency and generality; for, in the eyes
       of a Frank, Saxony and Friesland contained all those parts of
       Germany which, partly from their difference of dialect, partly
       from their rudeness, partly from their paganism, and partly
       from the obstinacy of their resistance, stood in contrast to
       the Empire of Charlemagne and his successors. A Saxon was an
       enemy whom the Franks had to coerce, a heathen whom they had
       to convert. What more the term meant is uncertain."

          R. G. Latham,
          Introduction to Kemble's "Horæ Ferales."

          See, also, TEUTONES.

    GERMANY: As known to Tacitus.

       "Germany is separated from the Galli, the Rhæti, and Pannonii,
       by the rivers Rhine and Danube; mountain ranges, or the fear
       which each feels for the other, divide it from the Sarmatæ and
       Daci. Elsewhere ocean girds it, embracing broad peninsulas and
       islands of unexplored extent, where certain tribes and
       kingdoms are newly known to us, revealed by war. The Rhine
       springs from a precipitous and inaccessible height of the
       Rhætian Alps, bends slightly westward, and mingles with the
       Northern Ocean. The Danube pours down from the gradual and
       gently rising slope of Mount Abnoba, and visits many nations,
       to force its way at last through six channels into the Pontus;
       a seventh mouth is lost in marshes. The Germans themselves I
       should regard as aboriginal, and not mixed at all with other
       races through immigration or intercourse. For, in former
       times, it was not by land but on shipboard that those who
       sought to emigrate would arrive; and the boundless and, so to
       speak, hostile ocean beyond us, is seldom entered by a sail
       from our world. And, besides the perils of rough and unknown
       seas, who would leave Asia, or Africa, or Italy for Germany,
       with its wild country, its inclement skies, its sullen manners
       and aspect, unless indeed it were his home?
    {1430}
       In their ancient songs, their only way of remembering or
       recording the past, they celebrate an earth-born god, Tuisco,
       and his son Mannus, as the origin of their race, as their
       founders. To Mannus they assign three sons, from whose names,
       they say, the coast tribes are called Ingævones; those of the
       interior, Herminones; all the rest, Istævones. Some, with the
       freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity, assert that the
       god had several descendants, and the nation several
       appellations, as Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandilii, and that
       these are genuine old names. The name Germany, on the other
       hand, they say, is modern and newly introduced."

          Tacitus,
          Germany:
          translated by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb,
          chapters 1-2.

    GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.
       Campaigns of Drusus.

       The first serious advance of the Roman arms beyond the Rhine
       was made in the reign of Augustus, by the emperor's step-son,
       Drusus. Cæsar had crossed the river, only to chastise and
       terrify the tribes on the right bank which threatened Gaul.
       Agrippa, some years later, repeated the operation, and
       withdrew, as Cæsar had done. But Drusus invaded Germany with
       intentions of conquest and occupation. His first campaign was
       undertaken in the spring of the year 12 B. C. He crossed the
       Rhine and drove the Usipetes into their strongholds; after
       which he embarked his legions on transport ships and moved
       them down the river to the ocean, thence to coast northwards
       to the mouth of the Ems, and so penetrate to the heart of the
       enemy's country. To facilitate this bold movement, he had
       caused a channel to be cut from the Rhine, at modern Arnheim,
       to the Zuyder Zee, utilizing the river Yssel. The expedition
       was not successful and retreated overland from the Frisian
       coast after considerable disaster and loss. The next year,
       Drusus returned to the attack, marching directly into the
       German country and advancing to the banks of the Weser, but
       retreating, again, with little to show of substantial results.
       He established a fortified outpost, however, on the Lippe, and
       named it Aliso. During the same summer, he is said to have
       fixed another post in the country of the Chatti. Two years
       then passed before Drusus was again permitted by the emperor
       to cross the Rhine. On his third campaign he passed the Weser
       and penetrated the Hercynian forest as far as the Elbe,--the
       Germans declining everywhere to give him battle. Erecting a
       trophy on the bank of the Elbe, he retraced his steps, but
       suffered a fall from his horse, on the homeward march, which
       caused his death. "If the Germans were neither reduced to
       subjection, nor even overthrown in any decisive engagement, as
       the Romans vainly pretended, yet their spirit of aggression
       was finally checked and from thenceforth, for many
       generations, they were fully occupied with the task of
       defending themselves."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 36.

    GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
       Campaigns of Tiberius.

       The work of Roman conquest in Germany, left unfinished by
       Drusus, was taken up by his brother Tiberius (afterwards
       emperor) under the direction of Augustus. Tiberius crossed the
       Rhine, for the first time, B. C. 8. The frontier tribes made
       no resistance, but offered submission at once. Tiberius sent
       their chiefs to Augustus, then holding his court at Lugdunum
       (Lyons), to make terms with the emperor in person, and
       Augustus basely treated them as captives and threw them into
       prison. The following year found the German tribes again under
       arms, and Tiberius again crossed the Rhine; but it was only to
       ravage the country, and not to remain. Then followed a period
       of ten years, during which the emperor's step-son,
       dissatisfied with his position and on ill terms with Augustus,
       retired to Rhodes. In the summer of A. D. 4, he returned to
       the command of the legions on the Rhine. Meantime, under other
       generals,--Domitius and Vinicius,--they had made several
       campaigns beyond the river; had momentarily crossed the Elbe;
       had constructed a road to the outposts on the Weser; had
       fought the Cherusci, with doubtful results, but had not
       settled the Roman power in Germany. Tiberius invaded the
       country once more, with a powerful force, and seems to have
       crushed all resistance in the region between the lower Rhine
       and the Weser. The following spring, he repeated, with more
       success, the movement of Drusus by land and sea, sending a
       flotilla around to the Elbe and up that stream, to a point
       where it met and co-operated with a column moved overland,
       through the wilderness. A single battle was fought and the
       Germans defeated; but, once more, when winter approached, the
       Romans retired and no permanent conquest was made. Two years
       later (A. D. 6), Tiberius turned his arms against the powerful
       nation of the Marcomanni, which had removed itself from the
       German mark, or border, into the country formerly occupied, by
       the Boii--modern Bohemia. Here, under their able chief Marbod,
       or Maroboduus, they developed a formidable military
       organization and became threatening to the Roman frontiers on
       the Upper Danube. Two converging expeditions, from the Danube
       and from the Rhine, were at the point of crushing the
       Marcomanni between them, when news of the alarming revolt, in
       Pannonia and Dalmatia, called the "Batonian War," caused the
       making of a hasty peace with Maroboduus. The Batonian or
       Pannonian war occupied Tiberius for nearly three years. He had
       just brought it to a close, when intelligence reached Rome of
       a disaster in Germany which filled the empire with horror and
       dismay. The tribes in northwestern Germany, between the lower
       Rhine and the Elbe, supposed to be cowed and submissive, had
       now found a leader who could unite them and excite them to
       disdain the Roman yoke. This leader was Arminius, or Hermann,
       a young chief of the Cherusci, who had been trained in the
       Roman military service and admitted to Roman citizenship, but
       who hated the oppressors of his country with implacable
       bitterness. The scheme of insurrection organized by Arminius
       was made easy of execution by the insolent carelessness and
       the incapacity of the Roman commander in Germany, L.
       Quintilius Varus. It succeeded so well that Varus and his
       army,--three entire legions, horse, foot and
       auxiliaries,--probably 20,000 men in all,--were overwhelmed in
       the Teutoburger Wald, north of the Lippe, and destroyed. Only
       a few skulking fugitives reached the Rhine and escaped to tell
       the fate of the rest. This was late in the summer of A. D. 9.
       In the following spring Tiberius was sent again to the Rhine
       frontier, with as powerful a levy of men and equipments as the
       empire could collect. He was accompanied by his nephew,
       Germanicus, son of Drusus, destined to be his successor in the
       field of German conquest.
    {1431}
       But dread and fear were in the Roman heart, and the campaign
       of Tiberius, delayed another twelve months, until A. D. 11,
       was conducted too cautiously to accomplish any important
       result. He traversed and ravaged a considerable region of the
       German country, but withdrew again across the Rhine and left
       it, apparently, unoccupied. This was his last campaign.
       Returning to Rome, he waited only two years longer for the
       imperial sovereignty to which he succeeded on the death of
       Augustus, who had made him, by adoption, his son and his heir.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapters 36-38.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 1.

          Sir E. Creasy,
          Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
          chapter 5.

          T. Smith,
          Arminius, part 1,
          chapters 4-6.

    GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.
       Campaigns of Germanicus.

       Germanicus--the son of Drusus--was given the command on the
       Rhine at the beginning of the year 13 A. D. The following
       year, Augustus died and Tiberius became emperor; whereupon
       Germanicus found himself no longer restrained from crossing
       the river and assuming the offensive against Arminius and his
       tribes. His first movement, that autumn, was up the valley of
       the Lippe, which he laid waste, far and wide. The next spring,
       he led one column, from Mentz, against the Chatti, as far as
       the upper branches of the Weser, while he sent another farther
       north to chastise the Cherusci and the Marsi, surprising and
       massacring the latter at their feast of Tanfana. Later in the
       same year, he penetrated, by a double expedition,--moving by
       sea and by land, as his father had done before,--to the
       country between the Ems and the Lippe, and laid waste the
       territory of the Bructeri, and their neighbors. He also
       visited the spot where the army of Varus had perished, and
       erected a monument to the dead. On the return from this
       expedition, four legions, under Cæcina, were beset in the same
       manner that Varus had been, and under like difficulties; but
       their commander was of different stuff and brought them safely
       through, after punishing his pursuers severely. But the army
       had been given up as lost, and only the resolute opposition of
       Agrippina, the wife of Germanicus, had prevented the Roman
       commander at Vetera, on the Rhine, from destroying the bridge
       there, and abandoning the legions to their supposed fate. In
       the spring of A. D. 16, Germanicus again embarked his army,
       80,000 strong, at the mouth of the Rhine, on board transports,
       and moved it to the mouth of the Ems, where the fleet
       remained. Thence he marched up the Ems and across to the
       Weser, and was encountered, in the country of the Cherusci, by
       a general levy of the German tribes, led by Arminius and
       Inguiomerus. Two great battles were fought, in which the
       Romans were victorious. But, when returning from this
       campaign, the fleet encountered a storm in which so much of it
       perished, with the troops on board, that the disaster threw a
       heavy cloud of gloom over the triumph of Germanicus. The young
       general was soon afterwards recalled, and three years later he
       died,--of poison, as is supposed,--at Antioch. "The central
       government ceased from this time to take any warm interest in
       the subjugation of the Germans; and the dissensions of their
       states and princes, which peace was not slow in developing,
       attracted no Roman emissaries to the barbarian camps, and
       rarely led the legions beyond the frontier, which was now
       allowed to recede finally to the Rhine."

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans,
          chapter 42.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 1.

          T. Smith,
          Arminius,
          part 1, chapter 7.

    GERMANY: 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 imperishable
       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
       Cherusci had struggled to preserve a rude independence, Franks
       and Saxons lived free and formidable; Alemanni were gathered
       along the foot of the Roman wall which connected the Danube
       with the Rhine, and had, hitherto, preserved inviolate the
       Agri decumates; while eastern Germany, 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 Germany 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 when the
       young barbarian 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 inhabitants
       of the country, though there is a natural difficulty arising
       from the want of written contemporary evidence in tracing the
       transition, and determining the tribes of which the new
       confederacies were formed. At the same time, though no
       immigration of strangers was possible, 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 Teuchteri
       [Tenchteri] in Cæsar's time, the removal of the Ubii from
       Nassau to the neighbourhood of Cöln 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 emigrations, were those
       which implied a final abandonment of the native Germany with
       the object of seeking a new settlement among the possessions
       of the sinking empire.
    {1432}
       Those of the Goths, Vandals, Alans, Sueves, the second
       movement of the Burgundians, may be included in this category;
       the invasions of the Franks, Alemanni, and Saxons, on the
       contrary, cannot be called national emigrations, for they
       never abandoned, with their families, their original
       birthplace; their outwanderings, like the emigrations of the
       present day, were partial; their occupation of the enemy's
       territory was, in character, military and progressive; 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 Cæsar downwards, the numbers of the emigrants appear to
       be enormously exaggerated. The Usipites and Teuchteri are
       estimated by Cæsar at 430,000 souls. How could such a
       multitude find nourishment during a three years' wandering? 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 approached
       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
       conquests 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 vicinity of
       the Danube: at first the aggressions of the Romans, then the
       pressure of the Huns and the Sclavonic tribes. The whole
       intercourse of Germany with Rome must be considered as one
       long war, which began with the invasion of Cæsar; 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 occasional 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 movement towards the hostile borders. As
       the invasion 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 language, may be discerned,
       during this period, in immediate contact with the Romans---the
       Alemanni, the Goths, and the Franks. 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
       cannot 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 Lombards."

          T. Smith,
          Arminius,
          part 2, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          R. G. Latham,
          Nationalities of Europe,
          volume 2, chapter 21.

          See, also,
          ALEMANNI; MARCOMANNI; QUADI; GOTHS;
          GEPIDÆ; SAXONS; ANGLES, FRANKS;
          BURGUNDIANS; VANDALS; SUEVI; LOMBARDS;
          and, also, Appendix A, volume 1.

    GERMANY: A. D. 277.
       Invasion by Probus.

       The vigorous emperor Probus, who, in the year 277, drove from
       Gaul the swarms of invaders that had ravaged the unhappy
       province with impunity for two years past, then crossed the
       Rhine and harried the country of the marauders, as far as the
       Elbe and the Neckar. "Germany, exhausted by the ill success of
       the last emigration, was astonished by his presence. Nine of
       the most considerable princes repaired to his camp and fell
       prostrate at his feet. Such a treaty was humbly received by
       the Germans as it pleased the conqueror to dictate." Probus
       then caused a stone wall, strengthened at intervals with
       towers, to be built from the Danube, near Neustadt and
       Ratisbon, 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 Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 12.

    GERMANY: 5th Century.
       Conversion of the Franks.

          See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.

    GERMANY: 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--corresponded nearly to the modern kingdom of Belgium.
       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 extension 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, Bregenz, lay within their
       territory. ... The Vosegen range was a bulwark on the side of
       Gaul, waste lands separated them from the Burgundians, who
       were settled about the Jura and in the south-west part of
       Helvetia, and the Moselle divided them from the Ripuarian
       Franks. It is unknown whether they formed a state distinct
       from their brethren on the right of the Rhine; probably 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 military leader.

    {1433 and 1434 moved forward for continuity}

    {1435}
       Equally obscure is the cause of their war with Chlodwig,
       though it has been assumed, perhaps too hastily, by all recent
       historians, 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 downwards; their chief seat was the city of Cologne.
       It is probable that they consisted of the remains of the
       ancient Ubii, strengthened by the adventurers who crossed over
       on the first 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 fifth 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, having 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 advanced within a short distance of Cologne,
       when Chlodwig and his Franks joined the Ripuarii; a battle
       took place at Zülpich, 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 ferocity, when he
       was stopped in his course by a flattering 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 Rhætia and
       Vindelicia."

          T. Smith,
          Arminius,
          part 2, chapter 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
       Thuringians, between A. D. 515 and 528. "How he [Theuderik]
       acquired authority over the Alemans 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 Eastern Kingdom] which was
       destined to overshadow all the other Mérovingian 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 their hereditary dukes; but
       their wild masses marched under the standards of the Franks,
       and conceded to those formidable conquerors a certain degree
       of political supremacy." When, in 558, Clotaire, by the death
       of his brothers, became the sole king of the Franks, his
       empire embraced all Roman Gaul, except Septimania, still held
       by the Visigoths, and Brittany, but slightly subjected; "while
       in ancient Germany, from the Rhine to the Weser, the powerful
       duchies of the Alemans, the Thuringians, the Bavarians, the
       Frisons, and the Saxons, were regarded not entirely as
       subject, and yet as tributary 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 [622-638], 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 impossible. Time and again he assailed the
       Frisons, the Saxons, the Bavarians, and the Alemans, but could
       bind 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 compelled
       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 Christian
       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 Frisons, he succeeded in
       subjecting to a formal confession at least of the Frankish
       supremacy; but the turbulent and implacable Saxons baffled his
       most strenuous efforts. Their wild tribes had become, within a
       few years, a powerful and numerous nation; they had
       appropriated the lands of the Thuringians 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
       burning 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
       Karloman crushed revolts of the Alemans, or Suabians, and the
       Bavarians in 742, 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,
          History of France: Ancient Gaul,
          chapters 12-15.

          ALSO IN:
          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapters 2-6.

          See, also,
          FRANKS, and AUSTRASIA.

    {1433 moved here for continuity}

    FIFTH CENTURY.

    CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

    * Uncertain date.

    A. D. 402.
       Defeat of Alaric by Stilicho.

       Birth of Phocion* (d. 317).

    404.
       Removal of the capital of the Western Empire from Rome to
       Ravenna.*

       Banishment of the Patriarch, John Chrysostom, from
       Constantinople; burning of the Church of Saint Sophia.

    406.
       Barbarian inroad of Radagaisus into Italy.

       Breaking of the Rhine barrier by German tribes;
       overwhelming invasion of Gaul by Vandals, Alans, Suevi, and
       Burgundians.

    407.
       Usurpation of Constantine in Britain and Gaul.

    408.
       Death of the Eastern Emperor, Arcadius, and accession of
       Theodosius II.

       Execution of Stilicho at Ravenna;
       massacre of barbarian hostages in Italy;
       blockade of Rome by Alaric.

    409.
       Invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Suevi, and Alans.

    410.
       Siege, capture and pillage of Rome by Alaric; his death.

       Abandonment of Britain by the Empire.

       The barbarian attack upon Gaul joined by the Franks.

    412.
       Gaul entered by the Visigoths

       Cyril made Patriarch of Alexandria.

    414.
       Title of Augusta taken by Pulcheria at Constantinople.

    415.
       Visigothic conquest of Spain begun.

       Persecution of Jews at Alexandria; death of Hypatia.

    418.
       Founding of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse in Aquitaine.

    422.
       War between Persia and the Eastern Empire
       partition of Armenia.

    423.
       Death of Honorius, Emperor in the West;
       usurpation of John the Notary.

    425.
       Accession of the Western Emperor, Valentinian III., under the
       regency of Placidia; formal and legal separation of the
       Eastern and Western Empires.

    428.
       Conquests of the Vandals in Spain.

       Nestorius made Patriarch of Constantinople.

    429.
       Vandal conquests in Africa begun.

    430.
       Siege of Hippo Regius in Africa;
       death of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo.

    431.
       Third General Council of the Church, held at Ephesus.

    433.
       Beginning of the reign of Attila, king of the Huns. *

    435.
       Nestorius exiled to the Libyan desert.

    439.
       Carthage taken by the Vandals.

    440.
       Leo the Great elected Pope.

    441.
       Invasion of the Eastern Empire by Attila and the Huns.

    443.
       Conquest and settlement of Savoy by the Burgundians.

    446.
       Thermopylæ passed by the Huns;
       humiliating purchase of peace with them by the Eastern
       Emperor.

    449.
       Landing in Britain of the Jutes under Hengist and Horsa.*
       Meeting of the so-called Robber Synod at Ephesus.

    450.
       Death of the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II., and accession of
       Pulcheria.

    451.
       Great defeat of the Huns at Chalons;
       retreat of Attila from Gaul.

       Fourth General Council of the Church, held at Chalcedon.

    452.
       Invasion of Italy by Attila; origin of Venice.

    453.
       Death of Attila; dissolution of his empire.

       Death of Pulcheria, Empress in the East.

    455.
       Murder of Valentinian III., Emperor in the West;
       usurpation of Maximus.

       Rome pillaged by the Vandals.

       Birth of Theodoric the Great (d. 526).

    456.
       Supremacy of Ricimer, commander of the barbarian mercenaries,
       in the Western Empire; Avitus deposed.

    457.
       Marjorian, first of the imperial puppets of Ricimer, raised to
       the throne of the Western Empire.

       Accession of Leo I., Emperor in the East.

    461.
       Marjorian deposed; Severus made Emperor in the West.

       Death of Pope Leo the Great and election of Pope Hilarius.

    467.
       Anthemius made Emperor in the West.

    472.
       Siege and storming of Rome by Ricimer;
       death of Anthemius, and of Ricimer;
       Olybrius and Glycerius successive emperors.

    473.
       Ostrogothic invasion of Italy diverted to Gaul.

    474.
       Julius Nepos Emperor in the West;
       accession of Zeno in the Eastern Empire.

    475.
       Romulus Augustulus made Emperor in the West.

    476.
       Romulus Augustulus dethroned by Odoacer:
       extinction for more than three centuries of the Western line
       of emperors.

    477.
       Beginning of Saxon conquests in Britain.

    480.
       Birth of Saint Benedict (d. 543).

    481.
       Founding of the Frank kingdom by Clovis.

    486.
       Overthrow of the kingdom of Syagrius, the last Roman
       sovereignty in Gaul.

    488.
       Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, commissioned by the Eastern
       Emperor to invade Italy.

    489.
       Defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric at Verona.

    491.
       Accession of Anastasius, Emperor in the East.

       Capture of Anderida by the South Saxons.

    492.
       Election of Pope Gelasius I.

    493.
       Surrender of Odoacer at Ravenna;
       his murder;
       Theodoric king of Italy.

    494. Landing of Cerdic and his band of Saxons in Britain. *

    496.
       Defeat of the Alemanni at Tolbiac by Clovis, king of the Franks;
       baptism of Clovis.

    {1434 moved here for continuity}

    SIXTH CENTURY.

    CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

    * Uncertain date.

    A. D. 504.
       Expulsion of the Alemanni from the Middle Rhine by the Franks.

    505.
       Peace between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

    507.
       Overthrow of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse by Clovis.

    511.
       Death of Clovis;
       partition of the Frank kingdom among his sons.

       Monophysite riot at Constantinople.

    512.
       Second Monophysite riot at Constantinople.

    515.
       Publication of the monastic rule of Saint Benedict.

    518.
       Death of the Eastern Emperor, Anastasius, and accession of
       Justin I.

    519.
       Cerdic and Cynric become kings of the West Saxons.

    525.
       Execution of Boethius and Symmachus by Theodoric, king of
       Italy.

    526.
       Death of Theodoric and accession of Athalaric.

       Great earthquake at Antioch.

       War between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

    527.
       Accession of Justinian in the Eastern Empire.

    528.
       Conquest of Thuringia by the Franks.

    529.
       Defeat of the Persians, at Dara, by the Roman general
       Belisarius.

       Closing of the schools at Athens.

       Publication of the Code of Justinian.

    531.
       Accession of Chosroes, or Nushirvan, to the throne of Persia.

    532.
       End of War between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

       Nika sedition at Constantinople.

    533.
       Overthrow of the Vandal kingdom in Africa by Belisarius.

       Publication of the Pandects of Justinian.

    534.
       Conquest of the Burgundians by the Franks.

    535.
       Recovery of Sicily from the Goths by Belisarius.

    536.
       Rome taken from the Goths by Belisarius for Justinian.

    537.
       Unsuccessful siege of Rome by the Goths.

    539.
       Destruction of Milan by the Goths.

       Invasion of Italy by the Franks.

    540.
       Surrender of Ravenna to Belisarius;
       his removal from command.

       Invasion of Syria by Chosroes, king of Persia;
       storming and sacking of Antioch.

       Formal relinquishment of Gaul to the Franks by Justinian.

       Vigilius made Pope.

    541.
       Gothic successes under Totila, in Italy.

       End of the succession of. Roman Consuls.

       Defense of the East by Belisarius.

    542.
       Great Plague in the Roman Empire.

    543.
       Surrender of Naples to Totila.

       Death of Saint Benedict.

       Invasion of Spain by the Franks.

    544.
       Belisarius again in command in Italy.

    546.
       Totila's siege, capture and pillage of Rome.

    547.
       The city of Rome totally deserted for six weeks.

       Founding of the kingdom of Bernicia (afterward included in
       Northumberland) in England.

       Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.

    548.
       Death of the Eastern Empress, Theodora.

    549.
       Second siege and capture of Rome by Totila.

       Beginning of the Lazic War.

    552.
       Totila defeated and killed by the imperial army under Narses.

    553.
       End of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy;
       restoration of the imperial sovereignty.

       Fifth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople.

       Establishment of the Exarch at Ravenna, representing the
       Emperor at Constantinople.

    555.
       Pelagius I. made Pope.

    558.
       Reunion of the Frank empire under Clothaire I.

    560.
       John III. made Pope.

    563.
       Founding of the monastery of Iona, in Scotland, by Saint Columba.

    565.
       Death of Belisarius and of the Eastern Emperor Justinian;
       accession of Justin II.

    566.
       Conquest of the Gepidæ in Dacia by the Lombards and Avars.

    567.
       Division of the Frank dominion into the three kingdoms of
       Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy.

    568.
       Invasion of Italy by the Lombards;
       siege of Pavia.

    570.
       Birth of Mahomet. *

    572.
       Renewed war of the Eastern Empire with Persia.

    573.
       Murder of Alboin, king of the Lombards.

       Subjugation of the Suevi by the Visigoths in Spain.

    574.
       Benedict I. made Pope.

    578.
       Accession of the Eastern Emperor Tiberius Constantinus.

       Pelagius II. made Pope.

    582.
       Accession of Maurice, Emperor in the East.

    588.
       Kingdom of Northumberland, in England, founded by the union of
       Bernicia and Deira under Æthelric.

    589.
       Abandonment of Arianism by the Goths in Spain.

    590.
       Gregory the Great elected Pope.

    591.
       Peace between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

    597.
       Mission of Saint Augustine to England.

       Death of Saint Columba.

    ---------End of moved pages 1433 and 1434----------

    {1436}

    GERMANY: 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 kingdom, extending
       from Austrasia to the ocean on the west, and to the Loire on
       the south; Aquitaine, south of that river to the foot of the
       Pyrenees; and Burgundy, from the Rhone to the Alps, including
       Switzerland. These four kingdoms became, before the extinction
       of the Merovingian race, consolidated into two,--viz., Austrasia
       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 royal power became more and more
       feeble as time went on, a condition which is illustrated by
       the title given in history to these kings,--that of 'rois
       fainéants.'... The most powerful officer of a Frankish king
       was his steward, or, as he was called, the mayor of his
       palace. ... In Austrasia the office had become hereditary in
       the family of Pepin of Landen (a small village near Liège),
       and under its guidance the degenerate children of Clovis in
       that kingdom fought for the supremacy with those equally
       degenerate 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 nominally 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 government 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
       Héristal; 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 successor of
       the Merovingians, even before the extinction of that race;
       and, lastly, Charles, surnamed 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 Héristal was two-fold,--to repress the disposition of the
       turbulent nobles to encroach upon the royal authority, and to
       bring again under the yoke of the Franks those tribes in
       Germany who had revolted 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 somewhat 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 fifteen decisive battles in the history of
       the world, that of Poitiers, in 732, 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 Northern 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.
       Harassed by the Lombards, who were not only robbers, but who
       were also Arians, and who admitted none of the Catholic clergy
       to their councils,--with no succor from the Emperors at
       Constantinople (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 decree 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. Boniface, 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 descended from the Alps, and,
       defeating the Lombards, 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. Charlemagne, 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 Charlemagne ruled Rome
       nominally as Patrician, under the supremacy, equally nominal,
       of the Emperor at Constantinople. The true sovereign,
       recognized 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 the
       reading of the gospel, placed upon the brow of Charlemagne,
       who had abandoned his northern furs for the dress of a Roman
       patrician, the diadem of the Cæsars, and hailed him Imperator
       Semper Augustus, while the multitude shouted, 'Carolo, Augusto
       a Deo coronato magno et pacifico Imperatori Vita et Victoria.'
       In that shout and from that moment one of the most fruitful
       epochs of history begins."

          C. J. Stillé,
          Studies in Mediæval History,
          chapter 3.

          See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

    {1437}

    GERMANY: A. D. 800.
       Charlemagne's restoration of the Roman Empire.

       "Three hundred and twenty-four years had passed since the last
       Cæsar 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
       nominally 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 admitted 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 misunderstood in modern times. ... When Odoacer
       compelled the abdication of Romulus Augustulus, 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
       Theodosius till Odoacer, had, so far as appears, been long
       since lost, and neither Leo nor Charles nor anyone 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 practice 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 repudiated. 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 Byzantium; and while
       the Eastern princes paid a shameful tribute to the Mussulman,
       the Frankish Emperor--as the recognised head of
       Christendom--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 regarding the coronation of Charles will be found
       advocated 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 magistrate, the temporary
       depositary of their authority. 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,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 4-5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. I. Mombert,
          History of Charles the Great,
          chapter 14.

          See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

    GERMANY: A. D. 805.
       Conquest of the Avars.
       Creation of the Austrian March.

          See AVARS, and AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

    GERMANY: A. D. 814-843.
       Division of the Empire of Charlemagne.

       "There was a manifest conflict, during his later years, in the
       court, in the councils, 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 sovereign. 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 Charlemagne. The old Teutonic usage of equal
       distribution seemed doomed to prevail over the august unity of
       the Roman Empire. What may appear more extraordinary, the
       kingdom of Italy was the inferior appanage: it carried not
       with 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 entrusted
       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,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 5, chapter 2 (volume 2).

    {1438}

       "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 eldest, 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 without 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 823, there was born
       to him a fourth son. To make him a sharer of his inheritance,
       the emperor, annulling in 829 the partition of 817, gave him
       Germany, thus depriving his elder sons of part of the
       inheritance previously assigned them. This provoked the
       resentment of those princes; they rose in rebellion against
       their father, and the rest of the reign of Louis was only a
       succession 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
       restored, Louis only emerged from the cloister, for which he
       was so well fitted, to repeat the same faults. When 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 dismemberment, 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 Italians; 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. Lothaire, who
       fought therein for the preservation of the empire and of his
       authority, was conquered. 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,
       Lothaire, Italy, with the long range of country comprised
       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. Menzies,
          History of Europe from the Decadence  of
          the Western Empire to the Reformation,
          chapter. 13.

    GERMANY: A. D. 843.
       Accession of Louis II.

    GERMANY: 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, gave to Charles
       the Bald a kingdom which nearly coincided with France, as
       afterwards existing under that name, "before its Burgundian
       and German annexations.

          See VERDUN, TREATY OF;
          also, FRANKS: A. D. 814-962.

       It also founded a kingdom which roughly answered to the later
       Germany before its great extension to the East at the expense
       of the Slavonic nations. And as the Western kingdom was formed
       by the addition of Aquitaine to the Western Francia, so the
       Eastern kingdom was formed by the addition of the Eastern
       Francia to Bavaria. Lewis of Bavaria [surnamed 'the German']
       became 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 Eastern part of the Frankish dominions, the lot of
       Lewis the German and his successors, is thus called the
       Eastern Kingdom, the Teutonic Kingdom. 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 Romans. ... This Eastern or German kingdom, as
       it came out of the division of 887 [after the deposition of
       Charles III., called Charles the Fat,. who came to the throne
       in 881, and who had, momentarily reunited all the Frankish
       crowns, except that of Burgundy], had, from north 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 fluctuating. 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 southeast lay the
       two border-lands or marks; the Eastern Mark, which grew into
       the later duchy of, Oesterreich or the modern Austria, and to
       the south of it the mark of Kärnthen 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 those which they bear on
       the modern map. Ancient Saxony lies, speaking roughly, between
       the Eider, the Elbe, and the Rhine, 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 the south of Francia lie Alemannia and Bavaria.
       This last, it must be remembered, borders on Italy, with
       Bötzen for its frontier 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
       Rætian 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 Geography of Europe,
          chapter 6, section 1.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir F. Palgrave,
          History of Normandy and England,
          volumes 1-2.

       On the indefiniteness of the name of the Germanic kingdom in
       this period,

          See FRANCE: 9TH CENTURY.

    GERMANY: A. D. 881.
       Accession of Charles III. (called The Fat), afterwards King of
       all the Franks and Emperor.

    GERMANY: A. D. 888.
       Accession of Arnulf, afterwards Emperor.

    GERMANY: A. D. 899.
       Accession of Louis III. (called The Child).

    GERMANY: A. D. 911.
       Election of Conrad I.

    {1439}

    GERMANY: 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, surnamed the Child, the German
       or East-Frank branch of the dynasty of Charlemagne had become
       extinct. "There remained indeed Charles the Simple,
       acknowledged as king in some parts of France, but rejected in
       others, and possessing no personal claims to respect. The
       Germans therefore wisely determined to chose a sovereign from
       among themselves. They were at this time divided into five
       nations, each under its own duke, and distinguished by
       difference of laws, as well as of origin; the Franks, whose
       territory, comprising Franconia and the modern Palatinate, was
       considered as the cradle of the empire, and who seem to have
       arrogated some superiority over the rest, the Suabians, the
       Bavarians, the Saxons ... and the Lorrainers, who occupied the
       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 descended through 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 succession. To Henry, and to the first Otho [A. D.
       936-973], Germany was more indebted than to any sovereign
       since Charlemagne."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 5.

       "In 924, 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. Wherever they came
       they set fire to farms, hamlets, and towns, and killed all
       living creatures or carried them off. And often they bound
       their prisoners to the tails of their horses, and dragged them
       along till they 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 enemies always overmatched them, because they appeared
       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 the 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 the royal palace of Werla, near Goslar,
       which he bravely defended. The Hungarians stormed it again and
       again, but they could not scale the walls; 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 that their chief should be released,
       and that Henry should engage to pay a yearly tribute. Henry
       submitted to the dishonourable 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 neighbouring
       peasantry, Henry recognised in 929, 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, published an order throughout the land,
       that at suitable places large fortresses should be built, in
       which every ninth man from the neighbouring district must take
       garrison duty. Certainly living 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
       Charlemagne. Quedlinburg, Merseburg, Meissen, Wittenberg,
       Goslar, Soest, Nordhausen, Duderstadt, Gronau, Pölde, 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 encouraged the building of
       towns, and granted emancipation to every slave who repaired to
       a town, allowed the towns to hold fairs and markets, granted
       to them the right 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 received loyal support from
       his disciplined burghers. After a few centuries the 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 culture. ... These incalculable
       benefits are due to Henry's order to build towns."

          A. W. Grübe,
          Heroes of History and Legend,
          chapter 8.

       At the expiration of the nine years truce, the Hungarians
       resumed their attacks, and were defeated by Henry in two
       bloody battles.

    GERMANY: A. D. 936-973.
       Restoration of the Roman Empire by
       Otho I. called the Great.

       "Otho the Great, son and successor of Henry I., added the
       kingdom of Italy to the conquests of his father, and procured
       also the Imperial dignity for himself, 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 occupied 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 (924), 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 better to establish her dominion, she espoused Hugo
       King of Italy (932), who became, in consequence 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.
    {1440}
       Having driven Hugo from the throne, and shut 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 Octavian, who, though
       only 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 excited factions
       among the nobility, gave birth to anarchy, and fresh
       opportunity for the depredations 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 Hungarians. These troubles increased
       on the accession 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 protégée. 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 protection 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 February, 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
       intimations 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 Emperor.
       Hurried on by the impetuosity of his character, 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, however, did not think it advisable to wait
       his approach, 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 henceforth they would elect no pope
       without his counsel, 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, together with the Imperial dignity, Otho transmitted
       to his successors on the throne of Germany. From this time the
       Germans held it to be an inviolable 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, until after he had been
       formally crowned by the Pope."

          C. W. Koch,
          The Revolutions 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
       Charlemagne; 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 various
       nations; their mutual understanding rested on an internal
       necessity, before which all opposing views and interests gave
       way. The sovereignty of Otho the Great, on the contrary,
       rested on a principle fundamentally opposed to the
       encroachment 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 crush
       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 transferred 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 determination. But if they allude to the German
       emperors, properly so called, the contrary of their statement
       is just as true; not only Carlmann and Otho the Great, but
       their successors, constantly had to conquer the imperial
       throne, and to defend it, when conquered, sword in hand.
    {1441}
       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
       general 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, before its internal growth is completed. For was it of
       slight importance to its inward progress that Germany thus
       remained in unbroken connexion 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 unfolded itself by contact with the spirit
       of antiquity, 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
       predecessors, gave it a fresh national importance by planting
       German colonies in Slavonian countries simultaneously with the
       diffusion of Christianity. He Germanised as well as converted
       the population he had subdued. He confirmed his father's
       conquests on the Saale and the Elbe, by the establishment of
       the bishoprics of Meissen and Osterland. After having
       conquered the tribes on the other side the Elbe in those long
       and perilous campaigns where he commanded in person, he
       established there, too, three bishoprics, which for a time
       gave an extraordinary impulse to the progress of conversion.
       ... And even where the project of Germanising the population
       was out of the question, the supremacy of the German name was
       firmly and actively maintained. In Bohemia and Poland
       bishoprics were erected under German metropolitans; 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 extended 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 necessity
       under which it lay of acquiring a decided ascendancy over the
       papacy. This secular and Germanic principle long retained the
       predominancy 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
       civilisation, 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 universal
       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,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          introduction.

          See, also, ITALY: A. D. 961-1039;
          and ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY.

    GERMANY: A. D. 955.
       Great defeat and repulse of the Hungarians by Otho I.

          See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.

    GERMANY: 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 Investitures.

       "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 beheaded on the battlements of Rome,
       in view of the army and of the people. In 999 A. D. Otho
       placed his 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, 1002 A. D. Henry II. (the Holy),
       Duke of Bavaria, was elected emperor, and had to battle, like
       his predecessors, 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 Oppenheim, which was attended by princes, nobles,
       and 50,000 people altogether. His reign was remarkable for the
       justice and mercy which he always kept in view. The kingdom of
       Aries and Burgundy was united to the empire, 1033 A. D. He
       checked the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Lombards, and gave
       Schleswiek to Denmark as a fief. In 1037 A. D. he granted to
       the lower vassals of the empire the hereditary succession to
       their offices and estates, and so extended the privileges of
       the great nobles, as to make them almost independent of the
       crown. Henry III. succeeded, 1039 A. D., and established the
       imperial power with a high hand."

          W. B. Boyce,
          Introduction to the Study of History,
          pages 230-231.

    {1442}

       "Henry III. was, as sovereign, able, upright, and resolute;
       and his early death--for his reign was cut short by disasters
       that preyed upon his health--is one of the calamities of
       history. The cause of the Roman Court he judged with vigor and
       good sense. His strong hand, more than any man's, dragged the
       Church out of the slough it had fallen into [see ROME: 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 on 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 purchaser,--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,
       which 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
       dismissed, as having betrayed his charge. The impotent
       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 ecclesiastic, who was clean of all
       these intrigues, was set in the chair of Peter, where he
       reigned righteously for two years under the name of Clement
       II."

          J. H. Allen,
          Christian History in its Three Great Periods:
          Second period,
          pages 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 reformation 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 monastery of Cluny, founded in 910, in
       eastern France, as a reformation of the monastic life, but it
       involved 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 the strictest ideas of
       Cluny, had been a supporter of Gregory VI., one of the three
       rival popes deposed by Henry, who, notwithstanding his
       outright 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 before 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 death, and a minority followed just in the crisis of
       time needed to enable the feudal princes of Germany to recover
       and strengthen their independence 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 occupy, in respect either to Germany or the
       papacy, the vantage-ground on which Henry III. had stood. ...
       The triumph of the reform movement and of its ecclesiastical
       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
       attempted 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 abolition 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 considerable time that this reform was fully
       secured. The second point, the celibacy of the clergy, had
       long been demanded by the church, but the requirement 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 revolutionary 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 independence of the church
       had given to it a new and wider meaning which made it include
       all appointment to positions in the church by laymen,
       including kings and the emperor. ... According to the
       conception of the public law the bishop 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. ...
    {1443}
       It was a matter of vital importance whether officers
       exercising such important functions and controlling so large a
       part of its area--probably everywhere as much as one-third of
       the territory--should be 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 centralization 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 question 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 absolutely impossible 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 imperial rights as he understood
       them."

          G. B. Adams,
          Civilization During the Middle Ages,
          chapter 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 comfort 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
       conviction, that had led Henry to humble himself before the
       Pope. It was policy, not contrition or compassion, that had
       led Gregory (against his better judgment, it is said) to
       accept his Sovereign'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, hardly
       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,
          Christian History in its Three Great Periods:
          second period,
          pages 69-72.

       "Meanwhile, the Saxons had recognized Hermann of Luxemburg 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 experience had softened the character of Henry, they
       were the more willing to return to their allegiance. 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
       removed, 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 year 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
       excommunicated; and the discontented princes, as eager as ever
       to break the royal power, sided with the Pope against him. Peace
       was not restored till 1122, 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,
          chapter 8.

    {1444}

       "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 of their fiefs and regalia, by the
       sceptre in Germany before, in Italy and in Burgundy after,
       their consecration; for these grants they should promise
       fidelity to the emperor; contested elections should be decided
       by the emperor in favour of him who should be considered by
       the provincial synod to possess the better right. Finally he
       should restore to the Roman Church all the possessions and
       regalia of St. Peter. This convention secured to the Church
       many things, and above all, the freedom of ecclesiastical
       elections. Hitherto, the different Churches had been compelled
       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 consent 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 tolerate 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 reduced 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 renounce the homage unless they resigned the regalia. 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 following year the
       concordat was ratified in the great council of three hundred
       bishops, the ninth general council of the Church, which was
       convened by Calixtus in Rome."

          J. J. I. Döllinger,
          History of the Church,
          volume 3, pages 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.,
          book 2.

          Comte C. F. Montalembert,
          The Monks of the West,
          book 19.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          books 6-8.

          W. R. W. Stephens,
          Hildebrand and His Times.

          E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
          book 4.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1101.
       Disastrous Crusade under Duke Welf of Bavaria.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1125.
       Election of Lothaire II., King, afterwards Emperor.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
       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 candidates 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.
       "The phrase electoral princes (electores principes) first
       occurs in the Privilegium majus Austriacum, which dates from
       1156, but it does not appear what princes were intended, and
       the accounts extant of the elections of the rival kings,
       Philip and Otho (IV.) in 1198, show beyond question that the
       right of election was not then limited to a few princes. The
       election of Frederick II. (1213) is only described by the
       authorities in general terms. They inform us that many princes
       took part in the proceedings. The following brief passage
       concerning the royal elections occurs in the Auctor Vetus de
       Beneficiis: 'When the king elected by the Germans goes to Rome
       to be 'consecrated (the) six princes who first cast their
       votes for him shall by rights accompany him that the justice
       of his election may be evident to the Pope.' The
       Sachsenspiegel Lehurecht substantially copies this sentence,
       but designates as the six princes: 'the Bishop of Mentz and of
       Treves and of Cologne, and the Palsgrave of the Rhine, the
       Duke of Saxony, and the Margrave of Brandenburg.' The
       Sachsenspiegel of Landrecht is still more explicit: 'In voting
       for Emperor, the first shall be the Bishop of Mentz; the
       second, the (Bishop) of Treves; the third, the (Bishop) of
       Cologne. The first of the laymen to vote is the Palsgrave of
       the Rhine, the steward of the Empire; the second, the Duke of
       Saxony, the marshal; the third, the Margrave of Brandenburg,
       the chamberlain. The butler of the Empire (is) the King of
       Bohemia. He has no vote because he is not German.' The obvious
       inference is that these three temporal princes voted before
       the rest because they were respectively the steward, marshal,
       and chamberlain. In the chronicle of Albert of Stade, the
       inference is given as fact in these words: 'The Palsgrave
       votes because he is steward, the Duke of Saxony because (he
       is) marshal, and the Margrave of Brandenburg, because (he is)
       chamberlain.' The mere fact that the right of casting the
       first six votes attached to six particular princes implies
       that their votes greatly outweighed those of their
       fellow-princes, and this is well known to have been the case
       in all the elections held in the thirteenth century subsequent
       to that of Frederick II. Only two others were associated with
       them in the double election of Richard of Cornwall and
       Alphonso of Castile (1256), namely, the King of Bohemia and
       the Duke of Bavaria. The whole number of participants was
       therefore eight, yet Urban IV., in a letter written March 31,
       1263, to Richard of Cornwall, mentions the King of Bohemia
       alone as associated with them, and incidentally states that
       the 'princes having a voice' in the royal elections were
       'seven in number.' It seems as if this must have been the
       statement of an idea rather than of a fact, although a college
       of seven electors was a recognized institution ten years
       later, as the circumstances attending the election of Rudolph
       of Hapsburg, demonstrate."

          S. E. Turner,
          A Sketch of the Germanic Constitution,
          chapter 4.

    {1445}

       The Mark of Brandenburg was raised to the rank of an
       Electorate in 1356--not in 1152 as erroneously stated by
       Carlyle. The Margraf then became Kurfürst--"one of the Seven
       who have a right ... to choose, to 'kieren' the Romish Kaiser;
       and who are therefore called Kur Princes, Kurfürste, or
       Electors. ... Fürst (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 'Küssen ('to
       kiss,'--to choose with such emphasis!), and is not likely to
       fall obsolete 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, Cöln, Trier (Mentz, Cologne,
       Treves), Archbishops all. ...

       2. Three Secular, Sachsen, Pfalz, Böhmen (Saxony, Palatinate,
       Bohemia); of which the last, Böhmen, 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 Brandenburg, are the Seven Kurfürsts in old
       time; Septemvirs 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 GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

       However, at the Peace of Westphalia (1648) it was found
       incompetent to any Kaiser to abrogate Pfalz or the like of
       Pfalz, a Kurfürst 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 GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

       The Ninth, we saw (Year 1692), was Gentleman Ernst of Hanover.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705.

       There never was any Tenth."

          T. Carlyle,
          Frederick the Great,
          book 2, chapter 4.

       "All the rules and requisites of the election were settled by
       Charles the Fourth in the Golden Bull [A. D. 1356--see below:
       A. D. 1347-1493], thenceforward a fundamental law of the
       Empire."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 14.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.
       The house of Suabia, or the Hohenstaufen.
       Its struggles in Germany and Italy, and its end.
       The Factions of the
       Guelfs and Ghibellines.
       Frederick Barbarossa 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
       patrimonial 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
       dependence 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 were a feud and
       a struggle which grew and widened into the long-lasting,
       far-reaching, historical conflict of Guelfs and Ghibellines.

          See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
          also, SAXONY: DISSOLUTION OF THE OLD DUCHY.

       The Saxon emperor Lothaire found his strongest support in the
       great Wölf, 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
       intended 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
       Crusader--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 Frederick--the little town of Waiblingen in
       Franconia. 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
       Red beard, 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 Hohenstaufen.

       Frederick Barbarossa, elected Emperor in 1152, passed into
       Italy in 1154. "He came there on the invitation of the Pope,
       of the Prince of Capua, and of the towns which had been
       subjected 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 difficulty escaped safely into
       Bavaria. His passage left little that was solid and durable
       behind 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 army at Ulm. Brescia was
       quickly subdued; Lodi, which had been destroyed by the
       Milanese, was rebuilt, and Milan itself was reduced to terms.
    {1446}
       This 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 discretion, and a fortnight later all the
       inhabitants were ordered to leave the town. The circuit of the
       walls was partitioned out among the most pitiless enemies of
       its former greatness, and the inhabitants of Lodi, of Cremona,
       of Pavia, of Novara, 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 Emperor left for Pavia, on Palm Sunday
       1162, not a fiftieth part of the city was standing. This terrible
       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 Alexander 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,
       Ferrara, Brescia, Bergamo, Cremona, Milan, Lodi, Piacenza,
       Parma, Modena, and Bologna. The confederation solemnly engaged
       to expel the Emperor from Italy. The towns on the frontier of
       Piedmont asked and obtained 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 unfortunately 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 external 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
       arrived 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,
          Guelphs and Ghibellines,
          chapter 1.

          See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162 to 1174-1183.

       "The end was that the Emperor 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 Empire, 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 CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

       Frederick was succeeded by his son Henry the Sixth, who had
       already 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 William. He
       died in 1197, leaving his son Frederick a young child, who had
       already been chosen King in Germany, and who succeeded as
       hereditary King in Sicily. The Norman Kingdom of Sicily thus
       came to an end, except so far as it was continued through
       Frederick, who was descended 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 disputed 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 Emperor in 1209. But presently young Frederick was
       again chosen, and in 1220 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 learning 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 wonderfully 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 privileges which did much to
       undermine the royal power, and on the other hand he showed no
       favour to the rising power of the cities. In Italy he had
       endless strivings with one Pope after another, with Innocent
       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 1245
       Pope Innocent the Fourth held a Council at Lyons, 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. Freeman,
          General Sketch of European History,
          chapter 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 cultivated, 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 mediæval Alkibiadês, while
       he was undoubtedly far removed from Alkibiadês' 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 kingdoms, 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 mundi et immutator mirabilis.
    {1447}
       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,
       political 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
       deliverer. 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 Kingdoms. After his time Burgundy
       vanishes as a kingdom. ... Italy too, after Frederick,
       vanishes 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 utterly
       split in pieces, like the sister kingdoms; but after Frederick
       came the Great Interregnum, and after the Great Interregnum
       the royal power in Germany never was what it had been before.
       In his hereditary Kingdom of Sicily he was not absolutely the
       last of his dynasty, for his son Manfred 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 Jerusalem, the last
       baptized man who really ruled the Holy Land or wore a crown in
       the Holy City. ... In the world of elegant letters Frederick
       has some claim to be looked on as the founder of that modern
       Italian language and literature which 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
       splendour. 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 accomplishments, 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
       opportunity, 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
       circumstances 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 choosing. 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 became 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 CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229], is
       not only a mere episode 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, excommunicated 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, volume 1, Essay 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 ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

          ALSO IN:
          T. L. Kington,
          History of Frederick the Second.

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapters 10-13.

          H. H. Milman,
          History of Latin Christianity,
          book 8, chapter 7, and book 9.

    {1448}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1142-1152.
       Creation of the Electorate of Brandenburg.

          See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1156.
       The Margravate of Austria created a Duchy.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1180-1214.
       Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine acquired by the house
       of Wittelsbach.

          See BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1196-1197.
       The Fourth Crusade.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1196-1197.

    GERMANY: 13th Century.
       The rise of the Hanseatic League.

          See HANSA TOWNS.

    GERMANY: 13th Century.
       Cause of the multiplication of petty principalities and
       states.

       "While 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 children. When they acquired the nature of
       fiefs, it was still consonant to the principles of a feudal
       tenure that the eldest son should inherit according to the law
       of primogeniture; an inferior provision or appanage, at most,
       being reserved for the younger children. The law of England
       favoured the eldest exclusively; that of France gave him great
       advantages. But in Germany a different rule began to prevail
       about the thirteenth century. An equal partition of the
       inheritance, without the least regard to priority of birth,
       was the general law of its principalities. Sometimes this was
       effected by undivided possession, or tenancy in common; the
       brothers residing together, and reigning jointly. This tended
       to preserve the integrity of dominion; but as it was
       frequently incommodious, a more usual practice was to divide
       the territory. From such partitions are derived those numerous
       independent 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. Originally 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
       posterity 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 territory, that is, the
       particular district to which the electoral suffrage was
       inseparably attached, became incapable of partition, and was
       to descend to the eldest son. In the 15th century the present
       house of Brandenburg set the first example of establishing
       primogeniture by law; the principalities of Anspach and
       Bayreuth were dismembered 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 exclusively 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 denounced curses on
       their posterity, if they should introduce the impious custom
       of primogeniture. ... Weakened by these subdivisions, the
       principalities of Germany in the 14th and 15th centuries
       shrink to a more and more diminutive size in the scale of
       nations."

          H. Hallam,
          The Middle Ages,
          chapter 5 (volume 2).

          See, also,
          CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1212.
       The Children's Crusade.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.

    GERMANY: 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.

    GERMANY: 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,
       crippled, and degraded, that it could never more be to Europe
       and to Germany what it once had been. ... The German kingdom
       broke down beneath the weight of the Roman Empire. To be
       universal sovereign Germany had sacrificed her own political
       existence. The necessity which their projects in Italy and
       disputes with the Pope laid the Emperors under of purchasing
       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
       privileges 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 independence which rose into a stable fabric
       at the era of the Great Interregnum. Frederick II. had, by two
       Pragmatic Sanctions, A. D. 1220 and 1232, granted, or rather
       confirmed, rights already customary, such as to give the
       bishops and nobles legal sovereignty in their own towns and
       territories, except when the Emperor should be present; and
       thus his direct jurisdiction became restricted 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. William of Holland [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 archbishop 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, seceded in disgust, and chose Alfonso X. of
       Castile, who, shrewder than his competitor, continued to watch
       the stars at Toledo, enjoying the splendours of his title
       while troubling himself about it no further than to issue now
       and then a proclamation. Meantime the condition of Germany was
       frightful. The new Didius Julianus, the chosen of princes
       baser than the prætorians 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 domains by war: robber-knights infested
       the highways and the rivers: the misery of the weak, the
       tyranny and violence of the strong, were such as had not been
       seen for centuries.
    {1449}
       Things 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 disorganization
       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 1272 [1273?], Rudolf, count of
       Hapsburg, 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 centuries, 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 concerned, ought now to have been suffered to
       expire; 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, till 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 unshaken, 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 kingdom. 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 Emperor;
       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. Rudolf 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 Europe the
       tendency of events had been to centralize 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 the independence of the princes more confirmed."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 13.

          See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.

    GERMANY: 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 Romans (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 afterwards ratified to the Church the long disputed
       gift of Charlemagne, comprising Ravenna, Æmilia, Bobbio,
       Cesena, Forumpopoli, Forli, Faenza, Imola, Bologna, Ferrara,
       Comacchio, Adria, Rimini, 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 German 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 reverses of the two Frederics were
       before his eyes; there was little to excite his sympathy with
       the Italians; and though Lombardy seemed ready to acknowledge
       his supremacy, the Tuscan cities evinced aspirations after
       independence." During the early years of Rodolph's reign he
       was employed 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 away, and Nicholas III. had come to it
       (1277). 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 excommunication 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 emissary, 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 compelled Philip, Count of Savoy, to surrender
       Morat, Payerne, and Guminen, which had been usurped from the
       Empire. By a successful expedition 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
       impostor, who had persuaded the infatuated multitude to
       believe that he was the Emperor Frederic II.
    {1450}
       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
       1291, 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 deficient 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 attempts to enforce
       a purchased claim upon the Landgraviate of Thuringia, Adolphus
       brought himself into contempt, and in 1298 he was solemnly
       deposed by the Electors, who now conferred the kingship upon
       Albert of Austria whom they had rejected six years before.
       "The deposed sovereign was, however, strongly supported; and
       he promptly collected his adherents, and marched at the head
       of a vast army against Albert, who was not unprepared for his
       reception. 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 in Germany, found his title disputed at Rome.
       Boniface VIII., the most arrogant of all popes, refused to
       acknowledge the validity of his election, and drove him into a
       close alliance with the Pope's implacable and finally
       triumphant enemy, Philip IV. of France (see PAPACY: 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 deposed Adolphus. But Albert's energy broke up their
       plans. He humbled their leader, the Archbishop-Elector of
       Mentz, and the rest became submissive. The Pope now came to
       terms with him, and invited him to Rome to receive the
       imperial crown; also offering to him the crown of France, if
       he would take it from the head of the excommunicated Philip;
       but while these proposals 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 inheritance of the Landgrave of
       Thuringia--under the very transaction which had chiefly caused
       his predecessor Adolphus to be deposed, and he himself
       invested with the Roman crown. Finally, he was in hostilities
       with the Swiss Forest Cantons, 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,
          History of the Western Empire,
          chapters 14-17 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN;
          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1282.
       Acquisition of the duchy of Austria by the House of Hapsburg.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

    GERMANY: 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 VII. "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, Wenzel's
       eldest daughter. 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 supposed, 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 Luxemburg family. This King John of Bohemia was a man of
       mark. His life was spent in the ceaseless pursuit of
       adventure--from tournament to tournament, from war to war,
       from one enterprise 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 kingdom. 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 traditional view,
       the imperial crown was as important 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
       characteristics attached to these names. A formal embassy,
       with Matteo Visconti at its head, invited 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.
    {1451}
       The news of his approach excited general wonder and
       expectation, and his reception at Milan in December was like a
       triumph. He was crowned King of Lombardy without opposition.
       But when, in the true imperial spirit, he announced that he
       had come to serve the nation, and not one or another party,
       and proved his sincerity by treating both parties alike, all
       whose selfish hopes were deceived conspired against him.
       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. Meanwhile Henry VII. went to Rome, May
       1312, and received the crown of the Cæsars from four
       cardinals, plenipotentiaries of the pope, in the church of St.
       John Lateran, south of the Tiber, St. Peter's being occupied
       by the 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, August 24, 1313. He was buried at Pisa.
       Meanwhile his army in Bohemia had been completely successful
       in establishing King John on the throne."

           C. T. Lewis,
           A History of Germany,
           book 3, chapter 10.

          See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.
       Election of rival emperors, Lewis (Ludowic) of Bavaria and
       Frederic of Austria.
       Triumph of Lewis at the Battle of Mühldorf.
       Papal interference and excommunication of Lewis.
       Germany under interdict.
       Unrelenting hostility of the Church.

       "The death of Heinric [Henry] replunged Germany into horrors
       to which, since the extinction of the Swabian line of
       emperors, it had been a stranger. The Austrian princes, who
       had never forgiven the elevation of the Luxemburg family,
       espoused the interests of Frederic, their head; the Bohemians
       as naturally opposed them. From the accession 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
       subjected 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 electors; but they were at least resolved to support the
       pretensions of a prince hostile to the Austrians. ... The diet
       being convoked at Frankfort, 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
       candidates being respectively crowned kings of the Romans,
       Ludowic at Aix-la-Chapelle, by the archbishop of
       Mentz--Frederic at Bonn, by the metropolitan of Cologne, a
       civil war was inevitable: neither had virtue enough to
       sacrifice his own rights to the good of the state. ... The
       contest would have ended in favour of the Austrians, but for
       the rashness of Frederic, who, in September 1322, without
       waiting for the arrival of his brother Leopold, assailed
       Ludowic between Mahldorf and Ettingen in Bavaria. ... The
       battle 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 prisoner; and Frederic
       himself, who disdained to flee, was soon in the same
       condition. To his everlasting 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
       separate force; and pope John XXII., the natural enemy of the
       Ghibelins, incensed at some succours which Ludowic sent to
       that party in Lombardy, excommunicated the king of the Romans,
       and declared him deposed from his dignity. Among the
       ecclesiastics of the empire this iniquitous 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 inconstant king
       of Bohemia join the party of Austria; 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 all claim to the empire. But
       though Frederic sincerely resolved to fulfil his share of the
       compact, Leopold and the other princes of his family refused;
       and their refusal was approved by the pope. With the
       magnanimity of his character, Frederic, unable to execute the
       engagements which he had made, voluntarily surrendered himself
       to his enemy. But Ludowic, who would not be outdone in
       generosity, received 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. When this arrangement
       was condemned both by the pope and the electors, Ludowic
       proposed 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 opposition of the states to any compromise, enabled
       Ludowic to retain the sceptre of the kingdom; and in 1329,
       that of Frederic strengthened his party. But his reign was
       destined to be one of troubles. ... His open warfare against
       the head of the church did not much improve his affairs, the
       vindictive pope, in addition to the former sentence, placing
       all Germany under an interdict. ...
    {1452}
       In 1338, the diet of Frankfort issued a declaration for ever
       memorable in the annals of freedom. That the imperial
       authority depended on God alone; that the pope had no temporal
       influence, 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-pope 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. ... Unfortunately for the national
       independence, Ludowic himself contradicted the tenor of his
       hitherto spirited conduct, by mean submissions, by humiliating
       applications for absolution. They were unsuccessful; and he
       had the mortification 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 decided. 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 months before the decease of Ludowic, Charles of
       Bohemia [son of John, the blind king of Bohemia, who fell,
       fighting for the French, at the battle of Crecy], assisted by
       Clement VI., was elected king of the Romans."

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of the Germanic Empire,
          book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          J. I. von Döllinger,
          Studies in European History,
          chapter 5.

          J. C. Robertson,
          History of the Christian Church,
          book 8, chapter 2, V. 7.

          M. Creighton,
          History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
          introduction, chapter 2.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
       The Golden Bull of Charles IV.

       The Luxemburg line of emperors, and the reappearance of the
       Hapsburgs.
       The Holy Roman Empire as it was at the end of the Middle Ages.

       "John king of Bohemia 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 successful in the only objects that he seriously
       pursued. Deficient in personal courage, insensible of
       humiliation, bending without shame 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 paying his
       demand, Charles IV. affords a proof that a certain dexterity
       and cold-blooded perseverance may occasionally supply, in a
       sovereign, the want of more respectable qualities. He has been
       reproached with neglecting the empire. But he never deigned to
       trouble himself about the empire, 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 electoral 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, augmented
       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 constitutional history of
       the empire by his Golden Bull [1356]; an instrument which
       finally ascertained the prerogatives of the electoral college.

          See above: A. D. 1125-1152.

       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 absolutely restrained 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 consonant to ancient usage, had not always
       been observed, 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 oligarchy, 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 depressed by giving such a preponderance to the
       seven electors, than from any 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 with such preponderating authority. Wenceslaus
       [elected in 1378], a supine and voluptuous man, less
       respected, and more negligent of Germany, if possible, 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 had married Sigismund's only daughter,
       the queen of Hungary 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 posterity it
       never departed, except in a single instance, upon the
       extinction of his male line in 1740.
    {1453}
       Frederic III. reigned 53 years [1440-1493], 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 Hungary, was yet
       another founder of his family, and left their fortunes
       incomparably more prosperous than at his accession. The
       marriage of his son Maximilian with the heiress of Burgundy
       [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477] began that aggrandizement of the
       house of Austria which 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,
          chapter 5 (volume 2).

       "It is important to remark that, for more than a century after
       Charles IV. had fixed his seat in Bohemia, no emperor
       appeared, endowed with the vigour necessary to uphold and
       govern the empire. The bare fact that Charles's successor,
       Wenceslas, was a prisoner 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
       possession 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 sympathy 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 generally, 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
       appearance 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
       predecessors. During seven-and-twenty years, from 1444 to
       1471, he was never seen within the boundaries of the empire.
       Hence it happened that the central action and the 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 the prince-electors. In the reign of Sigismund
       we find them convoking the diets, and leading the armies into
       the field against the Hussites: the operations against the
       Bohemians were attributed entirely to them. In this manner 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 jurisdiction, yet no tribunal found more doubtful
       obedience than his own. The fact that royalty existed 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 Cæsars, whose rights and
       dignities had been transferred, first to the Greeks, and then
       to the Germans in the persons of Charlemagne and Otho the
       Great; as the true secular head of Christendom. ... The
       opinion was confidently 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,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          volume 1, pages 52-56.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir R. Comyn,
          History of the Western Empire,
          chapter 24 (volume l).

          E. F. Henderson,
          Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
          book 2, number 10.

          See, also,
          AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364, to 1471-1491.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1363-1364.
       Tyrol acquired by the House of Austria, with the reversion of
       the crowns of Bohemia and Hungary.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1378.
       Final surrender of the Arelate to France.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1386-1388.
       Defeat of the Austrians by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1405-1434.
       The Bohemian Reformation and the Hussite wars.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415, and 1419-1434.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1414-1418.
       Failure of demands for Church Reform in the Council of
       Constance.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1417.
       The Electorate of Brandenburg conferred on the Hohenzollerns.

       "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 twelfth 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, purchase, or cession. The process of
       occupation was so gradual that the institutions of the old
       German provinces, like those constituting the northern march,
       had time to take firm root in the newly-acquired territory;
       and owing to the constant necessity for unsheathing the sword,
       the colonists acquired warlike habits which tended to give them
       spirit and energy. ... The Ascanians were a warlike but
       cultivated race, incessantly acquiring new possessions, but
       generous 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 which they assumed gave to them and to
       their country a high rank in the Empire. In the Neumark and in
       Pomerelllen the Poles retreated before them, and on the
       Pomeranian coasts they protected the towns founded by the
       Teutonic order from the invasion of the Danes. It has been
       asked whether this race might not have greatly extended its
       power; but they were not destined even to make the attempt.
    {1454}
       It is said that at the beginning of the fourteenth century
       nineteen members of this family were assembled on the
       Margrave's Hill near Rathenau. In the year 1320, of all these
       not one remained, or had even left an heir. ... In Brandenburg
       ... it really appeared as if the extinction of the ruling
       family would entail ruin upon the country. It had formed a
       close alliance with the imperial power--which at that moment
       was the subject of contention between the two great families
       of Wittelsbach and Luxemburg--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 Sigmund, 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 Nürnberg, to whom he lay under very
       great obligations, and who had 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 prudent 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, according to which each and everyone who was an
       enemy to him, or to those comprehended 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 Sigmund formally invested the Burgrave
       with the dignity of Elector, 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 recovering 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 House of Brandenburg,
          book 1, chapter 2.

          See, also, BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417;
          and HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1467-1471.
       Crusade against George Podiebrad, king of Bohemia.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1467-1477.
       Relations of Charles the Bold of Burgundy to the Empire.

          See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467, and 1476-1477.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.
       The Bundschuh insurrections 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 Rhætian 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
       peasantry of Kempten (to the east of Lake Constance) and their
       feudal lord, the Abbot of Kempten. It began in 1423, and came
       to an open rebellion 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 prematurely discovered
       and put down. Then, in 1501, other peasants, close neighbours
       to those of Kempten, caught the infection, and in 1502, again
       in Elsass, but this time further north, in the region about
       Speyer and the Neckar, lower down the Rhine, nearer Franconia,
       the Bundschuh was raised again. It numbered 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 Emperor, and all Germany was
       to join the League. They were to pay no taxes or dues, and
       commons, 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 1512 and 1513, on the east side of the
       Rhine, in the Black Forest and the neighbouring districts of
       Würtemberg, the movement 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
       Würtemberg rose to resist the tyranny of their lord [in a
       combination called 'the League of Poor Conrad']. ... The same
       year, in the valleys of the Austrian Alps, in Carinthia,
       Styria, and Crain, similar risings of the peasantry took
       place, all of them ending in the triumph of the nobles."

          F. Seebohm,
          The Era of the Protestant Revolution,
          part 1, chapter 4.

          See, also, below: A. D. 1524-1525.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1493.
       Maximilian I. becomes emperor.

    {1455}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
       The reign of Maximilian.
       His personal importance and his imperial powerlessness.
       Constitutional reforms in the Empire.
       The Imperial Chamber.
       The Circles.
       The Aulic Council.

       "Frederic [the Third] died in 1493, after a protracted and
       inglorious reign of 53 years. ... On the death of his father,
       Maximilian had been seven years king of the Romans; and his
       accession to the imperial crown encountered no opposition. ...
       Scarcely had he ascended the throne, when Charles VIII., 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
       despatch 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 triumphed; 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 inconsiderable 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 Ludovico 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 enabled to oppose Maximilian 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
       encroached considerably on his Italian possessions. He was
       equally unsuccessful with the Swiss, whom he vainly persuaded
       to acknowledge 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
       Maximilian's reign are those only to which the attention of
       the reader can be directed with pleasure. In 1495 we witness
       the entire abolition of the right of diffidation [private
       warfare, see LANDFRIEDE],--a right which from time immemorial
       had been the curse of the empire. ... The passing 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 tranquillity], 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 consist 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 support, its constitution, the
       enforcement of its decisions, were left to chance; and many
       successive diets--even many generations--were passed before
       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 Regency.
       ... But these authorities were insufficient to enforce the
       execution of the decrees emanating from the chamber; and it
       was found necessary to restore the proposition of the circles,
       which had been agitated in the reign of Albert II. ...

       Originally they comprised only--
       1. Bavaria,
       2. Franconia,
       3. Saxony,
       4. the Rhine,
       5. Swabia,  and
       6. Westphalia; thus excluding the states of Austria and the
       electorates. But this exclusion 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-Comté; and the Netherlands.
       9. That of the Lower Rhine comprehended the three
       ecclesiastical 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 promulgated in 1512, but which was considerably
       improved by succeeding diets. Each had its hereditary
       president, or director, and its hereditary prince convoked,
       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 encroach 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
       extended; from political affairs, investitures, charters, and
       the numerous matters which concerned the Imperial chancery, it
       immediately passed to judicial crimes. ... By an imperial
       edict of 1518, the Aulic Council was to consist of 18 members,
       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] laboured to
       make this council as arbitrary in the empire as in Austria, he
       met with great opposition. ... But his purpose was that of
       encroachment no less than of defence; and his example was so
       well imitated by his successors, that in most cases the Aulic
       Council was at length acknowledged to have a concurrent
       jurisdiction with the Imperial Chamber, in many the right of
       prevention over its rival."

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of the Germanic Empire,
          book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    {1456}

       "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 empire 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 enterprises, 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 attachment; formed to
       be the romantic hero, the exhaustless theme of the people."

          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          volume 1, pages 379-381.

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
          from 1494 to 1514,
          book 1, chapter 3,
          and book 2, chapters 2 and 4.

          See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.

    GERMANY: A. D.1496-1499.
       The Swabian war.
       Practical separation of the Swiss Confederacy from the Empire.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

    GERMANY: A. D. .1508-1509.
       The League of Cambrai against Venice.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1513-1515.
       The emperor in the pay of England.
       Peace with France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1516.
       Abortive invasion of Milaness by Maximilian.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523.
       Beginning of the movement of Religious Reformation.
       Papal Indulgences, and Luther's attack on them.

       "The Reformation, like all other great social convulsions, was
       long in preparation. It was one part of that general progress,
       complex in its character, which marked the fifteenth century
       and the opening of the sixteenth as 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
       misgovernment 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 predecessors 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 Christianity, for a more
       spiritual type of religion. ... The Reformation may be viewed
       in two aspects. On the one hand it is a religious revolution
       affecting the beliefs, the rites, the ecclesiastical
       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
       Netherlands 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
       independence was mingled with a yearning for a more spiritual
       form of religion than was encouraged by mediæval
       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 dominion that should
       encircle the globe, a simple monk, turning away from empty
       forms and the things of sense, was finding him whom the
       disciples once sought in a sepulchre of stone. Unquestionably
       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
       indulgences, the proceeds of which were to help pay for the
       building of St. Peter's Church, appeared in the neighborhood
       of Wittenberg. To persuade 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 remitted
       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
       delivered 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 procured 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
       authority 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 mediæval universities. He concluded
       them with the solemn declaration that he affirmed nothing, but
       left all to the judgment of the Church. ...
    {1457}
       The theses stirred up a commotion all over Germany. ... A
       controversy 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 resolute 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 because 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,
          pages 287-293.

       "At first neither Luther, nor others, saw to what the contest
       about the indulgences 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 disputation (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 complaints
       which the Wittenberg monk flung against Papal Rome, in a
       language whose sonorous splendour and iron strength were now
       first heard in all the fulness, force, and beauty of the
       German idiom. That was an imperishable service rendered 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 nobility,
       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 where 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 nobility, the cities, the peasantry,
       all expected of the emperor a reformation of the empire
       politically 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 Saxony, 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
       defend himself. He went, notwithstanding 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 Protestants. 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 recant. Here
       stand I. I can do no other, so help me God, amen!' then he had
       reached the pinnacle of his greatness. The result is well known.
       The emperor and his papal adviser remained unmoved, 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 Saxony declared in favour of reform.
       In 1523 Magdeburg, Wismar, Rostock, Stettin, Danzig, Riga,
       expelled the monks and priests, and appointed Lutheran
       preachers. Nürnberg and Breslau hailed the Reformation with
       delight."

          S. Baring-Gould,
          The Church in Germany,
          chapter 18.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1522-1525.

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany.

          L. Hausser,
          The Period of the Reformation.

          J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
          History of the Reformation.

          M. J. Spaulding,
          History of the Protestant Reformation.

          F. Seebohm,
          The Era of the Protestant Revolution.

          P. Bayne,
          Martin Luther.

          C. Beard,
          Martin Luther and the Reformation.

          J. Köstlin,
          Life of Luther.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1519,
       Contest for the imperial crown,
       Three royal candidates in the field.
       Election of Charles V., the Austro-Spanish monarch of many
       thrones.

       In his last years, Maximilian 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 Roman crown being
       bestowed on that prince. 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 candidate 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 12th 1519. ... Three candidates for the
       Imperial crown appeared in the field: the Kings of Spain,
       France, and England.
    {1458}
       Francis I. [of France] was now at the height of his
       reputation. His enterprises had hitherto been crowned with
       success, the popular test of ability, 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 distribution of his money,
       which his agent, Bonnivet, was obliged to carry through
       Germany on the backs of horses; for the Fuggers, the rich
       bankers of Augsburg, were in the interest of Charles, and
       refused to give the French any accommodation. But the bought
       votes of these venal Electors 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 corruptibility
       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 success. The
       House of Austria had already furnished six emperors, of whom
       the last three had reigned eighty years, as if by an
       hereditary succession. Charles's Austrian possessions made him
       a German prince, and from their situation constituted him the
       natural protector of Germany against the Turks. The previous
       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 unanimously offered the crown to Frederick
       the Wise, Elector of Saxony. But Frederick magnanimously
       refused it, and succeeded in uniting the suffrages of the
       Electors in favour of Charles; principally on the ground that
       he was the sovereign best qualified to meet the great danger
       impending 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
       subsequently altered to that of 'Emperor Elect of the Romans,'
       a designation adopted by his successors, with the omission of
       the word 'elect,' down to the dissolution of the empire."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 2, chapter 2 (volume l).

       On his election to the Imperial throne, Charles ceded to his
       younger brother, Ferdinand, all the German possessions of the
       family. The latter, therefore, became 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. 1496-1526.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Robertson,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          book 1.

          J. S. Brewer,
          The Reign of Henry VIII.,
          chapter 11 (volume 1).

          J. Van Praet,
          Essays on the Political History of the 15th-17th Centuries,
          chapter 2, (volume 1).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1520-1521.
       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 sufficient 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, customs, and privileges, which
       the ambassadors 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 electors and states in particular. Of those
       relating to the Germanic body in general, the most prominent
       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 maintain
       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,
       imposing and directing the perception of ordinary
       contributions, of establishing and superintending the superior
       tribunals, and of judging the personal 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 privileges 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 emperors. ... Besides these
       concessions, be promised not to make any attempt to render the
       imperial 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, 1521, 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 interval of the interregnum, and to
       prevent the revival of similar disorders. ... The imperial
       chamber was re-established in all its authority, and the
       public peace again promulgated, and enforced 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, appointed by the
       emperor, and 22 assessors, of' whom 18 were nominated by the
       states, and four by Charles, as possessor of the circles of
       Burgundy and Austria. ... At the same time an aid of 20,000
       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, and not for the purpose of aggression."

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 26 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

    {1459}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1522-1525.
       Systematic organization and adoption in northern Germany of
       the Lutheran Reformation.
       The Diets at Nuremberg.
       The Catholic League of Ratisbon.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.
       The Peasants' War.

       "A political ferment, very different from that produced 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' ['Bundschuh'--see
       GERMANY: 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 revolt. In 1515 terrible commotions had
       taken place in Carinthia and Hungary. These insurrections 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. ... The 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 hesitate 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 fanatical men, who
       laid claim to celestial inspirations. ... The most
       distinguished of these enthusiasts was Thomas Münzer. ... His
       first appearance was at Zwickau. He left Wittenberg after
       Luther's return [from his concealment at Wartburg, 1522],
       dissatisfied with the inferior part he had played, 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 holy.
       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 exploit 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 commenced in those regions of the Black Forest, and
       the sources of the Danube, which were so often the scene of
       popular disturbances. On the 19th of July, 1524, 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
       supported by a passage of Scripture."

          J. H. Merle D'Aubigné,
          The Story of the Reformation,
          part 3, chapter 8,
          (History of the Reformation, book 10, chapters 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 Danube, 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
       together, 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. ... The 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, destroyed 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 burghers, overturning the town
       councils, and electing committees of artisans in their place,
       making sudden changes in religion, putting down the Mass,
       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 Berlichingen 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 Lothringen, and the
       Palatinate about Spires and Worms, and in the month of May had
       been crushed in blood, as in Swabia and Franconia.
    {1460}
       South and east, in Bavaria, in the 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 Münzer, 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 Mülhausen,
       and became 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 Münzer 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
       Frankenhausen, where it was fought. Münzer 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, fanatical, self-deceived, but
       yet, as we must think, earnest and in many ways heroic spirit.
       ... The princes and nobles now everywhere prevailed over the
       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; in different
       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' War, sided with the ruling
       powers. ... The reform he sought was by means of the civil
       power; and in order to clear himself and his cause from all
       participation in the wild doings of the peasantry, he publicly
       exhorted the princes to crush their rebellion."

          F. Seebohm,
          The Era of the Protestant Revolution,
          part 2, chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          book 3, chapter 6 (volume 2).

          P. Bayne,
          Martin Luther: His Life and Work,
          book 11 (volume 2).

          J. Köstlin,
          Life of Luther,
          part 4, chapter 5.

          C. W. C. Oman,
          The German Peasant War of 1525
          (English History Review, volume 5).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1525-1529.
       League of Torgau.
       The Diets at Spires.
       Legal recognition of the Reformed Religion, and the withdrawal
       of it.
       The Protest which gave rise to the name "Protestants."

          See PAPACY: A. D.1525-1529.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1529.
       Turkish invasion of Austria.
       Siege of Vienna.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1530.
       The Diet at Augsburg.
       The signing and reading of the Protestant Confession of Faith.
       The condemnatory decree.
       Breach between the Protestants and the emperor.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

    GERMANY: 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 Hungary.

       The decree issued by the Diet at Augsburg was condemnatory of
       most of the tenets peculiar to the protestants, "forbidding
       any person 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 judicature in the empire. To all which
       was subjoined 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 emperor
       was resolved on their destruction." Under these circumstances,
       the protestant princes met at Smalkalde, December 22, 1530,
       and there "concluded 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. "When 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 number, 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 opinions, 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 occasions 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 negotiations, and he
       was, at the same time, so intent on abolishing the papal
       jurisdiction in England, 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. Meanwhile, many circumstances
       convinced Charles that this was not a juncture" in which he
       could afford to let his zeal for the church push him to
       extremities with the protestants.
    {1461}
       "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 universal
       peace be established in Germany, until the meeting of a
       general council, the convocation of which within six months
       the emperor shall endeavour to procure; that no person shall
       be molested on account of religion; that a stop shall be put
       to all processes begun by the imperial chamber 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 Solyman'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, exerted 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 operations with such
       excessive caution, that a campaign for which such immense
       preparations had been made ended without any memorable event.
       Solyman, finding it impossible to gain ground upon 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,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          book 5.

          ALSO IN:
          L. von Ranke,
          History of the Reformation in Germany,
          book 6, chapters 1-8 (volume 3).

          H. Stebbing,
          History of the Reformation,
          chapters 12-13 (volume 2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1532-1536.
       Fanaticism of the Anabaptists of Münster.
       Siege and capture of the city.

          See ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.
       Mercenary aspects of the Reformation.
       Protestant intolerance.
       Union with the Swiss Reformers.
       The Catholic Holy League.
       Preparations for war.

       "During the next few years [after the peace concluded at
       Nuremberg] there was no open hostility between 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 depending 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
       nothing was effected; the tribunal was too powerless to
       enforce its decrees. In 1534, the protestants, in a public
       assembly, renounced all obedience to the chamber; yet they did
       not cease to appropriate to themselves the property of such
       monasteries and churches as, by the conversion of catholics to
       their faith--and that faith was continually progressive--lay
       within their jurisdiction. We need scarcely observe, that the
       prospect 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
       faith hitherto established, the people were expected to follow
       the example: the moment Lutheranism was established in its place,
       the ancient faith was abolished; nobody was allowed to profess
       it; and, with one common accord, all who had any prospect 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 jurisdiction 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 resolved 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 commemoration of the
       Lord's Supper--see SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531] with the
       Lutherans. Of such a result, at the diet of Augsburg, there
       was not the least hope; but Bucer, being deputed by the
       imperial 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
       banners, much was gained. ... In the meantime, the dissensions
       between the two great parties 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 concluded at Frankfort,
       in 1539; but it could not remove the existing animosity, which
       was daily augmented. Both parties were in the wrong. ...
    {1462}
       At the close of 1540, Worms 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 hastening from
       the Low Countries to his German dominions, evoked the affair
       before a diet at Ratisbon, 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 reduction 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 lamentable 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 Brunswick 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
       protestant power!--and Henry was expelled from his hereditary
       states, which were seized by the victors. He invoked the aid
       of the imperial chamber, 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 duplicity, 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 Brandenburg;
       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 excommunicated the archbishop,
       deposed him from his dignity, and ordered the chapter to
       proceed to a new election; and when Herman refused to obey,
       Charles sent troops to expel him, and to install 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
       Smalcald league; but they were soon partially consoled by the
       capture of Henry duke of Brunswick [1546], 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 20,000 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 protestants. 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 Ratisbon [1546], which
       after a vain parade ended in nothing, was only to hide his
       real designs. 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,
          History of the Germanic Empire,
          book 3, chapter 2 (volume 3).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1542-1544.
       War with Francis I. of France.
       Battle of Cerisoles.
       Treaty of Crespy.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1542-1563.
       The beginning of the Roman Catholic reaction.
       The Council of Trent.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.
       War of Charles against the Protestants.
       The treachery of Maurice of Saxony.
       The battle of Muhlberg.
       The emperor's proposed "Interim" and its failure.
       His reverse of fortune.
       Protestantism triumphant.
       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 religion
       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
       refusal of the Protestants to accept as binding the decrees of
       the Council of Trent, which was composed of scarcely any
       members but a few Italian and Spanish prelates, and from which
       they appealed to either a free general Council or a national
       Council of the Empire; offering, at the same time, if Charles
       should prefer it, to submit the whole question of religion to
       a joint Commission, composed of divines of each party. These
       remonstrances, however, the Emperor treated with contempt. He
       had been for some time secretly 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 enforcing a particular religious belief on the recusants,
       but for that of re-establishing the Imperial authority, which,
       as he affirmed, 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
       confederacy of the Empire: and, in effect, it did produce a
       hesitation in their early steps that had the most important
       consequences on the first campaign; 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 120 guns, while
       he, for the first few weeks after the declaration of war, had
       hardly 10,000 men with him in Ratisbon. ...
    {1463}
       But the advantage of a single over a divided command was
       perhaps never more clearly exemplified than in the first
       operations of the two armies. He, as the weaker party, took up
       a defensive position near Ingolstadt; but, though they
       advanced within sight of his lines, they could not agree on
       the mode of attack, or even on the prudence of attacking him
       at all. ... At last, the confederates 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 SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553), to whom several
       opportune deaths had given the ducal seat unexpectedly, in
       1541, and whose ambition now hungered for the Electorate,
       which was held by the other (the Ernestine) branch of the
       family. He conceived 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 superior capacity, gladly accepted his aid,
       and promised to reward him with the territories which he
       coveted. The advantages which Protestantism eventually derived
       from Maurice's success has blinded some historians to the
       infamy of the conduct by which he achieved it. ... The Elector
       [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
       volunteered 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 ol 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
       assistance 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 remonstrances of his
       ablest general, the Duke of Alva, Charles, favored by a heavy
       fog, led his army across the river and boldly attacked. The
       Ejector attempted to retreat, but his retreat became 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 moderation 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 Landgrave of Hesse, he stripped that prince of his
       territories, 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 opposition to his will in a diet which he
       convened at Augsburg.

          C. D. Yonge,
          Three Centuries of Modern History,
          chapter 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 despaired 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 Naumberg; 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
       beginning to end, a masterpiece of duplicity, and as such
       satisfied no party. The Catholics of Germany, 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 number of Protestant
       theologians, headed by Melancthon, as to how far he might
       accept its provisions with a safe conscience. In reply they
       drew up what is known as the 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 compromise. ... 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 authority. But in
       spite of this spirited opposition, the Interim was gradually
       accepted by several Protestant countries and cities--a fact
       which encouraged 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 opened by Pope Julius
       III. ... After a short delay, deputies from Brandenburg,
       Würtemberg, and Saxony began to appear at Trent; and even the
       Wittenberg theologians, headed by Melancthon, 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 obligations by
       which he was bound, proceeded to betray both the emperor and
       his country.
    {1464}
       Having received a commission 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 uniting
       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 II., 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 being in readiness for
       action, Maurice advancing through Thuringia, seized the city
       of Augsburg, and suddenly made his appearance before
       Innspruck, 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 Innspruck, 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 material resources necessary to carry on a
       successful campaign against the combined armies of the French
       king and the German princes, and despairing of putting an end
       to the obstinate conflict by his personal endeavours, resolved
       to re-establish, if possible, his waning power by peaceful
       negotiations. To this end, he commissioned his brother
       Ferdinand to conclude the Treaty of Passau (July 30, 1552),
       which provided that Philip of Hesse should be set at liberty,
       and gave pledges for the speedy settlement of all religious
       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 referred for settlement to
       an Imperial Commission, 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 Lorraine of which the French had
       taken possession, the Diet did not convene until February 5,
       1555."

          J. Alzog,
          Manual of Universal Church History,
          volume 3, pages 276-279.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Robertson,
          History of the Reign of Charles V.,
          books 8-10 (volume 2-3).

          L. von Ranke,
          Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
          chapter 6.

          E. E. Crowe,
          Cardinal Granvelle and Maurice of Saxony
          (Eminent Foreign Statesmen, volume 1).

          L. Häusser,
          The Period of the Reformation,
          chapters 15-17.

          G. P. Fisher,
          History of the Reformation,
          chapter 5.

          F. Kohlrausch,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 20.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1547.
       Pragmatic Sanction of Charles V., changing the relations of
       the Netherland provinces to the Empire.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.
       Battle of Sievershausen and death of Maurice.
       The Religious Peace of Augsburg.
       Abdication of Charles V.
       Succession of Ferdinand I.
       The halting of the Reformation and the rally of Catholic
       resistance.

       By the treaty of Passau, Maurice of Saxony bound himself to
       defend the empire against the French and the Turks. "He
       accordingly took the field against the latter, but with little
       success, the imperial commander, Castaldo, contravening all
       his efforts by plundering Hungary and drawing upon himself the
       hatred of the people. Charles, meanwhile, marched against the
       French, and, without hesitation, again deposed the corporative
       governments reinstated by Maurice, on his way through
       Augsburg, Ulm, 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 consistently pursued system
       of suppression and Jesuitical obscurantism. Maurice was
       answerable 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. Indifferent to aught else, he marched at the head of some
       thousand followers through central Germany, murdering and
       plundering as he passed along, with the 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 execute,
       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 Sievershausen. A
       murderous engagement took place (A. D. 1553). Three of the
       princes of Brunswick were slain. Albert was severely wounded,
       and Maurice 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 obstacle 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 concerted 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 tyranny, but the religion of each separate country
       was rendered dependent on the caprice of the reigning prince;
       of this the Pfalz offered a sad example, the religion of the
       people being thus four times arbitrarily changed. ... Freedom
       of belief, confined to the immediate subjects of the empire,
       for instance, to the reigning princes, the free nobility, and
       the city councillors, was monopolized by at most 20,000
       privileged persons. ... The false peace concluded at Augsburg
       was immediately followed by Charles V. 's abdication of his
       numerous crowns [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.
    {1465}
       Ferdinand had, moreover, gained 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 Bohemia and Hungary. ... Ferdinand I., opposed in his
       hereditary provinces by a predominating Protestant party,
       which he was compelled to tolerate, 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 Habsburg exercised
       the most pernicious influence on the whole of Germany, by
       securing to the Catholics a support which rendered
       reconciliation impossible. ... 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 provinces 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 Caraffa mounted the pontifical throne as
       Paul IV., the first pope who, following the plan of the
       Jesuits, abandoned the system of defence for that of attack.
       The Reformation 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 account of the peace concluded between him
       and the Protestants, whom he was unable to oppose, and whose
       tenets he refused to embrace, notwithstanding 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 ineffectual. ... The
       Protestants, blind to the unity and strength resulting from
       the policy of the Catholics, weakened themselves more and more
       by division."

          W. Menzel,
          History of Germany,
          sections 197-198 (volume 2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1558.
       Abdication of the emperor, Charles V., and election of his
       brother, Ferdinand.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.
       The degeneracy of the Reformation.
       Internal hostilities of Protestantism.
       Tolerant reigns of Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II.
       Renewed persecution under Rudolf II.
       The risings against him.
       His cessions and abdications.

       "Germany was externally 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' Lutherans. The theologian Flacius, at Jena,
       openly attacked Melancthon as a 'traitor to the church,' on
       account of his strivings for peace. The religious
       controversies in the bosom of the adherents 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 Calvinistic 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 nation.' His
       followers, 'Lutheran' preachers and professors, were
       persecuted, banished, imprisoned, on account of suspicion of
       being inclined to the 'Reformed' [Calvinistic] as
       distinguished from 'Evangelical' views; prayers for the
       'extirpation 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 torture and burnings at the stake, marked the new
       priestcraft of Lutheran Protestantism in its debasement into a
       dogmatizing church. This quickly degenerating Protestant Church
       comprised 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 offer 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 25th of July, 1564. ... His
       oldest son and successor, Maximilian 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. ...
    {1466}
       He remained in the middle between Protestants and Catholics,'
       but really above both. ... He favored the Reformation in his
       Austrian dominions; 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 emperor, 'over consciences, and may constrain no
       man'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-cherished plan and giving a constitution
       to the empire and church of the Germans. He who towered 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 II. died,
       in his 49th year, on the 12th 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 advisers, 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 punishment 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 hated him for these
       orders. ... Without 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, and weakened themselves in the
       struggle. ... 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 he 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.
       The 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. Rudolf's
       Jesuitical flatterers had named him the 'Bohemian 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
       Majesty.' Rudolf, to escape deposition by Matthias, abdicated
       the throne of Bohemia."

          W. Zimmerman,
          Popular History of Germany,
          book 5, chapter 2 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          F. Kohlrausch,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 21.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
       The Evangelical Union and the Catholic League.
       The Jülich-Cleve contest.
       Troubles in Bohemia.
       The beginning of the Thirty Years War.

       "Many Protestants 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 Donauwörth, 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 formation 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 William of
       Jülich, who held Jülich, 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 Union thereupon formed an alliance 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 general war. The two princes, however, who had given
       rise to the quarrel, kept for a time the Jülich-Cleve
       territory. In 1611 [1618] the power of the Elector of
       Brandenburg was further increased by his succeeding to the
       Duchy of Prussia. From this time East Prussia was always
       joined to the Mark or Electorate of Brandenburg. It was now,
       therefore, that the house of Brandenburg laid the foundations
       of its future greatness. Matthias, in order to pacify the
       Austrian States, granted them full religious liberty.
    {1467}
       In 1609 the Bohemian States also obtained from Rudolf a Royal
       Charter, called 'The Letter of 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 lands. 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 Matthias to come to their aid. He did so, and seized
       the supreme power. Next year 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 the 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 wholly Lutheran.
       When Ferdinand succeeded his father, he had driven out the
       Protestant families, and made the land altogether Catholic. No
       Catholic prince 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 days of Matthias were very 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 permission of the
       Emperor, pulled down one of the churches and shut up the
       other. The Protestants complained; but their appeal was met by
       the reply that the Letter of Majesty did not permit them to
       build churches on the lands of ecclesiastics. 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 Protestants, 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 secretary, were
       seized and thrown out of the window.

          See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.

       The Protestants then took possession of the Royal Castle,
       drove the Jesuits out of Bohemia, and appointed a council of
       thirty nobles to carry on the government." These events formed
       the beginning of the "Thirty Years War."

          J. Sime,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 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 divided into four
       distinct portions, in which the Elector Palatine, Denmark,
       Sweden, and France played in succession the principal part. It
       became more and more complicated, until it spread over the
       whole of Europe. It was prolonged indefinitely by various
       causes.

       I. The intimate union between the two branches of the house of
       Austria and of the Catholic party--their opponents, on the
       other hand, were not homogeneous.

       II. The inaction of England, the tardy intervention 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, although their sovereigns were
       incapable of supporting them. They lived at the expense of the
       countries which they laid waste. The ruined peasant turned
       soldier and sold himself to the first comer."

          J. Michelet,
          Summary of Modern History,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Gindely,
          History of the Thirty Years' War,
          chapters 1-3 (volume 1).

          T. Carlyle,
          History of Frederick the Great,
          book 3, chapter 14 (volume 1).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1612.
       Election of the Emperor Matthias.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
       The Thirty Years War: Hostilities in Bohemia precipitated by
       Ferdinand.
       His election to the imperial throne and his deposition in
       Bohemia.
       Acceptance of the Bohemian crown by Frederick, the Palatine
       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 Bohemia? Discontent, indeed, was scarcely
       less formidably expressed even in his Austrian territories,
       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 country, 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 the 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
       presence 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 enterprising 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 Union in Germany; and by that
       body he was despatched with 3,000 men to Bohemia, as having
       apparently received his appointment from that country. 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 Bohemians, who acknowledged his sovereignty
       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 perplexing.
    {1468}
       Bohemia in arms, and threatening Vienna itself with invasion;
       Silesia and Moravia in alliance with them; Austria much
       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 Thurn
       advanced 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 preservation of the
       empire itself, must have been sacrificed. But his enemies
       looked upon him as lost; and they already spoke of confining
       him in a convent, and educating his children in the Protestant
       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 kingship of their nation, and proceeded to elect another
       king in his place. "The Catholics proposed 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 regarded
       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, Bavaria, and even by
       his father-in-law; but his chaplain, Scultetus, and his own
       consort, Elizabeth, who as the daughter of a king aspired to a
       royal crown, persuaded him with all their influence to accept
       it. Frederick was accordingly ruled by them, received the
       regal dignity in Bohemia, and was crowned at Prague with great
       pomp on the 25th of October, 1619. ... Ferdinand in returning
       from Frankfort passed on to Munich, and there concluded with
       the Duke of Bavaria that important treaty which secured to him
       the possession of Bohemia. These two princes had been
       companions in youth, and the Evangelical Union had by several
       incautious proceedings irritated the duke. Maximilian
       undertook 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 Mülhausen with the Elector
       John George of Saxony, the Elector of Cologne, and the
       Landgrave Lewis of Darmstadt, wherein it was determined to
       render all possible assistance to the emperor for the
       maintenance 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 ally, whilst the troops he sent
       into Moravia and Bohemia were not unlike a horde of savage
       banditti. Meanwhile the union commenced its preparations for
       war, as well as the league. The whole of Germany resembled 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
       themselves 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
       emperor, that Bohemia was excluded from this treaty, for, now
       the forces of the league were at liberty to aid him in
       subjugating his royal adversary. Maximilian of Bavaria,
       therefore, immediately took his departure, and on his war
       reduced the states of Upper Austria to the obedience due to
       Ferdinand, joined the imperial army, and made a spirited
       attack upon Bohemia. On the other side, the Elector of Saxony
       took possession of Lusatia in the name of the emperor."

          F. Kohlrausch,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 22.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          History of England, 1603-1642,
          chapters 29-32 (volume 3).

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapters 46-48 (volume 2).

          Miss Benger,
          Memoirs of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia,
          chapters 6-9 (volumes 1-2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1620.
       The Thirty Years War: Disappointment of the Bohemians in
       their elected king.
       Frederick's offensive Calvinism.
       Defeat of his army before Prague.
       Loss of Bohemian liberties.
       Prostration of Protestantism.

       "The defection of the Union accelerated 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 disappointed in the man, and
       in the hopes of protection 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
       Lutherans alike, scattered here and there, and turned upside
       down with contempt and execration. These proceedings, which
       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 purgation of the
       temple--called forth loud complaints and increased the
       disaffection which, more than any external force brought
       against Frederick, produced his ruin.
    {1469}
       Early in November Maximilian appeared before Prague, and found
       the Bohemians, under Christian van Anhalt, skilfully and
       strongly posted on the Weissenberg [White Mountain] to offer
       battle. The cautious Bucquoi would have declined the offer,
       and attacked the city from another point; but an enthusiastic
       friar who broke in upon the conference of the leaders, and,
       exhibiting a mutilated image of the Virgin, reproached them
       with their hesitation, 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 [November 8, 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 balance: then the Hungarians,
       who had been defeated 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 Bohemian 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 thousand 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 Bavarians were only eight (English)
       miles distant; but relying on the 28,000 men which he had to
       cover his capital, he felt that night no uneasiness. ... He
       had invited the English ambassadors 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, leaving 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
       promising, and consequently his abandonment of his capital not
       altogether so pusillanimous, as some have represented."

          B. Chapman,
          History of Gustavus Adolphus,
          chapter 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 perished on the
       scaffold. Their lands were confiscated, and a new German and
       Catholic nobility arose. ... The Royal Charter was declared to
       have been forfeited by rebellion, and the Protestant 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 Years' War,
          chapter 3, section 1.

          ALSO IN:
          C. A. Peschek,
          Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia,
          volume 1, chapter 9.

          See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648;
          and HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
       The Thirty Years War:
       The Elector Palatine placed under the ban.
       Dissolution of the Evangelical Union.
       Invasion and conquest of the Palatinate.
       Transfer 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 Austria, 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 overbearing an considerations of justice and
       prudence, Ferdinand published the ban of the empire [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 instantly
       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 consequences of their own indecision and want of
       foresight. ... Threatened at once by Spinola [commanding the
       Spanish auxiliaries from the Netherlands] and the duke of
       Bavaria, and confounded by 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 Frankendahl, 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 subjugated the whole province,
       together with the district of Cham. The elector Palatine,
       deserted by the Protestant union, and almost abandoned by his
       relatives, the kings of England and Denmark, owed the first
       revival of his hopes of restoration to Mansfeld, an
       illegitimate adventurer, with no other resources than plunder
       and devastation. 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
       queen of Bohemia, as she preferred to be called] as from a
       chivalrous attachment to his beautiful consort; and George
       Frederic, margrave of Baden, even abdicated his dignity to
       devote himself to his support."
    {1470}
       Mansfeld, who had held his ground in Bohemia for nearly a year
       after the battle of the White Mountain, now became hard
       pressed there by Tilly, and suddenly escaped by forced marches
       (October, 1621,) into the Lower Palatinate. "Here he found a
       more favourable field of action; for Spinola being recalled
       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 defence 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
       Manheim. Unable, however, to subsist in a district so recently
       the seat of war, he turned into Alsace, where he increased 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 Holland, passed in disguise through
       Loraine and Alsace, joined Mansfeld, and gave his name and
       countenance to this predatory army." Mansfeld, 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 the 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 Mansfeld 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 in 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 suddenly 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 artillery
       and military chest. Leaving Mansfeld employed in the siege of
       Ladenburgh, he next directed his attention to Christian of
       Brunswick, routed him on the 20th of June, at Hoechst
       [Höchst], 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
       persuaded 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 emperor. 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, Mansfeld and Christian were
       left without a name to countenance their operations; and after
       various 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 army which attempted to oppose their passage, to
       join at Breda the troops of the United Provinces. 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 Saxony, 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 number, 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.
       Thus 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 district 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 adherents. ... 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 assembly, transferred the Palatine
       electorate, with all its honours, privileges, and offices, to
       Maximilian, duke of Bavaria.
    {1471}
       To keep up, however, the hopes of the elector Palatine and his
       adherents, and not to drive his family and connections 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 unfortunate
       elector were expressly reserved."

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 49 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          A. Gindely,
          History of the Thirty Years' War,
          volume 1, chapter 7.

          F. Schiller,
          History of the Thirty Years' War,
          book 2.

          C. R. Markham,
          The Fighting Veres;
          part 2, chapter 3.

    GERMANY: 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 conclude 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 object for which those
       hostilities were undertaken had been gained. In the opinion of
       Ferdinand II. the real object still remained to be
       accomplished. Under these critical circumstances the
       emigrants, now grown numerous [see BOHEMIA: A. D. 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 (1625). 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 occupied, as he marched, the places which
       commanded its passage. Pursuing his course northwards, he
       crossed the river at Neuburg (midway between Minden and
       Bremen), and occupied the principality of Kalenberg. The King
       of Denmark was near at hand, in the Duchy of Brunswick,
       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 launching upon him likewise an imperial
       army. ... Up to the period of the complete overthrow and
       expulsion from the Palatinate of Frederic V., ex-King of
       Bohemia, Ferdinand had been indebted for all his successes to
       Maximilian of Bavaria. 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 who
       was now opposing the Protestants of the north in the lands
       watered by the Weser. Maximilian had been rewarded by the
       cession to him of the Palatinate, but it was not advisable
       that so near a neighbour of Austria should be made too strong.
       It was this feeling, this jealousy 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 1583 of noble parents, 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
       Olmütz in the strictest Catholic faith." By marrying, first, a
       rich widow, who soon died, and then an heiress, daughter of
       Count Harrach, and by purchasing with the fortune 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 1623 nominated
       Wallenstein to be Prince, a title changed, the year following,
       into that of Duke of Friedland. At this time the yearly income
       he derived 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 animated 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 marched 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 Christian, to the banks of the Elbe, where
       he wintered. ... In the spring ... Mansfeldt, with the view to
       prevent a junction between Tilly and Wallenstein, 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 Wallenstein
       attacked (25 April 1626) and completely defeated him. Not
       discouraged by this overthrow, and still bearing in mind the
       main object of the campaign, Mansfeldt fell back into
       Brandenburg, recruited there his army, called to himself the
       Duke of Saxe-Weimar and then suddenly dashed, by forced
       marches, towards Silesia and Moravia, with the intention of
       reaching Hungary, where Bethlen Gabor had promised to meet
       him." Wallenstein followed and "pressed him so hard that,
       though Mansfeldt did effect a junction with Bethlen Gabor, it
       was with but the skeleton of his army. Despairing of success
       against numbers vastly superior, Bethlen Gabor withdrew from
       his new colleague, and Mansfeldt, reduced to despair,
       disbanded his remaining soldiers, and sold his camp-equipage
       to supply himself with the means of flight (September).

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.

    {1472}

       He died soon after (30th November). ... Wallenstein then
       retraced his steps to the north. Meanwhile Tilly, left to deal
       with Christian IV., had followed that prince into Lower
       Saxony, had caught, attacked, and completely defeated him at
       Lutter (am Barenberge), the 27th July 1626. This victory gave
       him complete possession of that disaffected province, and,
       despite a vigorous attempt made by the Margrave George
       Frederic of Baden to wrest it from him, 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 decided that Tilly should carry the
       war into Holland, whilst to Wallenstein should be left the
       honour of dealing with the King of Denmark and the Protestant
       princes of the north."

          G. B. Malleson,
          The Battle-fields of Germany,
          chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Zimmermann,
          Popular History of Germany,
          book 5, chapter 2 (volume 4).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
       The Thirty Years War:
       Wallenstein's campaign against the Danes.
       His power and his oppression in Germany.
       The country devoured by his army.
       Unsuccessful siege of Stralsund.
       First succor from the king of Sweden.
       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 commanded, gave way at his approach. To
       prevent the fugitives from infringing on the neutrality of
       Brandenburg, he occupied the whole electorate. 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 dispensing altogether with
       electors; and that Germany ought to be governed like France
       and Spain, by a single and absolute sovereign.' In his rapid
       march towards 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 up the 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, augmented to 100,000
       men, occupied the whole country; 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 storehouse, and wealthy treasury for the benefit of the
       imperial army. He forbade even sovereigns and electors to
       raise supplies in their own countries, and was justly termed
       'the princes' scourge, and soldiers' idol.' The system of
       living by contributions had completely demoralised the troops.
       Honour and discipline were entirely gone; and it was only
       beneath the eye of the stern and unrelenting 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 generals
       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
       imperial 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
       complained of had rendered the Emperor all-powerful in
       Germany: from the Adriatic to the Baltic, Ferdinand reigned
       absolute, as no monarch had reigned since the days of the
       Othos. This supremacy 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
       important 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
       having 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 enable him to give laws beyond the Belts, and
       perhaps beyond the Baltic also. Every seaport in Mecklenburg
       and Pomerania is ordered to be taken possession of and
       fortified. ... The 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 influenced, in an eminent degree, some of the most
       important events that followed. When Wallenstein 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
       officers, Arnheim invested the place on the 7th of May with
       8,000 men. ...
    {1473}
       The town ... , unable to obtain assistance from the Duke of
       Pomerania, the lord superior of the province, who, however
       willing, had no means of furnishing relief, placed itself
       under the protection of Sweden; and Gustavus Adolphus, fully
       sensible of the importance of the place, immediately
       dispatched the celebrated David Leslie, at the head 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
       27th of June, he found himself opposed by a garrison of
       experienced soldiers, who had already retaken all the outworks
       which Arnheim had captured in the first instance. ... Rain
       began to fall in such torrents 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, unused 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 Stralsund to be
       raised, withdrew their troops from Jasmund, and landed them
       again at Wolgast. Here, however, Wallenstein surprised, and
       defeated them with great loss. ... There being on all sides a
       willingness to bring the war to an end, peace was ...
       concluded at Lubeck in January 1629. By this treaty the Danes
       recovered, 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 absolute 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. Mansfeld and Christian of
       Brunswick had disappeared from the scene; Frederick V. had
       retired into obscurity. Tilly and Pappenheim, his former
       rivals, now condescended to receive favours, and to solicit
       pensions and rewards 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 surpassed
       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 setting himself up as a judge, in a case in which he
       was a party also. It was farther added, that, according to the
       same treaty, freedom of departure from Catholic countries, was
       the only privilege which Protestants had a right to claim from
       Catholic princes. This decree came like a thunder-burst over
       Protestant Germany. Two archbishopricks, 12 bishopricks, and a
       countless number of convents and clerical domains, which the
       Protestants had confiscated, and applied to their own
       purposes, were now to be surrendered. Imperial commissioners
       were appointed to carry the mandate into effect, and, to
       secure immediate obedience, 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 disposed to
       resist. All Protestants who refused to change their religion
       were expelled from Augsburg: summary proceedings of the same
       kind were resorted to in other places. Armed with absolute
       power, the commissioners soon proceeded from reclaiming the
       property of the church to seize that of individuals. The
       estates of all persons 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,
          chapters 2-3.

          ALSO IN:
          L. Häusser,
          The Period of the Reformation,
          1517 to 1648, chapter 33.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1631.
       War of the Emperor and Spain with France, over the succession
       to the duchy of Mantua.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1630.
       The Thirty Years War:
       Universal hostility to Wallenstein.
       His dismissal by the Emperor.
       The rising of a new champion of Protestantism in Sweden.

       "Wallenstein 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
       oppression that was exercised, by the imperial commissioners;
       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-chamber; and all petitions and remonstrances against his
       stern decrees were treated with the mortifying scorn which
       adds insult to injury. The magnificence of his train, the
       splendor of his household, the luxury and profusion that
       spread every where around him, afforded continual 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. Maximilian of Bavaria, whose star had
       waned under the growing luster of Wallenstein's renown, who
       had lost that authority 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 ambitious 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 independent basis, took no
       pains to conceal his hostility to the Duke of Friedland. ...
    {1474}
       Though the soldiery still generally loved him, their officers
       hated the hand that put a limit to the oppression by which
       they throve, and would fain have resisted its power. ... While
       these feelings were gathering strength in Germany; while
       Wallenstein, with no friends, though many supporters, saw
       himself an object of jealousy or hatred to the leaders of
       every party throughout the empire; and while the suppressed
       but cherished indignation of all Protestant Germany was
       preparing for the emperor a dreadful 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 relentless minister,
       appeared in undissembled hostility to the house of Austria;
       and the famous Cardinal 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 receiving an inefficient aid from
       Germany, was anxious to conclude the disastrous war with
       Sweden. Richelieu interfered; Oxenstiern negotiated 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
       part of Livonia was virtually ceded to Gustavus, 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 necessity 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, supported by 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
       ministers, indeed heard and answered every objection 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 enthusiastic approbation; and then succeeded 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 persuaded 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 1630; and
       the chief object of the emperor in taking a step so dangerous
       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 accusations 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 north. Richelieu
       had sent an embassador to Ratisbon. ... In the train of the
       embassador came the well-known intriguing friar, Father
       Joseph, the most unscrupulous and cunning 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 Wallenstein for a time, he might obtain the
       election of the King of Hungary, and then reinstate the Duke
       of Friedland in his command as soon as popular 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 apprehensions which he entertained for the
       consequences. Count Questenberg and another nobleman, 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,
          chapters 3-4.

          ALSO IN:
          S. R. Gardiner,
          The Thirty Years' War,
          chapter 7, section 3.

          A. Gindely,
          History of the Thirty Years' War,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.
       The Thirty Years War:
       The Coming of Gustavus Adolphus.
       His occupation 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 Adolphus landed
       on the coast of Pomerania, near the mouth of the river Peene,
       with 13,000 men, veteran 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
       Wallenstein'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 Wallenstein and the League. Gustavus
       Adolphus appeared 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
       chancellor, Schwarzenberg, and had painfully striven to keep
       neutral throughout the war, neither side, however, respecting
       his neutrality.
    {1475}
       In dread of the plans of Gustavus Adolphus concerning
       Pomerania 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
       imperial garrison, and treated it, in retaliation, with the
       same severity. Thence, 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 William, son of the
       emperor himself, and refused to receive the emperor's
       garrison. The city was therefore banned by the emperor, and
       was besieged for many weeks by Pappenheim, a general of the
       League, who was then reinforced by Tilly himself with his
       army. Gustavus Adolphus was unable to make an advance, in view
       of the equivocal attitude of the two great Protestant electors,
       without exposing his rear to garrisoned fortresses. From
       Brandenburg as well as Saxony he asked in vain for help to
       save the Protestant city. Thus Magdeburg fell, May 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,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 18, sections 3-4.

       Two gates of the city having been opened by the storming
       party, "Tilly marched in with part of his infantry.
       Immediately occupying 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 the 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. Wives 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
       stabbing infants at the mother's breast. Some officers 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 danger and
       toils.' These horrors lasted with unabated 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 commencement of the
       assault, fired the town in several places. The wind rising
       rapidly, 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
       Imperialists returned to renew the pillage amid the ruins and
       ashes of the town. Many were suffocated by the smoke; many
       found rich booty in the cellars, where the citizens had
       concealed their more valuable effects. On the 13th 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 lifeless mothers. More 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 general, 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, where they had remained three days and two
       nights, without food, and in momentary fear of death."

          F. Schiller,
          History of the Thirty Years' War,
          book 2.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir E. Cust,
          Lives of the Warriors of the
          Thirty Years' War, part 1.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1631 (January).
       The Thirty Years War:
       The Treaty of Bärwalde between Gustavus Adolphus and the king
       of France.

       "On the 13th of January, 1631, the Treaty of Barwalde was
       concluded between France and Sweden. Hard cash had been the
       principal subject 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 $400,000 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
       commerce, 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 Grisons territory, so that
       all should be left in the state in which it was before the
       German war had begun.'
    {1476}
       Sweden was not to 'violate the Imperial constitution' where
       she conquered; she was to leave the Catholic religion
       undisturbed in all districts 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,
          Gustavus Adolphus and the Struggle
          of Protestantism for Existence,
          chapter 9.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
       The Thirty Years War:
       The elector of Brandenburg brought to terms by the king of
       Sweden.
       The elector of Saxony frightened 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 himself 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 Küstrin he might not only have
       raised the siege of Magdeburg but have destroyed the whole of
       the Imperial army. 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
       persuasion had induced the Elector of Brandenburg, after the
       capture of Francfort, to grant Gustavus possession of Spandau
       for a month. The month expired on the 8th of June; and the
       elector demanded back his stronghold. The king, fettered by
       his promise, surrendered it; but the next day, having marched
       to Berlin and pointed his guns against the palace, the ladies
       came forth as mediators, and the elector consented both to
       surrender Spandau again and to pay, for the maintenance of the
       Swedish troops, a monthly subsidy of 30,000 rix-dollars. At
       the end of May Tilly removed from Magdeburg and the Elbe to
       Ascherleben. This enabled the king to take Werben, on the
       confluence of the Elbe and Havel, where, after the reduction
       of Tangermünde and Havelberg, he established his celebrated
       camp." In the latter part of July, Tilly made two attacks on
       the king's camp at Werben, and was repulsed on both occasions
       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 Fürstenburg, now
       possessed an army 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 Leipsig 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 upon vengeance. In May, indeed,
       terrified by the threats of Ferdinand, he discontinued his
       levies, and disbanded a part of his troops already enlisted:
       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
       Fürstenburg, he gave him and his troops a free passage through
       Thuringia." 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 under the king; that he would advance one
       month's payment for the Swedish troops immediately, and give
       security for two monthly payments 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 Wittemberg on the 4th of
       September. The Saxons, from 16,000 to 20,000 strong, moving
       simultaneously from Torgau, the confederated armies met at
       Düben on the Mulda, three leagues from Leipsig. 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 6th of
       September 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
       recently ploughed, about a mile from Leipsig and near the
       cemetery of that city. Leipsig had surrendered 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, according to the Spanish
       order of battle, The king subdivided his army, 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 files being so
       comparatively shallow, 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 found requisite.
       ... The battle began at 12 o'clock." It only ended with the
       setting of the sun; but long before that time the great army
       of Tilly was substantially destroyed. It had scattered the
       Saxons easily enough, and sent them flying, with their
       worthless elector; but Gustavus and his disciplined, 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 (Protestant) 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 own account, between 6,000 and 7,000; while all
       seem to agree that the loss on the side of the allies was only
       2,700, of which 2,000 were Saxon, 700 Swedes. Besides,
       Gustavus won the whole of the enemy's artillery, and more than
       100 standards. Then the army of Tilly being annihilated left
       him free to choose his next point of attack, almost his next
       victory."

          B. Chapman,
          History of Gustavus Adolphus,
          chapter 8.

    {1477}

       "The battle of Breitenfeld was an epoch in war, and it was an
       epoch in history. It was an epoch in war, because 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,
          Gustavus Adolphus and the Struggle
          of Protestantism for Existence,
          chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          The Battle-fields of Germany,
          chapter 1.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
       The Thirty Years 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 Lützen, and death of Gustavus Adolphus.

       "This battle, sometimes called Breitenwald [Breitenfeld],
       sometimes 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 filled 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 himself, 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 merchant cities, Ulm, Augsburg,
       Nuremberg, which had all along been Protestant, and to deliver
       the Palatinate from its oppressors. And, out of mortification,
       a strange ally offered himself, namely, Wallenstein, who
       wanted revenge on the Catholic 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 possession of the
       city, plundering everywhere, and the Elector sending off to
       Dresden fifty waggon-loads filled with the treasures of the
       Emperor Rudolf's museum. ... Many exiles returned, and there
       was a general resumption of the Hussite form of worship.
       Gustavus had marched to Erfurt, and then turned towards the
       Maine, where there was a long row of those prince bishoprics
       established on the frontier by the policy of
       Charlemagne--Wurtzburg, Bamberg, Fulda, Köln, 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 Marquess 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 Austrian Roman
       Catholic power in southern Germany. 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 collecting 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 mouth for the expense of the war, and
       proposing that if, as was only too probable, 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 forthcoming, and even if it had
       been, Gustavus declared 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, only
       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,
       however, Gustavus could not fully consent, and imposed
       conditions which the Catholics could not accept. Tilly was
       collecting his forces and threatening Nuremberg, but the Swedes
       advanced, and he was forced to retreat, so that it was as a
       deliverer that, on the 31st March [1632], Gustavus was received
       in beautiful old Nuremberg with a rapture of welcome. ...
    {1478}
       Tilly had taken post on the Lech, and Maximilian was
       collecting an army in Bavaria. The object of Gustavus was now
       to beat one or other of them before they could join together:
       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 opinion, resolved
       to attack Tilly and force the passage of the Lech. The
       Imperialists had fortified it to the utmost, but in their very
       teeth the Swedes succeeded in taking advantage of a bend in
       the river to play on them with their formidable 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
       restoring 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 Germans begin to wonder what were his ulterior views. Then
       he marched on upon Bavaria, intending to bridge the Danube and
       take Ratisbon, but two strong forts prevented this. ... He,
       however, made his way into the country between the Inn and the
       Lech, Maximilian retreating before him. ... At Munich the
       inhabitants brought him their keys. As they knelt he said,
       'Rise, worship God, not man.' ... To compensate the soldiers
       for not plundering the city, the King gave them each a crown
       on the day of their entrance. ... Catholic Germany was in
       despair. There was only one general in whom there was any
       hope, and that was the discarded Wallenstein. ... He made
       himself be courted. He would not come to Vienna, only to Znaim
       in Moravia, where he made his terms like an independent
       prince. ... At last he undertook to collect an army, but
       refused to take the command 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 levying 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 Generalissimo, 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 dispose as he pleased of lands and property
       taken from the enemy; Mecklenburg was to be secured to him,
       together with further rewards yet unspecified; 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, Wallenstein was joined by
       the Elector of Bavaria, which raised the Catholic force to
       60,000. "The whole army marched upon Nuremberg, and Gustavus,
       with only 20,000 men, dashed back to its defence. Wallenstein
       had intrenched himself on an eminence called Fürth." As
       Nuremberg was terribly distressed, his own army suffering, and
       being infected with the lawless habits of German warfare,
       Gustavus found it necessary to attempt (August 24) 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 that he had,
       no time to establish the fortified camp he had intended, but
       was forced to take up an intrenched position at Lützen. There
       he was attacked on the 6th of November, 1632, and defeated in
       a desperate battle, which became one of the memorable
       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 English History,
          6th series, chapter 19.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          Battle-fields of Germany,
          chapters 2-3.

          R. C. Trench,
          Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.

          J. L. Stevens,
          History of Gustavus Adolphus,
          chapters 15-18.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1641.
       The Thirty Years War:
       The war in Lorraine.
       Possession of the duchy taken by the French.

          See LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
       The Thirty Years War:
       Retirement of Wallenstein to Bohemia.
       Oxenstiern 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 Lützen] transmitted by
       Wallenstein to the Imperial Court, led Ferdinand to think that
       he 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, Chemnitz, 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 Lützen, 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
       increased the hatred already felt for him by many of his
       officers, and especially 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-Weimar
       retained the military command of the Swedish-German army,
       divisions of which were cantoned from the Baltic to the
       Danube.
    {1479}
       After driving the Imperialists from Saxony, Bernhard had
       hastened into Franconia, the bishoprics of which, according to
       a promise of Gustavus, were to be erected in his favour into a
       duchy; but, after taking Bamberg, his assistance was invoked
       by General Horn, on the 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, Augsburg, and other cities of the empire. The
       assembly was also attended by ambassadors from France,
       England, and Holland; and on April 9th was effected the Union
       of Heilbronn. Brandenburg and 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 Palatinate, now governed, or
       rather claimed to be governed, by Louis Philip, brother of the
       Elector Frederick V., as guardian and regent for the latter's
       youthful son Charles Louis. The unfortunate Frederick had
       expired at Mentz in his 37th year, not many days after the
       death of Gustavus Adolphus. ... Swedish garrisons were to be
       maintained in Frankenthal, Bacharach, Kaub, and other places;
       Mannheim was to be at the disposal 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 distinction, succeeded
       in covering Munich, and enabled Maximilian to return to his
       capital. The Swedish generals were also embarrassed by a
       mutiny 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 November."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 4, chapter 6 (volume 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 Silesia. There he
       found a mixed army of Swedes, Saxons, and Brandenburgers, with
       Matthias Thurn, who began the war, among them. Wallenstein
       finally shut in this army [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. Regensburg [Ratisbon], hitherto occupied by
       him, and regarded as an outwork of Bavaria and Austria, had
       been taken by Bernard of Weimar. But Wallenstein, 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
       commission; 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 chief. But
       the danger of losing his place drove Wallenstein to bolder
       schemes. At his camp at Pilsen, all his principal officers
       were induced by him to unite in a written request that he
       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 abandoned Wallenstein, and gave warning
       to the emperor. He secretly signed a patent deposing
       Wallenstein, and placed it in the hands of Piccolomini and
       Gallas, January 24, 1634, but acted with the profoundest
       dissimulation until he had made sure of most of the commanders
       who served under him. Then, suddenly, on February 18,
       Wallenstein, his brother-in-law Tertzski, Ilow, Neumann, and
       Kinsky were put under the ban, and the general's possessions
       were confiscated. Now, at length, Wallenstein openly revolted,
       and began to treat with the Swedes for desertion to them; but
       they did not fully trust him. Attended only by five Sclavonic
       regiments, who remained faithful to him, he went to Eger,
       where he was to meet troops of Bernard of Weimar; but before
       he could 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, employed by Piccolomini."

          C. T. Lewis,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 18, section 10.

          ALSO IN:
          F. Schiller,
          History of the Thirty Years' War,
          book 4.

          J. Mitchell,
          Life of Wallenstein,
          chapters 8-10.

          Sir E. Cust,
          Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War,
          part 1.

    GERMANY: A, D. 1634-1639.
       The Thirty Years War:
       Successes of the Imperialists.
       Their victory at Nördlingen.
       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 Hungary assumed the
       command of the army, and by the aid of money, which was
       plentifully distributed, 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
       Landshut, 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. 1621-1633, and
       1635-1638], and in conjunction with the imperial army, under
       the King of Hungary, laid siege to Nördlingen. Field-Marshal
       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 impetuosity of the Duke of Weimar lost
       every thing.
    {1480}
       Horn had succeeded in carrying a hill, called the Amsberg, a
       strong point, which placed him in communication with the town,
       and almost secured the victory. Bernhard, thinking that so
       favourable an opening should not be neglected, hurried on to
       the attack of another post. It was taken and retaken; both
       armies were gradually, and without method, drawn into the
       combat, which, after eight hours' duration, ended in the
       complete defeat of the Swedes. Horn was made prisoner; and
       Bernhard escaped on a borrowed horse. ... The defeat of'
       Nördlingen almost ruined the 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 additional 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 Austrians;
       but no sooner was their power broken, than the crafty priest
       took an active share in the contest."

          J. Mitchell,
          Life of Wallenstein,
          chapter 10.

       "Richelieu entered resolutely into the contest, and in 1635
       displayed enormous diplomatic activity. 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 considerable
       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-Comté 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 declared war against the Spanish
       Government, which had arrested and imprisoned the Elector of
       Trèves, the ally of France, and refused to surrender him when
       demanded. Hostilities immediately began on five different
       theatres of war--in the Low Countries, on the Rhine, in
       Eastern 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 Saxe Weimar against
       the Imperialists, commanded by Count Gallas. To this army
       Turenne was attached. It consisted of 20,000 infantry, 5,000
       cavalry, and 14 guns. This was the army upon which Richelieu
       mainly relied. ... Valette was to annoy the enemy without
       exposing himself, and was not to approach 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
       Imperialists who raised the siege of Mayence, he determined to
       pass the river. He was not long in repenting of that step. 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,
          chapter 2.

       "Meanwhile, Saxony had concluded with the Emperor at Pirna, at
       the close of 1634, a convention which ripened into a treaty of
       alliance, to which almost all the princes of Northern Germany
       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 Nördlingen, had been
       encamped side by side with the Saxon army 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 Dömitz on the Elbe, then invaded
       Brandenburg, took Havelberg, and even threatened Berlin.
       Compelled by the approach of a Saxon and Imperialist army to
       quit his prey, he turned and beat the combined army at
       Wittstock (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 receiving 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
       invasion of Burgundy by Gallas, with an army of 40,000 men.
    {1481}
       Duke Bernhard marched with all haste to Dijon, and forced
       Gallas to fall back, with great loss, beyond the Saone
       (November 1636). Pursuing his advantages, early the following
       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 Besançon. Reinforced
       during the autumn, he marched towards the Upper Rhine, and,
       undertaking a winter campaign, captured Lauffenburg, after a
       skirmish with John of Werth; then Säckingen and Waldshut, and
       laid siege to Rheinfelden. The Imperialist 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 February 1638),
       taking prisoners not only John of Werth himself, but the
       generals, Savelli, Enkefort, and Sperreuter. The consequences
       of this victory were the fall of Rheinfelden, Rötteln,
       Neuenberg, and Freiburg. Duke Bernhard then laid siege to
       Breisach (July 1638). ... The Imperial general, Götz, advanced
       at the head of a force considerably outnumbering that of Duke
       Bernhard. Leaving a portion of his army before the place, Duke
       Bernhard then drew to himself Turenne, who was lying in the
       vicinity with 3,000 men, fell upon the Imperialists at
       Wittenweiher (30th July), completely defeated them, and
       captured their whole convoy. Another Imperialist army, led by
       the Duke of Lorraine in person, shared a similar fate at
       Thann, in the Sundgau, on the 4th October following. Götz, who
       was hastening with a strengthened army to support the Duke of
       Lorraine, attacked Duke Bernhard ten days later, but was
       repulsed with great loss. Breisach capitulated on the 7th
       December. Duke Bernhard took possession of it in his own name,
       and foiled all the efforts of Richelieu 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 Imperialists from
       Franche-Comté. 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
       preparations for this enterprise, had actually sent his army
       across the Rhine, when he died very suddenly, not without
       suspicion of poison, at Neuberg 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 Germany,
          chapter 5.

       "During [1639] Piccolomini, 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,
          History of the Thirty Years' War,
          chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir E. Cust,
          Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War,
          part 2.

          S. R. Gardiner,
          The Thirty Years' War,
          chapter 9, section 5.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1635-1638.
       The Thirty Years War:
       Campaigns in the Netherlands.
       The Dutch and French against the Spaniards.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1636-1637.
       Diet at Ratisbon.
       Attempted 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 Denmark, and congresses appointed at Hamburgh and Cologne;
       but with the real view of procuring the election of his son
       Ferdinand as king of the Romans. ... Ferdinand was elected
       with only 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,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 56 (volume 2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1637.
       Election of the Emperor Ferdinand III.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
       The Thirty Years War:
       Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson.
       The second Breitenfeld.
       Jankowitz.
       Mergentheim.
       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 indispensable
       principles of the Peace. ... The first event of importance on
       the theatre of war after Bernhard's death was Baner'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 ... commenced [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 Lüneburg and Hesse
       at Saalfeld;" but no joint action was found possible. "Until
       December, the war on both sides consisted of marches hither
       and thither, accompanied with horrible devastation; but
       nothing decisive occurred. 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.
       ... Not without difficulty Guebriant [commanding the French in
       Alsace] was induced to follow, and to join Baner at Erfurt.
       ... But the surprise of Ratisbon was a failure. ... The armies
       now separated again. Baner exhausted his powers 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 Guebriant again, and they had a sharp
       conflict with the Imperialists on the Saal. There Baner died,
       on the 21st of May, 1641, leaving his army in a most critical
       condition, The warfare of the Swedish-French arms was come to
       a standstill.
    {1482}
       Both armies were near dissolution, when, in November,
       Torstenson, the last of the Gustavus Adolphus school of
       generals, and the one who most nearly equalled the master,
       appeared with the Swedish army, and by a few vigorous strokes,
       which followed each other with unexampled rapidity, restored
       the supremacy of its arms. ... After three months of rest,
       which he mainly devoted to the reorganization and payment of
       his army, 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 proceeding 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 defeated Francis Albert of
       Lauenburg; Schweidnitz, Neisse, and Oppeln fell into his
       hands. Meanwhile 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 discontent in the camp. ... He had turned
       eastward from the Rhine to seek quarters for his murmuring
       troops in nether Germany, when Torstenson effected a decision
       in Saxony. After relieving Glogau, and having in vain tried to
       enter Bohemia, he had joined the detachments of Königsmark and
       Wrangel, and on October 30th he appeared 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 afterwards. In spite of
       all the advantages which Torstenson gained for himself, it
       never came to a united action with the French; and the first
       victory won by the French in the Netherlands, in May, 1643,
       did not alter this state of things. Torstenson ... 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 Torstenson 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 Denmark at the end of
       October, conducted a masterly campaign against the Danes, beat
       them wherever he met with them, conquered Holstein and
       Schleswig, pushed on to Jutland, then, while Wrangel and Horn
       carried on the war (till the peace of Brömsebro, August,
       1645), he returned and again took up the war against the
       Imperialists, everywhere an unvanquished general. The
       Imperialists under the incompetent Gallas intended to give
       Denmark breathing-time by creating a diversion; 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 advanced as far as
       Glattau in February, and on March 6th, 1645, a battle was
       fought near Jankowitz, 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 itself
       he took possession of the Wolfsbrücke. As in 1618, Vienna was
       in great danger." But the ill-success of the French "always
       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 Mercy, together with John of Werth, after he was liberated
       from prison. On 26th March, Turenne crossed the Rhine, and
       advanced towards Franconia. There he encamped near Mergentheim
       and Rosenberg. 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 victors 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
       Königsmark's, the remnant of Turenne's and the Hessians,
       amounted to 30,000 men. At first Mercy dexterously avoided a
       battle under unfavourable circumstances, but on August 3d the
       contest was inevitable. A bloody battle was fought between
       Nördlingen and Donauwörth, near Allerheim [called the battle
       of Nordlingen, 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 final
       brave assault of the Hessians, decided the day. But the
       victors were so weakened that they could not fully take
       advantage of it. Condé 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, Kônigsmark had won an
       important advantage. While Torstenson was in Austria he gained
       a firm footing in Saxony. Then came the news of Allerheim, and
       of the peace of Brömsebro. Except Dresden and Königstein, all
       the important 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 compelled him to give up the command. He was
       succeeded by Charles Gustavus Wrangel."

          L. Hausser,
          The Period of the Reformation,
          1517 to 1648, chapter 39.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 58 (volume 2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1642-1643.
       The Thirty Years War:
       Condé's victory at Rocroi and campaign on the Moselle.

          See FRANCE: A.D. 1642-1648, and 1643.

    {1483}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.
       The Thirty Years War:
       Campaigns of Turenne and Condé against Merci, on the Upper
       Rhine.
       Dütlingen.
       Freiburg.
       Philipsburg.

       "After the death of Bernard of Saxe Weimar, Marshal Guébriant
       had been placed in command of the troops of Weimar. He had
       besieged and taken Rottweil in Suabia, but had there been
       killed. Rantzau, who succeeded him in command of the Weimar
       army, marched (24-25 November, 1643) upon Dütlingen [or
       Tuttlingen], on the Upper Rhine, was there beaten by Mercy and
       made prisoner, with the loss of many officers and 7,000
       soldiers. This was a great triumph for the Bavarians; a
       terrible disaster for France. The whole of the German infantry
       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 assembled
       at Münster 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 successes. ...
       Turenne 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 Dütlingen 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,
          chapter 3 and 5.

       "Affairs being in so bad a state about the Black Forest, the
       Great Condé, at that time Duc 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 virtue of his birth, as a prince of the blood-royal,
       took precedence of the highest officers in the service. Merci,
       a capable and daring general, aware of his inferiority, now
       posted himself a short distance from Freyburg, in a position
       almost inaccessible. 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 Merci's position; but Condé,
       reckless 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; Condé,
       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
       Mountain, where he successfully repulsed for one day Condé's
       columns (August 5). In this action Gaspard Merci was killed.
       Condé now adopted the flank movement, which, originally
       recommended by Turenne, would have saved much bloodshed; and
       Merci, hard pressed, escaped by a rapid retreat, leaving
       behind him his artillery and baggage (August 9). These are the
       'three days of Freyburg.' To retake the captured Freyburg after
       their victory ... was the natural suggestion first heard." But
       Turenne persuaded Condé that the reduction of Philipsburg was
       more important. "Philipsburg was taken after a short siege;
       and its fall was accompanied by the submission of the adjacent
       towns of Germersheim, Speier, Worms, Mentz, Oppenheim and
       Landau. Condé at this conjuncture left the Upper Rhine, and
       took away his regiments with him."

          T. O. Cockayne,
          Life of Turenne,
          pages 20-22.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          The Battle-fields of Germany,
          chapter 6.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
       The Thirty Years War:
       Its final campaigns.
       The sufferings of Bavaria.
       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 enemy 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 reinforcing 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 commissariat, 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 opportunity, 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 extortions. The arrival of the Imperial troops,
       who at last succeeded in passing the Lech at Thierhaupten,
       only increased the misery of this country, which friend and
       foe indiscriminately plundered. And now, for the first time
       during the whole course of this war, the courage of
       Maximilian, 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. ...
    {1484}
       Accordingly, the motives which the artifices of France now put
       in operation, in order to detach 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 induced 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
       sufficiently 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
       intention 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 in 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
       Palatinate. 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
       Wurtemburg, where he forced the Landgrave of Darmstadt and the
       Elector of Mentz to imitate the example of Bavaria, and to
       embrace the neutrality. 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 Austria 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. Accordingly, the
       French minister declined to take advantage of the distresses
       of Austria; and the army of Turenne, separating from that of
       Wrangel, 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 motion, and placed
       himself at its head. But ... on his arrival Egra was already
       taken." Meantime the Emperor had engaged in intrigues with the
       Bavarian officers and had nearly seduced the whole army of the
       Elector. The latter discovered this conspiracy in time to
       thwart it; but he now suddenly, on his own behalf, struck
       hands with the Emperor again, and threw over his late
       agreements 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 at Munster 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 Bohemia, 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 enemy 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 affairs, might delay the chances of a general
       peace. ... Now that the power of the Emperor threatened once
       more to attain a dangerous superiority, Maximilian at once
       ceased to pursue the Swedes. ... Melander, prevented by the
       Bavarians from further pursuing Wrangel, crossed by Jena and
       Erfurt into Hesse. ... In this exhausted 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 campaign 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 besieged by the Imperialists, and defeated the Imperial
       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 devastation.
       Koenigsmark, with his flying corps, entered Bohemia,
       penetrated to Prague and surprised and captured the lesser
       side of the city (the Kleinsite), thus acquiring the
       reputation of "closing the Thirty Years' War by the last
       brilliant 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 quarters, and in
       the meantime the intelligence arrived that a peace had been
       signed at Munster, on the 24th October,"--the "solemn and ever
       memorable and sacred treaty which is known by the name of the
       Peace of Westphalia."

          F. Schiller,
          History of the Thirty Years' War,
          book 5.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          The Battle-fields of Germany,
          chapter 7.

    {1485}

    GERMANY: The Thirty Years War:
       Its horrors.
       Its destructiveness.
       The state of the country at its close.

       "The materials of which the armies 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 accompaniment 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; and the march of an army like
       the migration of some wild nomade horde, moving with wives and
       children through the land. And not with these only. There were
       others too in its train, as may easily be supposed. ... 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. Bear in mind
       that there was seldom in these armies any attempt whatever at
       a regular commissariat; rations being never issued except to
       the actual soldiers, and most irregularly to them; that the
       soldier's pay too was almost always enormously in arrear, so
       that he could not purchase even if he would. ... It was indeed
       the bitterest irony of all, that this War, which claimed at the
       outset to be waged for the highest religious objects, for the
       glory of God and for the highest interests of His Church,
       should be signalized ere long by a more shameless treading
       under foot of all laws human and divine, disgraced by worse
       and wickeder outrages against God, and against man, the image
       of God, than probably any war which modern Christendom has
       seen. The three master sins of our fallen nature, hate, lust,
       and covetousness, were all rampant to the full. ... Soon it
       became evident that there was no safety in almost any
       remoteness from that which might be the scene of warfare at
       the actual moment. 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 remained from perishing
       by cold, the city thus living upon and gradually consuming
       itself. ... Under conditions like these, it is not wonderful
       that the fields were left nearly or altogether untilled; 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 carcasses 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. ... Prisoners 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 horrors of Samaria, of Jerusalem, of Saguntum, found
       their parallels, and often worse than their parallels, in
       Christian Germany 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 centuries been in the occupation
       of civilized men were repossessed by forests. ... When Peace
       was at length proclaimed, and Germany had leisure to take an
       inventory of her losses, it was not altogether impossible to
       make a rude and rough estimate. ... The statistics, so far as
       they were got together, tell a terrible tale. ... Of the
       population 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 Switzerland, to Holland, and to other countries, never
       to return from them again. Thus in one group of twenty
       villages which had not exceptionally suffered, 85 per cent.,
       or more than four-fifths of the inhabitants, had disappeared.
       ... Of the houses, three-fourths were destroyed. ... Careful
       German writers assure us that there are districts which at
       this present day [1872] have just attained the population, the
       agricultural wealth, the productive powers which they had when
       the War commenced."

          R. C. Trench,
          Gustavus Adolphus in Germany, and other
          Lectures on the Thirty Years' War,
          lectures 3 and 5.

          See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648.

    GERMANY: 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 25th of March, 1642, and the
       cities of Münster and Osnabrück as the places of the sitting;
       but neither in this year nor in the next did it take place. It
       was not until the year 1644 that in the former of these
       cities" were assembled the following: 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 Osnabrück, Sweden sent two ambassadors and France
       three, while the Electors, the German Princes and the imperial
       cities were represented. Questions of etiquette, which demanded
       prior settlement, occupied months, and serious matters when
       reached were dealt with slowly and jealously, with many
       interruptions. It was not until the 24th of October, 1648,
       that the articles of peace forming the two treaties of Münster
       and Osnabrück, and known together as the Peace of Westphalia,
       were signed by all the negotiators at Münster.
    {1486}
       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 payment 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
       Emperor 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. 1627-1631] should remain
       in force, except the part relating to Pignerol. ['Pinerolo was
       definitely put under the French overlordship.']

          G. W. Kitchin,
          History of France,
          volume 3, page 98.

       Switzerland was made independent of the German Empire; but the
       Circle of Burgundy [the Spanish Netherlands and Franche-Comté]
       was still to form a part of the Empire, and after the close of
       the war between 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 rendered to the Duke of Lorraine against
       France, although the Emperor and the Empire were left free to
       mediate for him a peace. Sweden received Hither Pomerania,
       including the Island of Rügen, from Further Pomerania the
       Island of Wollin and several cities, with their surroundings,
       among which were Stettin, as also the expectancy of Further
       Pomerania in case of the extinction of the house of
       Brandenburg. Furthermore, it received the city of Wismar, in
       Mecklenburg, and the Bishoprics of Bremen [secularized and
       made a Grand Duchy] and Verden, with reservation of the rights
       and immunities 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 Imperial Diet. ... Brandenburg
       received for its loss of Pomerania the Bishoprics of
       Halberstadt, Minden, and Camin, 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 separated from it were to remain with Saxony as
       provided in the Peace of Prague. ... The house of
       Brunswick-Lüneberg 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 Catholic prelate in the possession of the
       Bishopric of Osnabrück. ... To Duke Maximilian of Bavaria was
       conveyed the Electorate, together with the Upper Palatinate,
       to be hereditary in his family of the line of William, for
       which he, on the other hand, was to surrender to the Emperor
       the account of the 13,000,000 florins which he had made for
       the execution of the sentence against the Palsgrave Frederic.
       To the Palsgrave, Charles Lewis, son of the proscribed Elector
       [Frederic, who had died in 1632], 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 Würtemberg, the Margraves of
       Baden, and the Counts of Nassau and those of Hanau to several
       parts of the territories which either belonged to them or were
       contested. A general amnesty was indeed provided, and everyone
       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 applied 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, 1624, was fixed as the time which was to govern
       mutual reclamations between the Catholics and Protestants;
       both parties were secured the right to all ecclesiastical
       foundations, whether in mediate or immediate connection with
       the Empire, which they severally held in possession on the
       first day of January, 1624; 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 Protestants, 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 1624 Protestant subjects of
       Catholic Princes, or the reverse, enjoyed freedom of religion,
       this right should not in the future be diminished. It was
       specially granted for Silesia that all the concessions which
       had been made before the war to the Dukes of Liegnitz,
       Münsterburg, 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
       Calvinism--were placed upon the same ground with those of the
       Augsburg Confession; and it was provided that if a Lutheran
       Estate of the Empire should become a Calvinist, or the
       reverse, his subjects should not be forced to change with
       their Prince."

          A. Gindely,
          History of the Thirty Years' War,'
          volume 2, chapter 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, Weissemburgh, Colmar, Landau,
       Oberenheim, Rosheim, Munster in the Val de St. Gregoire,
       Kaiserberg, 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 empire, 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 exception should not derogate from the
       supreme sovereignty before yielded to the king of France."

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 59 (volume 2).

    {1487}

       "Respecting the rights of sovereignty due to the princes and
       the relations of the states of the empire with the emperor,
       the Peace of Westphalia contained such regulations as must in
       the course of time produce a still greater relaxation of those
       ties, already partially loosened, which held together the
       empire in one entirety. ... At the Peace of Westphalia the
       independence 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 alliances among themselves, as well as with foreign
       powers, provided such alliances were not to the injury of the
       empire. But what a feeble obstacle 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 appearance 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 responsibility of legislating
       as guarantees, not only for the Germanic constitution, but for
       everything else that was concluded in the Peace of Westphalia
       at Münster 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 included 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. Kohlrausch,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 26.

       Peace between Spain and the United Provinces was embodied in a
       separate treaty, but negotiated at Münster, and concluded and
       signed a few months earlier in the same year. The war between
       Spain and France went on.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
       Effects of the Peace of Westphalia on the Empire.
       It becomes a loose confederacy and purely German.

       "It may ... 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 importance. ... 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 Cæsars, had the Emperors been
       reproached as mere German kings, or their claim to be the
       lawful heirs of Rome denied. The Protestant jurists of the
       16th or rather of the 17th century were the first persons who
       ventured to scoff at the pretended lordship of the world, and
       declare their Empire 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 themselves, 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 Osnabrück and Münster. By extorting a full
       recognition of the sovereignty of all the princes, Catholics
       and Protestants alike, in their respective territories, they
       bound the Emperor from any direct interference with the
       administration, either in particular districts or throughout
       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 constitution
       admitted schismatics to a full share in all those civil rights
       which, according to the doctrines 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 therefore 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 Innocent 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
       mixed or transitional character, well expressed by the name
       Romano-Germanic, so henceforth it is in everything but title
       purely and solely a German Empire. 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 efficient
       common tribunals, no means of coercing 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 frontier,
       its crowd of meddlesome and pedantic officials. ... This
       vicious system, which paralyzed 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 Roman Empire,
          chapter 19.

    {1488}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705.
       After the Peace of Westphalia.
       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 Romans, 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 interregnum, and, indeed, the century which
       followed the death of Ferdinand, showed the alarming
       preponderance of the influence gained by France in the affairs
       of the empire, and the consequent criminality of the princes
       who had first invoked the assistance of that power. Her recent
       victories, her character as joint guarantee of the treaty of
       Westphalia, and the contiguity of her possessions to the
       states of the empire, encouraged 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, Leopold, son of the late emperor, king
       of Bohemia and of Hungary, was raised to the vacant dignity.
       His reign was one of great humiliation to his house and to the
       empire. Without talents for government, without generosity,
       feeble, bigoted, and pusillanimous, he was little qualified to
       augment the glory of the country. ... Throughout his long
       reign [1657-1705], he had the mortification to witness, on the
       part of Louis XIV., a series of the most unprovoked, wanton, and
       unprincipled 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
       Brunswick 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 representatives, is one of
       the most striking peculiarities of Leopold's reign."

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of the Germanic Empire,
          book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3).

          See, DIET, THE GERMANIC.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1780.
       The Austrian incubus.

       "Before the Thirty Years' War the territories of the German
       Hapsburgs were not very considerable. The greatest part of
       Hungary was in the hands of the Turks; the Tyrol belonged to a
       collateral line; and, in the other provinces, the independence
       of the Nobility was much stronger than the sovereignty of the
       Archdukes. The Nobles were all zealous protestants, so that a
       monarchical power could only be created after a victory of the
       Catholic faith. For the first time since 1621, the crown was
       seen in these regions to assume a really dominant position.
       Efforts in this direction had been zealously carried on since
       1648; the Tyrolese Estates now lost their most important
       privileges; and, above all, the Emperor succeeded, by the help
       of Polish and German troops, in driving out the Turks from
       Hungary, and at the same time crushing the national freedom of
       the Magyars with frightful bloodshed. By these victories the
       Monarchy gained, in the first place, a large increase of
       territory--which placed it nearly on a level with France. In
       the second place it acquired at home the power of raising as
       many taxes and soldiers as were necessary to increase the army
       to the extent of its wishes; and of distributing its officials
       and troops--without distinction of nation--as imperial
       servants, throughout its dominions. And thus it secured
       submission at home and disposable strength for its operations
       abroad. Here it stopped short. As it had no national, and,
       consequently, no warm and natural relation to any of its
       provinces--which were merely used as passive tools to promote
       the lofty aims of the Hapsburg family--the Government had no
       intention of using its power at home for the furtherance of
       the public good, or the building up of a generally useful
       Administration. The Nobility had no longer the strength to
       resist the demands of the Crown for men and money, but it
       still retained exemption from taxes, the jurisdiction and
       police among its own peasants, and a multitude of feudal
       rights, which, often enough, degraded the peasant to the
       condition of a serf, and everywhere bound down agriculture in
       the most galling bonds. Of manufactures there were little or
       none; trade was carried on on the system of guilds. The State
       officials exercised but little influence over the internal
       affairs of the Communes, or Provinces; and the privileged
       orders had full liberty to prosecute their own interests among
       their inferiors with inconsiderate selfishness. In this
       aristocracy, the Church, from its wealth and its close
       internal unity, assumed the first place; and its superior
       importance was still farther enhanced by the fact of its being
       the chief bond of unity between the otherwise so loosely
       compacted portions of the Empire. ... The Church attached the
       Nobility to the Government; for we must not forget that a very
       considerable portion of the estates of the Nobles had passed
       into the hands of new possessors who had received them as a
       reward for being good catholics. The Church, too, taught all
       the youth of the Empire--in all its different languages--
       obedience to the House of Hapsburg, and received from the
       Crown, in return, exclusive control of the national education.
       It formed, in spite of the resistance of nationalities, a sort
       of public opinion in favour of the unity of the Empire; and the
       Crown, in return, excluded all non-catholic opinions from the
       schools, from literature and religion. Austria, therefore,
       continued to be catholic, even after 1648; and by this we
       mean, not only that its Princes were personally devout--or
       that the Catholic clergy were supported in the performance of
       their spiritual functions--or that the institutions of the
       Church were liberally supported--but also that the State
       directed its policy according to ecclesiastical views, made
       use of the Church for political purposes, and crushed every
       movement hostile to it in all other spheres of the national
       life. In Austria, therefore, it was not merely a question of
       theological differences, but of the deepest and most
       comprehensive points of distinction between the mediæval and
       the modern world. Austria was still, in its whole nature, a
       Mediæval State or Confederacy of States. The consequences of
       this condition were most strikingly seen in its relation to
       Germany. In the first place, there was a complete separation,
       in regard to all mental and spiritual matters, between the
       great body of the Empire, and its powerful Eastern member.
       This was the period, in which Germany was awaking to a new
       intellectual life in modern Europe, and laying the foundation
       of its modern science in every branch--in History and
       Statistics, Chemistry and Geology, Jurisprudence and
       Philosophy--and assuming by its Literature, an equal rank with
       other nations in national refinement and civilization.
    {1489}
       By the works of genius which this period produced Austria
       remained entirely uninfluenced; and it has been said, that
       Werther had only been made known to the Viennese in the form
       of fireworks in the Prater. The literary policy allowed no
       seed of modern culture to enter the Empire; and the Jesuit
       schools had rendered the soil unfit for its reception. All the
       progress of German civilization, at this period, was based on
       the principle of the independence of the mind in art and
       science. The education of the Jesuits, on the contrary, though
       unsurpassed where the object is to prepare men for a special
       purpose, commences by disowning individual peculiarities, and
       the right of a man to choose his own career. There was, at
       this time, no other characteristic of an Austrian than an
       entire estrangement from the progress of the German mind. ...
       The progress of the people in science and art, in politics and
       military strength, was only seen in the larger secular
       territories, which, after 1648, enjoyed their own sovereignty;
       and even these were checked in their movements at every step
       by the remnants of the Imperial Constitution. The Members of
       the Empire alone, in whom the decaying remains of Mediæval
       existence still lingered on--the Ecclesiastical Princes--the
       small Counts--the Imperial Knights and the Imperial
       Towns,--clung to the Emperor and the Imperial Diet. In these,
       partly from their small extent of territory, partly from the
       inefficiency of their institutions, neither active industry,
       nor public spirit, nor national pride, were to be found. In
       all which tended to elevate the nation, and raise its hopes
       for the future, they took, at this period, as little part as
       Austria herself. ... The Imperial constitution, therefore, was
       inwardly decayed, and stood in no relation to the internal
       growth of the nation. ... There was the same divergence
       between Austria and Germany with respect to their foreign
       interests, as we have observed in their internal relations.
       After the Turks had been driven from Hungary, and the Swedes
       from the half of' Pomerania, Germany had only two neighbours
       whom it was a matter of vital importance to watch,--the Poles
       and the French. In the South, on the contrary, it had no
       interests in opposition to Italy, except the protection of its
       frontier by the possession or the neutrality of the Alpine
       passes. And yet it was just towards Italy that the eyes of the
       House of Hapsburg had been uninterruptedly directed for centuries
       past. The favourite traditions of the family, and their
       political and ecclesiastical interest in securing the support
       of the Pope, and thereby that of the Clergy, constantly
       impelled them to consolidate and extend their dominion in that
       country. All other considerations yielded to this; and this is
       intelligible enough from an Austrian point of view; but it was
       not on that account less injurious to the German Empire. How
       strikingly was this opposition of interests displayed at the
       end of the glorious war of the Spanish succession, when the
       Emperor rejected a peace which would have restored Strasburg
       and Alsace to the Empire, because only Naples, and not Sicily
       also, was offered to Austria! How sharply defined do the same
       relations present themselves to our view, in the last years of
       the Hapsburg dynasty, at the peace of Vienna in 1738!--on
       which occasion the Emperor--in order at least to gain Tuscany,
       as a compensation for the loss of Naples,--gave up Lorraine to
       the French, without even consulting the Empire, which he had
       dragged into the war. Austria thus maintained a predominant
       influence in Italy; but the Empire, during the whole century
       after the Peace of Westphalia, did not obtain a single
       noteworthy advantage over France. How much more was this the
       case with respect to Poland, which during the whole period of
       the religious wars had been the most zealous ally of Spain and
       the Hapsburgs, and which subsequently seemed to threaten no
       danger to Austrian interests."

          H. Von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1658.
       Election of the Emperor, Leopold I.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1660-1664.
       Renewed war with the Turks.
       Victory of St. Gothard.
       Transylvania liberated.
       A twenty years truce.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1672-1679.
       The war of the Coalition against Louis XIV.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674,
          and 1674-1678;
          also NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1675-1678.
       War with Sweden.
       Battle of Fehrbellin.

          See BRANDENBURG: A.D. 1640-1688;
          and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1679-1681.
       The final absorption of Alsace and Les Trois-Evêchés by
       France, with boundaries widened.
       Bold encroachments of the French Chambers of Reannexation.
       The seizure of Strasburg.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
       The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV.

       "The Duke of Orleans, the French King's brother, had married
       the sister of the Elector Palatine, the last of the House of
       Simmern, who died in May 1685, when his next relative, the
       Count Palatine Philip William, Duke of Neuberg, took
       possession of the Electorate. The Duchess of Orleans had by
       her marriage contract renounced all her feudal rights to the
       Palatinate, but not her claims to the allodial property and
       the moveables of her family." These latter claims, taken in
       hand by Louis XIV. on behalf of his sister-in-law, were made
       so formidable that the new Elector appealed to the Empire for
       protection, "and, thus redoubled the uneasiness felt in
       Germany, and indeed throughout the greater part of Europe,
       respecting the schemes of Louis. The Prince of Orange availed
       himself of these suspicions to forward his plans against
       Louis. He artfully inflamed the general alarm, and at length
       succeeded in inducing the Emperor Leopold, the Kings of Spain,
       and Sweden, as princes of the Empire, the Electors of Saxony
       and Bavaria, the circles of Suabia, Franconia, Upper Saxony,
       and Bavaria, to enter into the celebrated League of Augsburg
       (July 9th 1686). The object of this league was to maintain the
       Treaties of Münster and Nimeguen and the Truce of Ratisbon. If
       any of the members of it was attacked he was to be assisted by
       the whole confederacy; 60,000 men were to be raised, who were
       to be frequently drilled, and to form a camp during some weeks
       of every year, and a common fund for their support was to be
       established at Frankfort. The League was to be in force only
       for three years, but might be prolonged at the expiration of
       that term should the public safety require it. The Elector
       Palatine, who was in fact the party most directly interested,
       acceded to the League early in September, as well as the Duke
       of Holstein Gottorp."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3).

    {1490}

       "To Madame's great anger France set up a claim to the
       Palatinate on her behalf, Louvois persuading the King and the
       royal family that with a few vigorous measures the Palatinate
       would be abandoned by the Neubourgs and annexed to France as
       part of Madame's dowry. This led to the devastation of the
       states, to which Madame [Charlotte Elizabeth, the Duchess of
       Orleans] so often and so bitterly alludes during the next ten
       years. Obliged by Louis XIV. 's policy to represent herself as
       desirous to recover her rights over her father's and brother's
       succession, in many documents which she was never even shown,
       Madame protested in all her private letters against France's
       action in the matter, and made every one at court thoroughly
       aware of her grief and disapproval of what the king was doing
       on her behalf."

          Life and Letters of Charlotte Elizabeth,
          Princess Palatine,
          chapter 2.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1689-1696.
       The War of the League of Augsburg, or Grand Alliance,
       against Louis XIV.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690 to 1695-1696.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1690.
       The second Devastation of the Palatinate.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1700.
       Interest in the question of the Spanish Succession.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1700.
       Prussia raised to the dignity of a kingdom.

          See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1700-1740.
       The first king of Prussia and his shabby court.
       The second king, his Brobdingnagian army
       and his extraordinary character.
       The up-bringing of Frederick the Great.

       The "Great Elector" of Brandenburg "left to his son Frederic a
       principality as considerable as any which was not called a
       kingdom."

          See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

       "Frederic aspired to the style of royalty. Ostentatious and
       profuse, negligent of his true interests and of his high
       duties, insatiably eager for frivolous distinctions, he added
       nothing to the real weight of the state which he governed:
       perhaps he transmitted his inheritance to his children
       impaired rather than augmented in value; but he succeeded in
       gaining the great object of his life, the title of King. In
       the year 1700 he assumed this new dignity. He had, on that
       occasion to undergo all the mortifications which fall to the
       lot of ambitious upstarts. Compared with the other crowned
       heads of Europe, he made a figure resembling that which a
       Nabob or a Commissary, who had bought a title, would make in
       the company of Peers whose ancestors had been attainted for
       treason against the Plantagenets. The envy of the class which
       Frederic quitted, and the civil scorn of the class into which
       he intruded himself, were marked in very significant ways. ...
       Frederic was succeeded by his son, Frederic William, a prince
       who must be allowed to have possessed some talents for
       administration, but whose character as disfigured by odious
       vices, and whose eccentricities were such as had never before
       been seen out of a madhouse. He was exact and diligent in the
       transacting of business; and he was the first who formed the
       design of obtaining for Prussia a place among the European
       powers, altogether out of proportion to her extent and
       population, by means of a strong military organization. Strict
       economy enabled him to keep up a peace establishment of 60,000
       troops. These troops were disciplined in such a manner, that,
       placed beside them, the household regiments of Versailles and
       St. James's would have appeared an awkward squad. The master
       of such a force could not but be regarded by all his
       neighbours as a formidable enemy and a valuable ally. But the
       mind of Frederic William was so ill regulated, that all his
       inclinations became passions, and all his passions partook of
       the character of moral and intellectual disease. His parsimony
       degenerated into sordid avarice. His taste for military pomp
       and order became a mania, like that of a Dutch burgomaster for
       tulips, or that of a member of the Roxburghe Club for Caxtons.
       While the envoys of the Court of Berlin were in a state of
       such squalid poverty as moved the laughter of foreign
       capitals; while the food placed before the princes and
       princesses of the blood-royal of Prussia was too scanty to
       appease hunger, and so bad that even hunger loathed it, no
       price was thought too extravagant for tall recruits. The
       ambition of the king was to form a brigade of giants, and
       every country was ransacked by his agents for men above the
       ordinary stature. ... Though his dominant passion was the love
       of military display, he was yet one of the most pacific of
       princes. We are afraid that his aversion to war was not the
       effect of humanity, but was merely one of his thousand whims.
       His feeling about his troops seems to have resembled a miser's
       feeling about his money. He loved to collect them, to count
       them, to see them increase; but he could not find it in his
       heart to break in upon the precious hoard. He looked forward
       to some future time when his Patagonian battalions were to
       drive hostile infantry before them like sheep: but this future
       time was always receding; and it is probable that, if his life
       had been prolonged 30 years, his superb army would never have
       seen any harder service than a sham fight in the fields near
       Berlin. But the great military means which he had collected
       were destined to be employed by a spirit far more daring and
       inventive than his own. Frederic, surnamed the Great, son of
       Frederic William, was born in January 1712. It may safely be
       pronounced that he had received from nature a strong and sharp
       understanding, and a rare firmness of temper and intensity of
       will. As to the other parts of his character, it is difficult
       to say whether they are to be ascribed to nature, or to the
       strange training which he underwent. The history of his
       boyhood is painfully interesting. Oliver Twist in the parish
       work-house, Smike at Dotheboys Hall, were petted children when
       compared with this wretched heir-apparent of a crown. The
       nature of Frederic William was hard and bad, and the habit of
       exercising arbitrary power had made him frightfully savage.
       His rage constantly vented itself to right and left in curses
       and blows. When his Majesty took a walk, every human being
       fled before him, as if a tiger had broken loose from a
       menagerie. ... But it was in his own house that he was most
       unreasonable and ferocious. His palace was hell, and he the
       most execrable of fiends. ... Early in the year 1740, Frederic
       William met death with a firmness and dignity worthy of a
       better and wiser man; and Frederic, who had just completed his
       28th year, became king of Prussia."

          Lord Macaulay,
          Frederic the Great (Essays).

    {1491}

       "Frederick William I. became ... the founder of the first
       modern State in Germany. His was a nature in which the
       repulsive and the imposing, the uncouth and the admirable,
       were closely united. In his manners a rough and unrefined
       peasant, in his family a tyrant, in his government a despot,
       choleric almost to madness, his reign would have been a curse
       to the country, had he not united with his unlimited power a
       rare executive ability and an incorruptible fidelity to duty;
       and from first to last he consecrated all his powers to the
       common weal. By him effective limitations were put upon the
       independent action of the provinces, and upon the overgrown
       privileges of the estates. He did not do away with the guilds
       of the different orders, but placed them under the strict
       control of a strongly centralized superintendence, and
       compelled their members to make every necessary sacrifice for
       the sake of assisting him in his efforts for the prosperity
       and power of Prussia. It is astonishing to see with what
       practical judgment he recognized a needed measure both in
       general and in detail; how he trained a body of officials,
       suited in all grades to the requirements of their position;
       how he disciplined them in activity, prudence, and rectitude,
       by strict inspection, by encouraging instruction, and by
       brutal punishments; how he enforced order and economy in the
       public finances; how he improved the administration of his own
       domains, so that it became a fruitful example to all
       proprietors; and how, full of the desire to make the peasants
       free owners of the soil, although he did not yet venture on
       such a radical measure, he nevertheless constantly protected
       the poor against the arbitrariness and oppression of the
       higher classes. ... There was no department of life to which
       he did not give encouragement and assistance; it is also true
       that there was none which he did not render subservient to his
       own will, and the products of which he did not make conducive
       to the one great end,--the independence and aggrandizement of
       the State. So that he who was the ruler of, at most, three
       million people, created, without exhausting the country, a
       standing army of eighty thousand men: a remarkably skilful and
       ready army, which he disciplined with barbarous severity on
       the slightest occasion, at the same time that he looked out
       for the welfare of every soldier even in the smallest detail,
       according to his saying, that 'a king's warrior must live
       better than a gentleman's servant.' What he had in his mind,
       almost a hundred years before Scharnhorst, was the universal
       obligation of military service; but it fared with him in
       regard to this as in regard to the freedom of the peasants:
       strong as he was, he could not turn the world he lived in
       upside down; he contented himself with bequeathing his best
       ideas to a more propitious future. The foundations of the
       government rested upon the estates in spite of all monarchical
       reforms. Thus, beside the federative Empire of the Hapsburgs,
       arose the small, compact Prussian State, which, by reason of
       the concentration of its forces, was a match for its
       five-times-larger rival."

          H. Von Sybel,
          The Founding of the German Empire by William I.,
          book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carlyle,
          History of Frederick II., called the Great,
          book 3, chapter 19, books 5-10 (volumes 1-2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1702.
       The War of the Spanish Succession:
       Siege of Landau.
       Battle of Friedlingen.

       On the part of the Imperialists, the War of the Spanish
       Succession was opened on the Rhine frontier in June 1702, by a
       movement of the army commanded by the Margrave Louis of Baden,
       which "came over the Rhine and laid siege to the important
       fortress of Landau,--the bulwark of Alsace as it was then
       regarded. The Margrave was subsequently joined by the
       Emperor's eldest son, the young King of the Romans, who
       desired to share in the glory, though not in the toils of the
       expected conquest. ... The Maréchal de Catinat, one of the
       soldiers of whom France has most reason to be proud,--the
       virtuous Catinat as Rousseau terms him--held command at this
       period in Alsace. So inferior were his numbers that he could
       make no attempt to relieve Landau. But after its reduction an
       opportunity appeared in which by detaching a portion of his
       army he might retrieve the fortunes of France in another
       quarter. The Elector of Bavaria, after much irresolution, had
       openly espoused the cause of Louis. He seized upon the city of
       Ulm and issued a proclamation in favor of his new ally. To
       support his movements an enterprising and ambitious officer,
       the Marquis de Villars, was sent across the Rhine with part of
       the army of Alsace. The declaration of the Elector of Bavaria
       and the advance of Villars into Germany disquieted in no
       slight degree the Prince Louis of Baden. Leaving a sufficient
       garrison in Landau, he also passed the Rhine. The two armies
       met at Friedlingen on the 14th of October. Louis of Baden, a
       ponderous tactician bred in the wars against the Turks, might
       out-manœuvre some Grand Vizier, but was no match for the
       quick-witted Frenchman. He was signally defeated with the loss
       of 3,000 men; soon after which, the season being now far
       advanced, Villars led back his army to winter quarters in
       France. His victory of Friedlingen gained for him at
       Versailles the rank of Maréchal de France."

          Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon),
          History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 68 (volume 2).

          See, also; NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704,
          and SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1703.
       The War of the Spanish Succession:
       Campaigns on the Upper Rhine and in Bavaria.

       "Early in June [A. D. 1703], Marshal Tallard assumed the
       command of the French forces in Alsace, ... took Prissac on
       the 7th of September, and invested Landau on the 16th of
       October. The allies, under the Prince of Hesse, attempted to
       raise the siege, but were defeated with considerable loss;
       and, soon after, Landau surrendered, thus terminating with
       disaster the campaign on the Upper Rhine. Still more
       considerable were the losses sustained in Bavaria. Marshal
       Villars commanded there, and, at the head of the French and
       Bavarians, defeated General Stirum, who headed the
       Imperialists, on the 20th of September. In December, Marshal
       Marsin, who had succeeded Villars in the command, made himself
       master of the important city of Augsburg, and in January,
       1704, the Bavarians got possession of Passau. Meanwhile, a
       formidable insurrection had broken out in Hungary, which so
       distracted the cabinet of Vienna that the capital seemed to be
       threatened by the combined forces of the French and Bavarians
       after the fall of Passau. ... Instead of confining the war to
       one of posts and sieges in Flanders and Italy, it was resolved
       [by the French] to throw the bulk of their forces at once into
       Bavaria, and operate against Austria from the heart of
       Germany, by pouring down the valley of the Danube.
    {1492}
       The advanced post held there by the Elector of Bavaria in
       front, forming a salient angle, penetrating, as it were, into
       the Imperial dominions, the menacing aspect of the Hungarian
       insurrection in the rear, promised the most successful issue
       to this decisive operation. For this purpose, Marshal Tallard,
       with the French army on the Upper Rhine, received orders to
       cross the Black Forest and advance into Swabia, and unite with
       the Elector of Bavaria, which he accordingly did at Donawerth,
       in the beginning of July. Marshal Villeroy, with forty
       battalions and thirty-nine squadrons, was to break off from
       the army in Flanders and support the advance by a movement on
       the Moselle, so as to be in a condition to join the main army
       on the Danube, of which it would form, as it were, the left
       wing; while Vendôme, with the army of Italy, was to penetrate
       into the Tyrol, and advance by Innspruck on Salzburg. The
       united armies, which it was calculated, after deducting all
       the losses of the campaign, would muster 80,000 combatants,
       was then to move direct by Lintz and the valley of the Danube
       on Vienna, while a large detachment penetrated into Hungary to
       lend a hand to the already formidable insurrection in that
       kingdom. The plan was grandly conceived. ... Marlborough, by
       means of the secret information which he obtained from the
       French head-quarters, had got full intelligence of it, and its
       dangers to the allies, if it succeeded, struck him as much as
       the chances of great advantage to them if ably thwarted. His
       line was instantly taken."

          A. Alison,
          Military Life of Marlborough,
          chapter 2, sections 30-33.

       The measures taken by Marlborough to defeat the plans of the
       French in this campaign are briefly stated in the account of
       his first campaigns in the Netherlands.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
          (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 5.

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 69 (volume 2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
       The War of the Spanish Succession:
       Marlborough and Prince Eugene on the Danube.
       The Battle of Blenheim.

       "Marlborough, with his motley army of English, Dutch, Danes
       and Germans, concealing his main purpose, was marching south
       along the Rhine, with a design to strike his critical blow, by
       attacking the French armies that were forming for the campaign
       of the Danube, and thus protect the Emperor and Vienna, and
       punish the Elector of Bavaria, whose territories would be then
       exposed. On the route, Marlborough was joined by Prince Eugene
       and the Margrave of Baden: but as a new French force was
       approaching, Prince Eugene was sent to keep it in check.
       Marlborough and the Prince of Baden, with united forces of
       about 60,000 men, then advanced, in rapid marches, and took,
       by gallant assault, the fortifications of the Schellenberg in
       Bavaria, and the old town of Donauworth, a critical and
       commanding position on the Danube. The allies were now masters
       of the main passages of the Danube--and had a strong place as
       a basis of action. The allied leaders thereupon sent troops
       into the heart of Bavaria, and devastated the country even to
       the vicinity of Munich--burning and destroying as they
       marched, and taking several minor fortresses. Marlborough's
       forces and those of Prince Eugene were distant from each other
       some forty miles, when came the news of the march of a French
       army of 25,000 men under Tallard, to form a junction with the
       others, to succor the Elector, and take revenge for the defeat
       of the Schellenberg. Two French Marshals, Tallard and Marsin,
       were now in command: their design was to attack Marlborough
       and Eugene's armies in detail. By rapid marches, Marlborough
       crossed the Danube and joined Prince Eugene near Donauworth,
       and thereupon occurred one of the most important and decisive
       contests of modern times, fought between the old town of
       Hochstadt and the village of Blenheim, about fifteen miles
       south of Donauworth. The skilful tactics of the allied
       generals precipitated the battle. The allied French and
       Bavarians numbered 60,000 [56,000; Malleson] men--the English,
       Dutch and Germans and other allies, about 53,000 [52,000;
       Malleson]. The allies were allowed to cross an intervening
       brook without opposition, and form their lines. A great
       charge, in full force, of the allies was then made; they broke
       the enemy's extended line; and an ensuing charge of cavalry
       scattered his forces right and left, and drove many into the
       Danube. More than 14,000 French and Bavarians, who had not
       struck a blow, except to defend their position, entrenched and
       shut up in the village of Blenheim, waiting for orders to
       move, were then surrounded by the victorious allies, and
       compelled to surrender as prisoners of war. The scattered
       remnants of the French and Bavarian army either disbanded, or
       were driven over the Rhine. The garrison at Ulm capitulated,
       and the Elector fled into France."

          J. W. Gerard,
          The Peace of Utrecht,
          chapter 16.

       "The armies of Marchin and of Max Emanuel [of Bavaria] had
       been defeated; that of Tallard had been annihilated. Whilst
       the loss of the victors in killed and wounded reached 12,000
       men, that of the French and Bavarians exceeded 14,000. In
       addition, the latter lost 13,000 men taken prisoners, 47
       pieces of cannon, 25 standards, and 90 colours. Such was the
       battle of Blenheim. It was one of the decisive battles of
       history, and it changed the character of the war. Up to that
       moment, the action of France against. Germany had been
       aggressive; thenceforward it became purely defensive.
       Blenheim, in fact, dashed to the ground the hopes of Louis
       XIV. and Max Emanuel of Bavaria. It saved the house of
       Habsburg in Germany, and helped it greatly in Hungary. It
       showed likewise that it was possible to inflict a crushing
       defeat on the armies of Louis XIV."

          Colonel G. B. Malleson,
          Prince Eugene of Savoy,
          chapter 6.

       "Marlborough [after the battle], having detached part of his
       force to besiege Ulm, drew near with the bulk of his army to
       the Rhine, which he passed near Philipsburg on the 6th of
       September, and soon after commenced the siege of Landau, on
       the French side; Prince Louis, with 20,000 men, forming the
       besieging force, and Eugene and Marlborough, with 30,000, the
       covering army. Villeroi, with the French army, abandoned an
       intrenched camp which he had constructed to cover the town.
       Marlborough followed, and made every effort to bring the
       French marshal to battle, but in vain. ... Ulm surrendered on
       the 16th of September, ... which gave the allies a solid
       foundation on the Danube, and effectually crushed the power of
       the Elector of Bavaria, who, isolated now in the midst of his
       enemies, had no alternative but to abandon his dominions and
       seek refuge in Brussels, where he arrived in the end of
       September. ...
    {1493}
       The Electress of Bavaria, who had been left regent of that
       state in the absence of the Elector in Flanders, had now no
       resource left but submission; and a treaty was accordingly
       concluded in the beginning of November, by which she agreed to
       disband all her troops. Trêves and Traerbach were taken in the
       end of December; the Hungarian insurrection was suppressed;
       Landau capitulated in the beginning of the same month; a
       diversion which the enemy attempted toward Trêves was defeated
       by Marlborough's activity and vigilance, and that city put in
       a sufficient posture of defense; and, the campaign being now
       finished, that accomplished commander returned to the Hague
       and London."

          A. Alison,
          Military Life of Marlborough,
          chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          Battle-fields of Germany,
          chapter 10.

          W. Coxe,
          Memoirs of Marlborough,
          chapters 22-26 (volume 1).

          J. H. Burton,
          History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
          chapter 6 (volume 1).

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
          volume 2, chapter 5.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1705.
       The Election of the Emperor Joseph I.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1705.
       The War of the Spanish Succession:
       The dissolution of Bavaria.

       "The campaign of 1705 was destitute of any important events on
       the side of Germany. ... In Bavaria, the peasants, irritated
       by the oppressions of the Austrian government, rose in a body
       in the autumn, and, could they have been supported by France,
       would have placed the Emperor in great danger; but without
       that aid the insurrection only proved fatal to themselves. The
       insurgents were beaten in detail, and the Emperor now resolved
       on the complete dissolution of Bavaria as a state. The four
       elder sons of Maximilian were carried to Klagenfurt in
       Carinthia, to be there educated under the strictest inspection
       as Counts of Wittelsbach, while the younger sons were
       consigned to the care of a court lady at Munich, and the
       daughters sent to a convent. The Electress, who had been on a
       visit to Venice, was not permitted to return to her dominions,
       and the Elector Maximilian, as well as the Elector of Cologne,
       was, by a decree of the Electoral College, placed under the
       ban of the Empire. The Upper Palatinate was restored to the
       Elector Palatine. ... The remaining Bavarian territories were
       confiscated, and divided among various princes."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3).

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 72 (volume 3).

       The campaign of 1705 in the Netherlands was unimportant; but
       in Spain it had brilliant results.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1705;
          and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.
       The War of the Spanish Succession:
       Successes of the French.

       During 1706, little was attempted on either side by the forces
       which watched each other along the Rhine. In 1707 Villars, the
       French commander, obtained liberty to act. "The Emperor,
       greatly preoccupied with Hungary, had furnished but
       indifferent resources to the new general of the army of the
       Rhine, Brandenburg-Baireuth; the German army was ill paid and
       in bad condition in its immense lines on the right bank, which
       extended along the Rhine from Philippsburg as far as
       Stolhofen, then, in a square, from Stolhofen to the Black
       Mountains by Bühl. May 22, the lines were attacked
       simultaneously at four points. ... The success was complete;
       the enemy fled into the mountains, abandoning artillery,
       baggage, and munitions, and did not stop till beyond the
       Neckar. The lines were razed; Swabia and a part of Franconia
       were put under contribution. Villars marched on Stuttgart,
       crossed the Neckar, and subjected the whole country to ransom
       as far as the Danube. The enemies in vain rallied and
       reinforced themselves with tardy contingents of the Empire;
       they could not prevent Villars from laying under contribution
       the Lower Neckar, then the country between the Danube and Lake
       Constance, and from maintaining himself beyond the Rhine till
       he went into winter-quarters. French parties scoured the
       country as conquerors as far as the fatal field of Hochstadt."
       At the beginning of the campaign of 1708, it was the plan of
       the allies to make their chief attack on France "by the way of
       the Rhine and the Moselle, with two armies of 60,000 men each,
       under the command of the Elector of Hanover and Eugene, whilst
       Marlborough occupied the great French army in Flanders." But
       this plan was changed. "Eugene left the Elector of Hanover in
       the north of Swabia, behind the lines of Etlingen, which the
       allies had raised during the winter to replace the lines of
       Bühl at Stolhofen, and, with 24,000 soldiers collected on the
       Moselle, he marched by the way of Coblentz towards Belgium
       (June 30). The French forces of the Rhine and the Moselle
       followed this movement." The campaign then ensuing in the
       Netherlands was that which was signalized by Marlborough and
       Eugene's victory at Oudenarde and the siege of Lille. In 1709,
       "the attention of Europe, as in 1708, was chiefly directed to
       Flanders; but it was not only on that side that France was
       menaced. France was to be encroached upon at once on the north
       and the east. Whilst the great allied army penetrated into
       Artois, the army of the Rhine and the army of the Alps were to
       penetrate, the latter into Bresse by the way of Savoy, the
       former into Franche-Comté by the way of Alsace, and to combine
       their operations. ... The Germans had not taken the offensive
       in Alsace till in the month of August. Marshal Harcourt, with
       over 20,000 men, had covered himself with the lines of the
       Lauter: the Elector of Hanover, who had crossed the Rhine at
       Philippsburg with superior forces, did not attack Harcourt,
       and strove to amuse him whilst 8,000 or 9,000 Germans, left in
       Swabia with General Merci, moved rapidly on Neuberg ... and
       established there a tête-du-pont in order to enter Upper
       Alsace." By swiftly sending a sufficient force to attack and
       defeat Merci at Neuberg, August 26, Harcourt completely
       frustrated these plans. "The Elector of Hanover recrossed the
       river and retired behind the lines of Etlingen." During the
       two following years the French and German forces on the side
       of the Rhine did little more than observe one another.

          H. Martin,
          History of France: Age of Louis XIV:,
          volume 2, chapters 5-6.

       Meantime, Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet had been fought
       in the Netherlands; Prince Eugene had won his victory at
       Turin, and the contest had been practically decided in Spain,
       at Almanza.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707,
          1708-1709, 1710-1712;
          ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
          SPAIN: A. D. 1706, 1707,  and 1707-1710;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapters 75-79 (volume 3).

          F. P. Guizot,
          Popular History of France,
          chapter 45 (volume 5).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1711.
       Election of the Emperor Charles VI.

    {1494}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1711.
       The War of the Spanish Succession:
       Change in the circumstances of the war.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1713-1719.
       The Emperor's continued differences with the King of Spain.
       The Triple Alliance.
       The Quadruple Alliance.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1714.
       Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession:
       The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1732-1733.
       Interference in the election of the King of Poland.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1733-1735.
       The War of the Polish Succession.
       Cession of Lorraine to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1740.
       The question of the Austrian Succession.
       The Pragmatic Sanction.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1740-1756.
       Early years of the reign of Frederick the Great in Prussia.
       The War of the Austrian Succession.

       When Frederick II., known as Frederick the Great, succeeded
       his father, in 1740, "nobody had the least suspicion that a
       tyrant of extraordinary military and political talents, of
       industry more extraordinary still, without fear, without
       faith, and without mercy, had ascended the throne."

          Lord Macaulay,
          Frederic the Great (Essays).

       The reign of Frederick II. "was expected to be an effeminate
       one; but when at the age of twenty-nine he became king, he
       forgot his pleasures, thought of nothing but glory, and no
       longer employed himself but in attention to his finances, his
       army, his policy, and his laws. His provinces were scattered,
       his resources weak, his power precarious; his army of seventy
       thousand soldiers was more remarkable for handsomeness of the
       men, and the elegance of their appearance, than for their
       discipline. He augmented it, instructed it, exercised it, and
       fortune began to open the field of glory to him at the moment
       he was fully prepared to enjoy her favours. Charles XII. was
       dead, and his station filled by a king without authority.
       Russia, deprived of Peter the Great, who had only rough-hewn
       her civilization, languished under the feeble government of
       the Empress Anne, and of a cruel and ignorant minister.
       Augustus III. King of Poland and Elector of Saxony, a Prince
       devoid of character, could not inspire him with any dread.
       Louis XV., a weak and peaceable king, was governed by Cardinal
       Fleuri, who loved peace, but always by his weakness suffered
       himself to be drawn into war. He presented to Frederic rather
       a support than an obstacle. The court of France had espoused
       the cause of Charles VII. against Francis I. Maria Theresa,
       wife of Francis, and Queen of Hungary, saw herself threatened
       by England, Holland, and France; and whilst she had but little
       reason to hope the preservation of her hereditary dominions,
       that arrogant princess wished to place her husband on the
       Imperial Throne. This quarrel kindled the flames of war in
       Europe; the genius of Frederic saw by a single glance that the
       moment was arrived for elevating Prussia to the second order of
       powers; he made an offer to Maria Theresa to defend her, if
       she would cede Silesia to him, and threatened her with war in
       case of refusal. The Empress, whose firmness nothing could
       shake, impoliticly refused that proposition; war was declared,
       and Frederic entered Silesia at the head of eighty thousand
       men. This first war lasted eighteen months.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 to 1741.

       Frederic, by gaining five battles, shewed that Europe would
       recognize one great man more in her bloody annals. He had
       begun the war from ambition, and contrary to strict justice;
       he concluded it with ability, but by the abandonment of France
       his ally, without giving her information of it, and he thus
       put in practice, when he was seated on the throne, the
       principles of Machiavel, whom he had refuted before he
       ascended it. Men judge according to the event. The hero was
       absolved by victory from the wrongs with which justice
       reproached him; and this brilliant example serves to confirm
       men in that error, too generally and too lightly adopted, that
       ability in politics is incompatible with the strict rule of
       morality. Four years after, in [1744], Frederic again took up
       arms.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744 to 1744-1745.

       He invaded Bohemia, Upper Silesia, and Moravia. Vienna thought
       him at her gates; but the defection of the Bavarians, the
       retreat of the French, and the return of Prince Charles into
       Bohemia, rapidly changed the face of affairs. The position of
       Frederic became as dangerous as it had been menacing; he was
       on the point of being lost, and he saw himself compelled to
       retire with as much precipitation, as he had advanced with
       boldness. The gaining the battle of Hohen-Friedberg saved him.
       That retreat and that victory fixed the seal to his
       reputation. It was after this action that he wrote to Louis
       XV. 'I have just discharged in Silesia the bill of exchange
       which your majesty drew on me at Fontenoy.' A letter so much
       the more modest, as Frederic had conquered, and Louis had only
       been witness to a victory. He displayed the same genius and the
       same activity in the campaign of 1745, and once more abandoned
       France in making his separate peace at Dresden. By this treaty
       Francis was peaceably assured of the empire, and the cession
       of Silesia was confirmed to Frederic. France during this war
       committed some wrongs, which might palliate the abandonment of
       Prussia. The French did not keep Prince Charles within bounds,
       they made no diversion into Germany, and fought no where but
       in Flanders. ... In 1756, Europe was again in a flame. France
       and England declared war against each other, and both sought
       alliances; Frederic ranged himself on the side of England, and
       by that became the object of the unreflecting vengeance of the
       French, and of the alliance of that power with Austria;
       Austria also formed an alliance with the Court of Petersburg
       by means of a Saxon secretary; Frederic discovered the project
       of the Courts of Petersburg, Dresden, and Vienna, to invade
       the Prussian dominions. He was before-hand with them, and
       began the war by some conquests."

          L. P. Ségur, the elder,
          History of the Principal Events of the Reign of Frederic
          William II., King of Prussia,
          volume 1, pages 2-6.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1742.
       The Elector of Bavaria crowned Emperor (Charles VII.).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (OCTOBER).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1745.
       The consort of Maria Theresa elected Emperor (Francis I.).
       Rise of the imperial house of Hapsburg-Lorraine.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D.1745 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER);
          also, 1744-1745.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1748.
       End and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

          See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE. THE CONGRESS.

    {1495}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.
       The Seven Years War:
       Its causes and provocations.

       "The great national quarrel between England and the powers
       which restrained her free movements on the sea and her
       extension of colonies, had never ceased. England would have
       the freedom of the sea: and on land she pushed population and
       ploughs where France paraded soldiers. In such a struggle war
       must come, but, by laws invariable as the laws of nature, the
       population will win in the end. After much bickering, blows
       began in 1754, and at the beginning of 1755 England despatched
       the ill-fated Braddock with a small force, which was destroyed
       in July. ... As yet, however, the quarrel was only colonial.
       England embittered it by seizing French ships without any
       declaration of war. But why did Frederick [of Prussia] strike
       in, if indeed he desired peace? In truth there was no choice
       for him. As early as 1752-53 his secret agents had discovered
       that Austria, Russia and Saxony were hatching a plot for the
       destruction of Prussia, and such a partition as afterwards
       befell unhappy Poland. In 1753 a Saxon official, Mentzel by
       name, began to supply the Prussian agents with copies of
       secret documents from the archives at Dresden, which proved
       that, during the whole of the peace, negotiations had been
       proceeding for a simultaneous attack on Frederick, though the
       astute Brühl [Saxon minister], mindful of former defeats,
       objected to playing the part of jackal to the neighbouring
       lions. In short, by the end of 1755 the king knew that
       preparations were already on foot in Austria and Russia, and
       that he would probably be attacked next year certainly, or, at
       latest, the year after. A great war was coming between England
       and France, in which the continental power would attack
       Hanover, and tread closely on the skirts of Prussia. The
       situation was dangerous, and became terribly menacing when
       England bargained with Russia to subsidise a Muscovite army of
       55,000 men for defence of Hanover. Russia consented with
       alacrity. Money was all that the czarina needed for her
       preparations against Frederick, and in the autumn of 1755 she
       assembled, not 55,000, but 70,000 men on the Prussian
       frontier, nominally for the use of England. But throughout the
       winter all the talk at St. Petersburg was of Frederick's
       destruction in the coming spring. It was time for him to stir.
       His first move was one of policy. He offered England a
       'neutrality convention' by which the two powers jointly should
       guarantee the German Reich against all foreign intervention
       during the coming war. On the 16th of January, 1756, the
       convention was signed in London, and the Russian agreement
       thrown over, as it could well be, since it had not been
       ratified. Europe was now ranking herself for the struggle. In
       preceding years, the Austrian diplomatist, Kaunitz, had so
       managed the French court, especially through the medium of
       Madame de Pompadour, that Louis XV. was now on the side of
       Maria Theresa, who had bowed her neck so far as to write to
       the French king's mistress as 'Ma Cousine,' while Frederick
       forgot policy, and spoke of the Pompadour in slighting terms.
       'Je ne la connais pas,' said he once, and was never forgiven.
       ... The agreement with Russia to partition Prussia had already
       been made, and Frederick's sharp tongue had betrayed him into
       calling the czarina that 'Infame catin du nord.' Saxony waited
       for the appearance of her stronger neighbours in order to join
       them. England alone was Frederick's ally."

          Colonel C. B. Brackenbury,
          Frederick the Great,
          chapter 9.

       "The secret sources of the Third Silesian War, since called
       'Seven-Years War,' go back to 1745; nay, we may say, to the
       First Invasion of Silesia in 1740. For it was in Maria
       Theresa's incurable sorrow at loss of Silesia, and her
       inextinguishable hope to reconquer it, that this and all
       Friedrich's other Wars had their origin. ... Traitor Menzel
       the Saxon Kanzellist ... has been busy for Prussia ever since
       'the end of 1752.' Got admittance to the Presses; sent his
       first Excerpt 'about the time of Easter-Fair 1753,'--time of
       Voltaire's taking wing. And has been at work ever since.
       Copying Despatches from the most secret Saxon Repositories;
       ready always on Excellency Maltzahn's indicating the Piece
       wanted [Maltzahn being the Prussian Minister at Dresden]. ...
       Menzel ... lasted in free activity till 1757; and was then put
       under lock and key. Was not hanged: sat prisoner for
       twenty-seven years after; over-grown with hair, legs and arms
       chained together, heavy iron-bar uniting both ankles; diet
       bread-and-water;--for the rest, healthy; and died, not very
       miserable it is said, in 1784."

          T. Carlyle,
          History of Friedrich II. of Prussia,
          book 17, chapter 1 (volume 7).

          ALSO IN:
          Duc de Broglie,
          The King's Secret,
          chapters 1-2 (volume 1).

          Frederick II.,
          History of the Seven Years War
          (Posthumous Works, volume 2), chapter 3.

          H. Tuttle,
          History of Prussia, 1745-1756
          (volume 3), chapters 6-9.

          F. Von Raumer,
          Contributions to Modern History:
          Frederick II. and his Times, chapters 24-28.

          See, also,
          ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755;
          and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1755-1763.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1756.
       The Seven Years War:
       Frederick strikes the first blow.
       Saxony subdued.

       "Finding that the storm was wholly inevitable, and must burst
       on him next year, he [Frederick], with bold sagacity,
       determined to forestall it. First, then, in August, 1756, his
       ambassador at Vienna had orders to demand of the Empress Queen
       a statement of her intentions, to announce war as the
       alternative, and to declare that he would accept no answer 'in
       the style of an oracle.' The answer, as he expected, was
       evasive. Without further delay an army of 60,000 Prussians,
       headed by Frederick in person, poured into Saxony. The Queen
       of Poland was taken in Dresden: the King of Poland [Augustus
       III. Elector of Saxony, and, by election, King of Poland] and
       his troops were blockaded in Pirna. Thus did Frederick
       commence that mighty struggle which is known to Germans by the
       name of the Seven Years' War. The first object of the Prussian
       monarch at Dresden was to obtain possession of the original
       documents of the coalition against him, whose existence he
       knew by means of the traitor Menzel. The Queen of Poland, no
       less aware than Frederick of the importance of these papers,
       had carried them to her own bed-chamber. She sat down on the
       trunk which contained the most material ones, and declared to
       the Prussian officer sent to seize them that nothing but force
       should move her from the spot. [The official account of this
       occurrence which Carlyle produces represents the Queen as
       'standing before the door' of the 'archive apartment' in which
       the compromising documents were locked up, she having
       previously sealed the door.] This officer was of Scottish
       blood, General Keith, the Earl Marischal's brother.
    {1496}
       'All Europe,' said the Queen, 'would exclaim against this
       outrage; and then, sir, you will be the victim; depend upon
       it, your King is a man to sacrifice you to his own honour!'
       Keith, who knew Frederick's character, was startled, and sent
       for further orders; but on receiving a reiteration of the
       first he did his duty. The papers were then made public,
       appended to a manifesto in vindication of Frederick's conduct;
       and they convinced the world that, although the apparent
       aggressor in his invasion of Saxony, he had only acted on the
       principles of self-defence. Meanwhile, the Prussian army
       closely blockaded the Saxon in Pirna, but the Austrian, under
       Marshal Brown, an officer of British extraction, was advancing
       to its relief through the mountain passes of Bohemia.
       Frederick left a sufficient force to maintain the blockade,
       marched against Brown with the remainder, and gave him battle
       at Lowositz [or Lobositz] on the 1st of October. It proved a
       hard-fought day; the King no longer found, as he says in one
       of his letters, the old Austrians he remembered; and his loss
       in killed and wounded was greater than theirs [3,308 against
       2,984]; but victory declared on his side. Then retracing his
       steps towards Pirna he compelled, by the pressure of famine,
       the whole Saxon army, 17,000 strong, to an unconditional
       surrender. The officers were sent home on parole, but the
       soldiers were induced, partly by force and partly by
       persuasion, to enlist in the Prussian ranks, and swear
       fidelity to Frederick. Their former sovereign, King Augustus,
       remained securely perched on his castle-rock of Königstein,
       but, becoming weary of confinement, solicited, and was most
       readily granted, passports to Warsaw. During the whole winter
       Frederick fixed his head-quarters at Dresden, treating Saxony
       in all respects as a conquered province, or as one of his own.
       Troops and taxes were levied throughout that rich and populous
       land with unsparing rigour, and were directed against the very
       cause which the sovereign of that land had embraced."

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 33 (volume  4).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carlyle,
          History of Friedrich II.,
          book 17, chapters 4-8 (volume 7).

          Lord Dover,
          Life of Frederick IL,
          volume 2, chapter 1.

    GERMANY: A.-D. 1756-1757.
       The Seven Years War:
       Frederick under the Ban of the Empire.
       The coalition against Frederick.

       "All through the winter Austria strained every nerve to
       consolidate her alliances, and she did not scruple to use her
       position at the head of the Empire, in order to drag that body
       into the quarrel that had arisen between two of its members.
       On his own responsibility, without consulting the electors,
       princes, and cities, the Emperor passed sentence on Frederick,
       and condemned him, unheard, as a disturber of the peace. Many
       of the great cities altogether refused to publish the
       Emperor's decree, and even among the states generally
       subservient to Austria there were some that were alarmed at so
       flagrant a disregard of law and precedent. It may have seemed
       a sign of what was to be expected should Prussia be
       annihilated, and no state remain in Germany that dared to lift
       up its voice against Austria. Nevertheless, in spite of this
       feeling, and in spite of the opposition of nearly all the
       Protestant states, Austria succeeded in inducing the Empire to
       espouse her cause. In all three colleges of electors, princes,
       and cities she obtained a majority, and at a diet held on
       January 17, 1757, it was resolved that an army of the Empire
       should be set on foot for the purpose of making war on
       Prussia. Some months later Frederick was put to the ban of the
       Empire. But the use of this antiquated weapon served rather to
       throw ridicule on those who employed it than to injure him
       against whom it was launched. ... It has been calculated that
       the population of the States arrayed against Frederick the
       Great amounted to 90,000,000, and that they put 430,000 men
       into the field in the year 1757. The population of Prussia was
       4,500,000, her army 200,000 strong; but, after deducting the
       garrisons of the fortresses, there remained little over
       150,000 men available for service in the field. The odds
       against Frederick were great, but they were not absolutely
       overwhelming. His territories were scattered and difficult of
       defence, the extremities hardly defensible at all; but he
       occupied a central position from which he might, by rapidity
       of movement, be able to take his assailants in detail, unless
       their plans were distinguished by a harmony unusual in the
       efforts of a coalition."

          F. W. Longman,
          Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War,
          chapter 8, section 3.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1756-1758.
       War of Prussia with Sweden in Pomerania.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (April-June).
       The Seven Years War:
       Frederick's, invasion of Bohemia.
       Victory at Prague and defeat at Kolin.

       "At the commencement of 1757, the grand confederacy against
       the king of Prussia was consolidated by the efforts and
       intrigues of the court of Vienna. The French had drawn
       together 80,000 men on the Rhine, under the command of marshal
       d' Etrées; the army of execution was assembling in the empire;
       the Swedes were preparing to penetrate into Pomerania, and
       60,000 Russians were stationed on the frontiers of Livonia,
       waiting the season of action to burst into the kingdom of
       Prussia. With this favourable aspect of affairs, the empress
       prepared for the campaign by augmenting her forces in Hungary
       and Bohemia to 150,000 men; the main army, stationed in the
       vicinity of Prague, was commanded by Prince Charles, who was
       assisted by the skill of marshal Brown, and the other corps
       intrusted to count Daun. Frederic possessed too much foresight
       and vigilance to remain inactive while his enemies were
       collecting their forces; he therefore resolved to carry the
       war into the heart of the Austrian territories, and by a
       decisive stroke to shake the basis of the confederacy. He
       covered this plan with consummate address; he affected great
       trepidation and uncertainty, and, to deceive the Austrians
       into a belief that he only intended to maintain himself in
       Saxony, put Dresden in a state of defence, broke down the
       bridges, and marked out various camps in the vicinity. In the
       midst of this apparent alarm three Prussian columns burst into
       Bohemia, in April, and rapidly advanced towards Prague. ...
       The Austrians, pressed on all sides, retreated with
       precipitation under the walls of Prague, on the southern side
       of the Moldau, while the Prussians advancing towards the
       capital formed two bodies; one under Schwerin remaining at
       Jung Bunzlau, and the other, headed by the king, occupying the
       heights between the Moldau and the Weisseberg.
    {1497}
       Expecting to be joined by marshal Daun, who was hastening from
       Moravia, the Austrians remained on the defensive; but prince
       Charles took so strong a position as seemed to defy all
       apprehensions of an attack. ... These obstacles, however, were
       insufficient to arrest the daring spirit of Frederic, who
       resolved to attack the Austrians before the arrival of Daun.
       Leaving a corps under prince Maurice above Prague, he crossed
       the Moldau near Rostock and Podabe on the 5th of May, with
       16,000 men, and on the following morning at break of day was
       joined by the corps under marshal Schwerin. ... Victory
       declared on the side of the Prussians, but was purchased by
       the loss of their best troops, not less than 18,000, even by
       the avowal of the king, being killed, with many of his bravest
       officers, and Schwerin, the father of the Prussian discipline,
       and the guide of Frederic in the career of victory. Of the
       Austrians 8,000 were killed and wounded, 9,000 made prisoners,
       and 28,000 shut up within the walls of Prague. ... A column of
       16,000 Austrians made good their retreat along the Moldau to
       join the army of marshal Daun. Prague was instantly blockaded
       by the victorious army, and not less than 100,000 souls were
       confined within the walls, almost without the means of
       subsistence. They were soon reduced to the greatest
       extremities. ... In this disastrous moment the house of
       Austria was preserved from impending destruction by the skill
       and caution of a general, who now, for the first time,
       appeared at the head of an army. This general was Leopold
       count Daun, a native of Bohemia. ... Daun had marched through
       Moravia towards Prague, to effect a junction with prince
       Charles. On arriving at Boehmischgrod, within a few miles of
       Prague, he was apprised of the recent defeat, and halted a few
       days to collect the fugitives, till his corps swelled so
       considerably that Frederic detached against him the prince of
       Bevern with 20,000 men." Daun declined battle and retreated,
       until he had collected an army of 60,000 men and restored
       their courage. He then advanced, forcing back the prince of
       Bevern, and when Frederick, joining the latter with
       reinforcements, attacked him at Kolin, on the 18th of June, he
       inflicted on the Prussian king a disastrous defeat--the first
       which Frederick had known. The Prussian troops, "for the first
       time defeated, gave way to despondency, and in their retreat
       exclaimed, 'This is our Pultawa.' Daun purchased the victory
       with the loss of 9,000 men; but on the side of the Prussians
       not less than 14,000 were killed, wounded, and taken
       prisoners, and 43 pieces of artillery, with 22 standards, fell
       into the hands of the Austrians. Maria Theresa ... conveyed in
       person the news of this important victory to the countess
       Daun, and instituted the military order of merit, or the Order
       of Maria Theresa, with which she decorated the commander and
       officers who had most signalised themselves, and dated its
       commencement from the æra of that glorious victory. To give
       repose to the troops, and to replace the magazines which had
       been destroyed by the Prussians, Daun remained several days on
       the field of battle; and as he advanced to Prague found that
       the Prussians had raised the siege on the 20th of June, and
       were retreating with precipitation towards Saxony and
       Lusatia."

          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 112 (volume 3).

          ALSO IN:
          Colonel C. B. Brackenbury,
          Frederick the Great,
          chapters 11-12.

          F. Kugler,
          Pict. History of Germany during the
          Reign of Frederick the Great,
          chapter 25.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (July-December).
       The Seven Years War:
       Darkening and brightening of Frederick's career.
       Closter-Seven.
       Rossbach.
       Leuthen.

       The enemies of the King of Prussia "were now closing upon him
       from every side. The provinces beyond the Vistula became the
       prey of Russian hordes, to which only one division of
       Prussians under Marshal Lehwald was opposed. In the result,
       however, their own devastations, and the consequent want of
       supplies, proved a check to their further progress during this
       campaign. In Westphalia above 80,000 effective French soldiers
       were advancing, commanded by the Mareschal d'Estrées, a
       grandson of the famous minister Louvois. The Duke of
       Cumberland, who had undertaken to defend his father's
       electorate against them, was at the head of a motley army of
       scarce 50,000 men. ... His military talents were not such as
       to supply his want of numbers or of combination; he allowed
       the French to pass the deep and rapid Weser unopposed; he gave
       them no disturbance when laying waste great part of the
       Electorate; he only fell back from position to position until
       at length the enemy came up with him at the village of
       Hastenback near Hameln. There, on the 26th of July, an action
       was fought, and the Duke was worsted with the loss of several
       hundred men, The only resource of His Royal Highness was a
       retreat across the wide Lüneberg moors, to cover the town of
       Stade towards the mouth of the Elbe, where the archives and
       other valuable effects from Hanover had been already deposited
       for safety." Intrigue at Versailles having recalled D'Estrées
       and sent the Duke de Richelieu into his place, the latter
       pressed the Duke of Cumberland so closely, hemming him in and
       cutting off his communications, that he was soon glad to make
       terms. On the 8th of September the English Duke signed, at
       Closter-Seven, a convention under which the auxiliary troops
       in his army were sent home, the Hanoverians dispersed, and
       only a garrison left at Stade. "After the battle of Kolin and
       the Convention of Closter-Seven, the position of Frederick,--
       hemmed in on almost every side by victorious enemies,--was not
       only most dangerous but well-nigh desperate. To his own eyes
       it seemed so. He resolved in his thoughts, and discussed with
       his friends, the voluntary death of Otho as a worthy example
       to follow. Fully resolved never to fall alive into the hands
       of his enemies, nor yet to survive any decisive overthrow, he
       carried about his person a sure poison in a small glass phial.
       Yet ... he could still, with indomitable skill and energy, make
       every preparation for encountering the Prince de Soubise. He
       marched against the French commander at the head of only
       22,000 men; but these were veterans, trained in the strictest
       discipline, and full of confidence in their chief. Soubise, on
       the other hand, owed his appointment in part to his
       illustrious lineage, as head of the House of Rohan, and still
       more to Court-favour, as the minion of Madame de Pompadour,
       but in no degree to his own experience or abilities. He had
       under his orders nearly 40,000 of his countrymen, and nearly
       20,000 troops of the Empire; for the Germanic diet also had
       been induced to join the league against Frederick. On the 5th
       of November the two armies came to a battle at Rosbach [or
       Rossbach], close to the plain of Lützen, where in the
       preceding century Gustavus Adolphus conquered and fell.
    {1498}
       By the skilful manœvres of Frederick the French were brought
       to believe that the Prussians intended nothing but retreat,
       and they advanced in high spirits as if only to pursue the
       fugitives. Of a sudden they found themselves attacked with all
       the compactness of discipline, and all the courage of despair.
       The troops of the Empire, a motley crew, fled at the first
       fire. ... So rapid was the victory that the right wing of the
       Prussians, under Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, was never
       engaged at all. Great numbers of the French were cut down in
       their flight by the Prussian cavalry, not a few perished in
       the waters of the Saale, and full 7,000 were made prisoners,
       with a large amount of baggage, artillery and standards. ...
       The battle of Rosbach was not more remarkable for its military
       results than for its moral influence. It was hailed throughout
       Germany as a triumph of the Teutonic over the Gallic race. ...
       So precarious was now Frederick's position that the battle of
       Rosbach, as he said himself, gained him nothing but leisure to
       fight another battle elsewhere. During his absence on the
       Saale, the Austrian armies had poured over the mountains into
       Silesia; they had defeated the Prussians under the Duke of
       Bevern; they had taken the main fortress, Schweidnitz, and the
       capital, Breslau; nearly the whole province was already
       theirs. A flying detachment of 4,000 cavalry, under General
       Haddick, had even pushed into Brandenburg, and levied a
       contribution from the city of Berlin [entering one of the
       suburbs of the Prussian capital and holding it for twelve
       hours]. The advancing season seemed to require winter
       quarters, but Frederick never dreamed of rest until Silesia
       was recovered. He hastened by forced marches from the Saale to
       the Oder, gathering reinforcements while he went along. As he
       drew near Breslau, the Imperial commander, Prince Charles of
       Lorraine, flushed with recent victory and confident in
       superior numbers, disregarded the prudent advice of Marshal
       Daun, and descended from an almost inaccessible position to
       give the King of Prussia battle on the open plain. ... On the
       5th of December, one month from the battle of Rosbach, the two
       armies met at Leuthen, a small village near Breslau, Frederick
       with 40,000, Prince Charles of Lorraine with between 60,000
       and 70,000 men. For several hours did the conflict rage
       doubtfully and fiercely. It was decided mainly by the skill
       and the spirit of the Prussian monarch. 'The battle of
       Leuthen,' says Napoleon, 'was a master-piece. Did it even
       stand alone it would of itself entitle Frederick to immortal
       fame.' In killed, wounded and taken, the Austrians lost no
       less than 27,000 men; above 50 standards, above 100 cannon,
       above 4,000 waggons, became the spoil of the victors; Breslau
       was taken, Schweidnitz blockaded, Silesia recovered; the
       remnant of the Imperial forces fled back across the mountains;
       and Frederick, after one of the longest and most glorious
       campaigns that History records, at length allowed himself and
       his soldiers some repose."

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 34 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carlyle,
          History of Friedrich II.,
          book 18, chapters 5-10.

          Lord Dover,
          Life of Frederick II.,
          volume 2, chapters 3-4.

          Sir E. Cust,
          Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
          volume 2, pages 217-240.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1758.
       The Seven Years War:
       Campaign in Hanover.
       Siege of Olmütz.
       Russian defeat at Zorndorf.
       Prussian defeat at Hochkirch.

       "Before the end of 1757, England began to take a more active
       part on the Continent. Lord Chatham brought about the
       rejection of the Convention of Closter-Zeven by Parliament,
       and the recall of Cumberland by the king. The efficient Prince
       Ferdinand of Brunswick was proposed by Frederick and made
       commander of the English and Hanoverian forces. He opened the
       campaign of 1758 in the winter. The French, under Clermont,
       being without discipline or control, he drove them in headlong
       flight out of their winter-quarters in Hanover and Westphalia,
       to the Rhine and across it; and on June 23 defeated them at
       the battle of Crefeld. A French army under Soubise afterward
       crossed the Rhine higher up, and Ferdinand, retreated, but
       succeeded in protecting the west as far as the Weser against
       General Contades. Frederick first retook Schweidnitz, April
       16. He then, in order to prevent the junction of the Russians
       and Austrians, ventured to attack Austria, and invaded
       Moravia. His brother, Prince Henry, had but a small force in
       Saxony, and Frederick thought that he could best cover that
       country by an attack on Austria. But the siege of Olmütz
       detained him from May until July, and his prospects grew more
       doubtful. The Austrians captured a convoy of 300 wagons of
       military stores, which Ziethen was to have escorted to him.
       [Instead of 800, the convoy comprised 3,000 to 4,000 wagons,
       of which only 200 reached the Prussian camp, and its
       destruction by General Loudon completely frustrated
       Frederick's plan of campaign.] Frederick raised the siege,
       and, by an admirable retreat, brought his army through Bohemia
       by way of Königgrätz to Landshut. Here he received bad news.
       The Russians, under Fermor, were again in Prussia, occupying
       the eastern province, but treating it mildly as a conquered
       country, where the empress already received the homage of the
       people. They then advanced, with frightful ravages, through
       Pomerania and Neumark to the Oder, and were now near Küstrin,
       which they laid in ashes. Frederick made haste to meet them.
       He was so indignant at the desolation of the country and the
       suffering of his people that he forbade quarter to be given.
       The report of this fact also embittered the Russians. At
       Zorndorf, Frederick met the enemy, 50,000 strong, August 25,
       1758. They were drawn up in a great square or phalanx, in the
       ancient, half-barbarous manner. A frightfully bloody fight
       followed, since the Russians would not yield, and were cut
       down in heaps. Seidlitz, the victor of Rossbach, by a timely
       charge of his cavalry, captured the Russian artillery, and
       crushed their right wing. On the second day the Russians were
       driven back, but not without inflicting heavy loss on the
       Prussians, who, though they suffered much less than their
       enemies, left more than one third of their force on the field.
       The Russians were compelled to withdraw from Prussia.
       Frederick then hastened to Saxony, where his brother Henry was
       sorely pressed by Daun and the imperial army. He could not
       even wait to relieve Silesia, where Neisse, his principal
       fortress, was threatened. Daun, hearing of his approach, took
       up a position in his way, between Bautzen and Görlitz. But
       Frederick, whose contempt for this prudent and slow general
       was excessive, occupied a camp in a weak and exposed position,
       at Hochkirch, under Daun's very eyes, against the protest of
       his own generals.
    {1499}
       He remained there three days unmolested; but on October 14,
       the day fixed for advancing, the Austrians attacked him with
       twice his numbers. A desperate fight took place in the burning
       village; the Prussians were driven out, and lost many guns.
       Frederick himself was in imminent danger, and his friends
       Keith and Duke Francis of Brunswick fell at his side. Yet the
       army did not lose its spirit or its discipline. Within eleven
       days Frederick, who had been joined by his brother Henry, was
       in Silesia, and relieved Neisse and Kosel. Thus the campaign
       of 1758 ended favorably to Frederick. The pope sent Daun a
       consecrated hat and sword, as a testimonial for his victory at
       Hochkirch."

          C. T. Lewis,
          History of Germany,
          book 5, chapter 23, sections 7-9.

          ALSO IN:
          G. B. Malleson,
          Military Life of Loudon,
          chapters 7-8.

          F. Kugler,
          Pict. History of Germany during the
          Reign of Frederick the Great,
          chapters 29-31.

          Frederick II.,
          History of the Seven Years War
          (Posthumous Works, volume 2),  chapter 8.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (April-August).
       The Seven Years War:
       Prince Ferdinand's Hanoverian campaign.
       Defeat at Bergen and victory at Minden.

       In the Hanoverian field of war, where Prince Ferdinand of
       Brunswick held command, the campaign of 1759 was important,
       and prosperous in the end for the allies of Prussia. "Besides
       the Hanoverians and Hessians in British pay, he [Prince
       Ferdinand] had under his direction 10,000 or 12,000 British
       soldiers, amongst whom, since the death of the Duke of
       Marlborough, Lord George Sackville was the senior officer. The
       French, on their part, were making great exertions, under the
       new administration of the Duke de Choiseul; large
       reinforcements were sent into Germany, and early in the year
       they surprised by stratagem the free city of Frankfort and
       made it the place of arms for their southern army. No object
       could be of greater moment to Ferdinand than to dislodge them
       from this important post." Marching quickly, with 30,000 of
       his army, he attacked the French, under the Duke de Broglie,
       at Bergen, on the Nidda, in front of Frankfort, April 13, and
       was repulsed, after heavy fighting, with a loss of 2,000 men.
       "This reverse would, it was supposed, reduce Prince Ferdinand
       to the defensive during the remainder of the campaign. Both De
       Broglie and Contades eagerly pushed forward, their opponents
       giving way before them. Combining their forces, they reduced
       Cassel, Munster, and Minden, and they felt assured that the
       whole Electorate must soon again be theirs. Already had the
       archives and the most valuable property been sent off from
       Hanover to Stade. Already did a new Hastenbeck--a new
       Closter-Seven--rise in view. But it was under such
       difficulties that the genius of Ferdinand shone forth. With a
       far inferior army (for thus much is acknowledged, although I
       do not find the French numbers clearly or precisely stated),
       he still maintained his ground on the left of the Weser, and
       supplied every defect by his superiority of tactics. He left a
       detachment of 5,000 men exposed, and seemingly unguarded, as a
       bait to lure De Contades from his strong position at Minden.
       The French Mareschal was deceived by the feint, and directed
       the Duke De Broglie to march forward and profit by the
       blunder, as he deemed it to be. On the 1st of August,
       accordingly, De Broglie advanced into the plain, his force
       divided in eight columns." Instead of the small corps
       expected, he found the whole army of the allies in front of
       him. De Contades hurried to his assistance, and the French,
       forced to accept battle in an unfavorable position, were
       overcome. At the decisive moment of their retreat, "the Prince
       sent his orders to Lord George Sackville, who commanded the
       whole English and some German cavalry on the right wing of the
       Allies, and who had hitherto been kept back as a reserve. The
       orders were to charge and overwhelm the French in their
       retreat, before they could reach any clear ground to rally.
       Had these orders been duly fulfilled, it is acknowledged by
       French writers that their army must have been utterly
       destroyed; but Lord George either could not or would not
       understand what was enjoined on him. ... Under such
       circumstances the victory of Minden would not have been signal
       or complete but for a previous and most high-spirited
       precaution of Prince Ferdinand. He had sent round to the rear
       of the French a body of 10,000 men, under his nephew--and also
       the King of Prussia's--the Hereditary Prince of Brunswick.
       ... Thus Ferdinand became master of the passes, and the French
       were constrained to continue their retreat in disorder. Upon the
       whole, their loss was 8,000 men killed, wounded, or taken, 30
       pieces of artillery, and 17 standards. ... Great was the
       rejoicing in England at the victory of Minden"; but loud the
       outcry against Lord George Sackville, who was recalled and
       dismissed from all his employments.

          Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
          History of England, 1713-1783,
          chapter 36 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir E. Cust,
          Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
          volume 2, pages 327-333.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (July-November).
       The Seven Years War:
       Disasters of Frederick.
       Kunersdorf.
       Dresden.
       Maxen.

       "Three years of the war were gone and the ardour of
       Frederick's' enemies showed no signs of abating. The war was
       unpopular in the Russian army, but the Czarina thought no
       sacrifice too great for the gratification of her hatred.
       France was sick of it too, and tottering on the verge of
       national bankruptcy, but Louis was kept true to his
       engagements by domestic influences and by the unbending
       determination of Maria Theresa never to lay down arms until
       Prussia was thoroughly humbled. ... Already Frederick was at
       his wits' end for men and money. Of the splendid infantry
       which had stormed the heights at Prague, and stemmed the rout
       of Kollin, very little now remained. ... Moreover, Austria,
       relying on her vastly larger population, had ceased to
       exchange prisoners, and after the end of 1759 Russia followed
       her example. ... Frederick's pecuniary difficulties were even
       greater still. But for the English subsidy he could hardly
       have subsisted at all. ... The summer was half gone before
       there was any serious fighting. Frederick had got together
       125,000 men of some sort, besides garrison troops, but he no
       longer felt strong enough to take the initiative, and the
       Austrians were equally indisposed to attack without the
       co-operation of their allies. Towards the middle of July the
       Russians, under Count Soltikoff, issued from Posen, advanced
       to the Oder', and, after defeating a weak Prussian corps near
       Kay, took possession of Frankfort.
    {1500}
       It now became necessary for the king to march in person
       against them, the more especially as Laudon [or Loudon] with
       18,000 Austrians was on his way to join Soltikoff. Before he
       could reach Frankfort, Laudon, eluding with much dexterity the
       vigilance of his enemies, effected his junction, and
       Frederick, with 48,000 men, found himself confronted by an
       army 78,000 strong. The Russians were encamped on the heights
       of Kunersdorf, east of Frankfort." Frederick attacked them,
       August 12, with brilliant success at first, routing their left
       wing and taking 70 guns, with several thousand prisoners. "The
       Prussian generals then besought the king to rest content with
       the advantage he had gained. The day was intensely hot; his
       soldiers had been on foot for twelve hours, and were suffering
       severely from thirst and exhaustion; moreover, if the Russians
       were let alone, they would probably go off quietly in the
       night, as they had done after Zorndorf. Unhappily Frederick
       refused to take counsel. He wanted to destroy the Russian
       army, not merely to defeat it; he had seized the Frankfort
       bridge and cut off its retreat." He persisted in his attack
       and was beaten off. "The Prussians were in full retreat when
       Laudon swept down upon them with eighteen fresh squadrons. The
       retreat became a rout more disorderly than in any battle of
       the war except Rossbach. The king, stupefied with his
       disaster, could hardly be induced to quit the field, and was
       heard to mutter, 'Is there then no cursed bullet that can
       reach me?' The defeat was overwhelming. Had it been properly
       followed up, it must have put an end to the war, and
       Kunersdorf would have ranked among the decisive battles of the
       world. Berlin lay open to the enemy; the royal family fled to
       Magdeburg. For the first (and last) time in his life Frederick
       gave way utterly to despair. 'I have no resources left,' he wrote
       to the minister Finckenstein the evening after the battle,
       'and to tell the truth I hold all for lost. I shall not
       survive the ruin of my country. Farewell for ever.' The same
       night he resigned the command of the army to General Finck.
       Eighteen thousand, five hundred of his soldiers were killed,
       wounded, or prisoners, and the rest were so scattered that no
       more than 3,000 remained under his command. All the artillery
       was lost, and most of his best generals were killed or
       wounded. ... By degrees, however, the prospect brightened. The
       fugitives kept coming in, and the enemy neglected to give the
       finishing stroke. Frederick shook off his despair, and resumed
       the command of his army. Artillery was ordered up from Berlin,
       and the troops serving against the Swedes were recalled from
       Pomerania. Within a week of Kunersdorf he was at the head of
       33,000 men, and in a position to send relief to Dresden, which
       was besieged by an Austrian and Imperialist army. The relief,
       as it happened, arrived just too late." Dresden was
       surrendered by its commandant, Schmettau, on the 4th of
       September, to the great wrath of Frederick. By a wonderful
       march of fifty-eight miles in fifty hours, Prince Henry, the
       brother of Frederick, prevented the Austrians from gaining the
       whole electorate of Saxony. The Russians and the Austrians
       quarrelled, the former complaining that they were left to do
       all the fighting, and presently they withdrew into Poland.
       "With the departure of the Russians, the campaign would
       probably have ended, had not Frederick's desire to close it
       with a victory led him into a fresh disaster, hardly less
       serious and far more disgraceful than that of Kunersdorf. ...
       With the view of hastening the retreat of the Austrians, and
       of driving them, if possible, into the difficult Pirna
       country, he ordered General Finck to take post with his corps
       at Maxen, to bar their direct line of communications with
       Bohemia." As the result, Finck, with his whole corps, of
       12,000, were overwhelmed and taken prisoners. "The
       capitulation of Maxen was no less destructive of Frederick's
       plans than galling to his pride. The Austrians now retained
       Dresden, a place of great strategical importance, though the
       king, in the hope of dislodging them, exposed the wrecks of
       his army to the ruinous hardships of a winter campaign, in
       weather of unusual severity, and borrowed 12,000 men of
       Ferdinand of Brunswick to cover his flank while so engaged.
       The new year had commenced before he allowed his harassed
       troops to go into winter-quarters."

          F. W. Longman,
          Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War,
          chapter 10, section 2.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Carlyle,
          History of Friedrich II.;
          book 19, chapters 4-7.

          Frederick II.,
          History of the Seven Years War
          (Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapter 10.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1760.
       The Seven Years War:
       Saxony reconquered by Frederick.
       Dresden bombarded.
       Battles of Liegnitz, Torgau and Warburg.

       "The campaign of 1759 had extended far into the winter, and
       Frederick conceived the bold idea of renewing it while the
       vigilance of his enemies was relaxed in winter quarters, and
       of making another effort to drive the Austrians from Saxony.
       His head-quarters were at Freyberg. Having received
       reinforcements from Prince Ferdinand, and been joined by
       12,000 men under the hereditary prince, he left the latter to
       keep guard behind the Mulde, and in January 1760, at a time
       when the snow lay deep upon the ground, he made a fierce
       spring upon the Austrians, who were posted at Dippoldiswalde;
       but General Maguire, who commanded there, baffled him by the
       vigilance and skill with which he guarded every pass, and
       compelled him to retrace his steps to Freyberg. When the
       winter had passed and the regular campaign had opened, Laudohn
       [Loudon], one of the most active of the Austrian generals--the
       same who had borne a great part in the victories of
       Hochkirchen and Kunersdorf--entered Silesia, surprised with a
       greatly superior force the Prussian General Fouqué, compelled
       him, with some thousands of soldiers, to surrender [at
       Landshut, June 22], and a few days later reduced the important
       fortress of Glatz [July 26]. Frederick, at the first news of
       the danger of Fouqué, marched rapidly towards Silesia, Daun
       slowly following, while an Austrian corps, under General Lacy,
       impeded his march by incessant skirmishes. On learning the
       surrender of Fouqué, Frederick at once turned and hastened
       towards Dresden. It was July, and the heat was so intense that
       on a single day more than a hundred of his soldiers dropped dead
       upon the march. He hoped to gain some days upon Daun, who was
       still pursuing, and to become master of Dresden before
       succours arrived. As he expected, he soon outstripped the
       Austrian general, and the materials for the siege were
       collected with astonishing rapidity, but General Maguire, who
       commanded at Dresden, defended it with complete success till
       the approach of the Austrian army obliged Frederick to retire.
    {1501}
       Baffled in his design, he took a characteristic vengeance by
       bombarding that beautiful city with red-hot balls,
       slaughtering multitudes of its peaceable inhabitants, and
       reducing whole quarters to ashes; and he then darted again
       upon Silesia, still followed by the Austrian general. Laudohn
       had just met with his first reverse, having failed in the
       siege of Breslau [an attempted surprise and a brief
       bombardment]; on August 15, when Daun was still far off,
       Frederick fell upon him and beat him in the battle of
       Liegnitz. [The statement that 'Daun was still far off' appears
       to be erroneous. Loudon and Daun had formed a junction four
       days before, and had planned a concerted attack on Frederick's
       camp; Loudon was struck and defeated while making the movement
       agreed upon, and Daun was only a few miles away at the time.]
       Soon after, however, this success was counterbalanced by Lacy
       and Totleben, who; at the head of some Austrians and Russians,
       had marched upon Berlin, which, after a brave resistance, was
       once more captured and ruthlessly plundered; but on the
       approach of Frederick the enemy speedily retreated. Frederick
       then turned again towards Saxony, which was again occupied by
       Daun, and on November 3 he attacked his old enemy in his
       strong entrenchments at Torgau. Daun, in addition to the
       advantage of position, had the advantage of great numerical
       superiority, for his army was reckoned at 65,000, while that
       of Frederick was not more than 44,000. But the generalship of
       Frederick gained the victory. General Ziethen succeeded in
       attacking the Austrians in the rear, gaining the height, and
       throwing them into confusion. Daun was wounded and disabled,
       and General O'Donnell, who was next in command, was unable to
       restore the Austrian line. The day was conspicuous for its
       carnage, even among the bloody battles of the Seven Years'
       War: 20,000 Austrians were killed, wounded, or prisoners,
       while 14,000 Prussians were left on the field. The battle
       closed the campaign for the year, leaving all Saxony in the
       possession of the Prussians, with the exception of Dresden,
       which was still held by Maguire. The English and German army,
       under Prince Ferdinand, succeeded in the meantime in keeping
       at bay a very superior French army, under Marshal Broglio; and
       several slight skirmishes took place, with various results.
       The battle of Warburg, which was the most important, was won
       chiefly by the British cavalry, but Prince Ferdinand failed in
       his attempts to take Wesel and Gottingen; and at the close of
       the year the French took up their quarters at Cassel."

          W. E. H. Lecky,
          History of England, 18th Century,
          chapter 8 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          W. Coxe,
          History of the House of Austria,
          chapter 115 (volume 3).

          G. B. Malleson,
          Military Life of Loudon,
          chapter 10.

          T. Carlyle,
          History of Friedrich II.,
          book 20, chapters 1-6.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.
       The Seven Years War:
       The closing campaigns.

       "All Frederick's exertions produced him only 96,000 men for
       defence of Silesia and Saxony this year [1761]. Prince Henry
       had to face Daun in Saxony; the king himself stood in Silesia
       against Loudon and the Russians under Butterlin. Loudon opened
       the campaign by advancing against Goltz, near Schweidnitz, in
       April. Goltz had only 12,000 to his adversary's 30,000, but
       posted himself so well that Loudon could not attack him.
       Reinforcements came gradually to Loudon, raising his army to
       72,000, but orders from Vienna obliged him to remain inactive
       till he could be joined near Neisse by the Russians with
       60,000. Goltz, manœuvring against the Russians, was taken
       prisoner. The king himself delayed the junction of his enemies
       for some time, but could not now offer battle. The junction
       took place the 18th of August. He then struck at Loudon's
       communications, but the thrust was well parried, and on the
       20th of August, Frederick, for the first time, was reduced to
       an attitude of pure defence. He formed an intrenched camp at
       Bunzelwitz, and lay there, blocking the way to Schweidnitz.
       Loudon's intreaties could not persuade the Russians to join
       him in full force to attack the position, and on the 9th of
       September Butterlin's army fell back across the Oder, leaving
       20,000 of his men to act under Loudon. Frederick remained a
       fortnight longer in the camp of Bunzelwitz, but was then
       forced to go, as his army was eating up the magazines of
       Schweidnitz. Again he moved against Loudon's magazines, but
       the Austrian general boldly marched for Schweidnitz, and
       captured the place by assault on the night of the 30th
       September--1st October. No fight took place between London and
       the king. They both went into winter quarters in
       December--Prussians at Strehlen, Austrians at Kunzendorf, and
       Russians about Glatz. ... In the western theatre Ferdinand
       defeated Broglio and Soubise at Vellinghausen [or
       Wellinghausen, or Kirch-Denkern, as the battle, fought July
       15, is differently called], the English contingent again
       behaving gloriously. ... Prince Henry and Daun manœuvred
       skilfully throughout the campaign, but never came to serious
       blows. Frederick is described as being very gloomy in mind
       this winter. The end of the year left him with but 60,000 men
       in Saxony, Silesia, and the north. Eugene of Wurtemburg had
       5,000 to hold back the Swedes, Prince Henry 25,000 in Saxony,
       the king himself 30,000. But the agony of France was
       increasing; Maria Theresa had to discharge 20,000 men from
       want of money, and Frederick's bitter enemy, 'cette infame
       Catin du Nord' [the czarina Elizabeth], was failing fast in
       health. A worse blow to the king than the loss of a battle had
       been the fall of Pitt, in October, and with him all hope of
       English subsidies. Still, the enemies of Prussia were almost
       exhausted. One more year of brave and stubborn resistance, and
       Prussia must be left in peace. By extraordinary exertions, and
       a power of administrative organisation which was one of his
       greatest qualities, Frederick not only kept up his 60, 000,
       but doubled their number. In the spring he had 70,000 for his
       Silesian army, 40,000 for Prince Henry in Saxony, and 10,000
       for the Swedes or other purposes. Best news of all, the
       czarina died on the 5th of January, 1762, and Peter, who
       succeeded her--only for a short time, poor boy--was an ardent
       admirer of the great king. Frederick at once released and sent
       home his Russian prisoners, an act which brought back his
       Prussians from Russia. On the 23rd February Peter declared his
       intention to be at peace and amity with Frederick, concluded
       peace on the 5th of May, and a treaty of alliance a month
       later. The Swedes, following suit, declared peace on the 22nd
       of May, and Frederick could now give his sole attention to the
       Austrians." For a few weeks, only, the Prussian king had a
       Russian contingent of 20,000 in alliance with him, but could
       make no use of it.
    {1502}
       It was recalled in July, by the revolution at St. Petersburg,
       which deposed the young czar, Peter, in favour of his
       ambitious consort, Catherine. Frederick succeeded in
       concealing the fact long enough to frighten Daun by a show of
       preparations for attacking him, with the Russian troops
       included in his army, and the Austrian general retired to
       Glatz and Bohemia. Frederick then took Schweidnitz, and
       marched on Dresden. "Daun followed heavily. Like a
       prize-fighter knocked out of time, he had no more fight in
       him. Prince Henry had two affairs with the Reich's army and
       its Austrian contingent. Forced to retire from Freyburg on the
       15th, he afterwards attacked them on the 29th of October and
       defeated them by a turning movement. They had 40,000, he 30,
       000. The Austrian contingent suffered most. In the western
       theatre Ferdinand held his own and had his usual successes.
       His part in the war was to defend only, and he never failed to
       show high qualities as a general. Thus, nowhere had
       Frederick's enemies succeeded in crushing his defences. For
       seven years the little kingdom of Prussia had held her ground
       against the three great military powers, France, Austria, and
       Russia. All were now equally exhausted. The constancy,
       courage, and ability of Frederick were rewarded at last; on
       the 15th of February, 1763, the treaty of Hubertsburg was
       signed, by which Austria once more agreed to the cession of
       Silesia. Prussia was now a Great Power like the rest, her
       greatness resting on no shams, as she had proved."

          Colonel C. B. Brackenbury,
          Frederick the Great,
          chapter 18.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir E. Cust,
          Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
          volume 3, pages 57-87.

          Frederick II.,
          History of the Seven Years War
          (Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapters 14-16.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1763.
       The end, results and costs of the Seven Years War.
       The Peace of Hubertsburg and Peace of Paris.

          See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1763-1790.
       A period of peace and progress.
       Intellectual cultivation.
       Accession of the Emperor Joseph II.
       His character and his reforms.
       Accession of Leopold II.

       "The peace of nearly thirty years which followed the
       Seven-Years' War in Germany was a time of rich mental activity
       and growth. Court life itself, if its vanities were not
       abolished, still acquired a more enlightened and humane tone.
       The fierce passions of the princes no longer exclusively
       controlled it: there was something of regard for education,
       for art and science, and for the public welfare. This is
       particularly true of courts which were intimately connected
       with Prussia; as that of Brunswick, where Duke Charles,
       Frederick II.'s brother-in-law, though personally an
       extravagant prince, founded an institution of learning which
       brought together many of the best intellects of Germany (1740
       to 1760), or that of Anhalt-Dessau, where the famous
       'Philanthropinum' was established. Several princes imitated
       Frederick's military administration, and that sometimes on a
       scale so small as to be ludicrous. Prince William of
       Lippe-Schaumburg founded in his little territory a fortress
       and a school of war. But this school educated Scharnhorst, and
       the prince himself won fame in distant lands. He invited
       Herder to his little court at Bückeburg. Weimar, too, imitated
       Frederick's example, where the Duchess Amalie, daughter of
       Charles of Brunswick, and her intellectual son, Charles
       Augustus, made their little cities Weimar and Jena places of
       gathering for the greatest men of genius of the time. Among
       the petty Thuringian princes of this period, there were others
       of noble character. In 1764 the Saxon throne was ascended by
       Frederick Augustus, grandson of Augustus III., but, being a
       minor, he could not be elected king of Poland. This put an end
       to the union of the two titles, which had been the cause of
       immeasurable evil to Saxony and to Germany. When the young
       elector attained his majority, the government of Saxony was
       greatly improved, and a period of prosperity followed. Duke
       Charles Eugene of Wirtemberg (1737-1793), during his early
       years, rivaled Louis XV. in extravagance and immorality, but
       in after-days was greatly changed. He founded the Charles
       School, at which Schiller was educated. Baden enjoyed a high
       degree of prosperity under Charles Frederick (1746-1811). Even
       the spiritual lords, on the whole, threw their influence in
       favor of enlightenment and progress. ... The prelates of
       Cologne, Trèves, Mayence, and Salzburg, strange to say, agreed
       at Ems in 1786 to renounce the supremacy of Rome, and to found
       an independent German Catholic Church; but the plan was broken
       down by the resistance of the inferior clergy and of the
       Emperor Joseph II. Some of the German states were slow to take
       part in the general progress. Bavaria was constantly retarded
       by the influence of the Jesuits. ... The Palatinate, too, was
       under luxurious and idle rulers, mostly in the pay of France.
       In some territories the boundless extravagance of the princes
       was a terrible burden upon their subjects. ... Men who
       professed enlightenment and humanity were often shamefully
       tyrannical. The courts of Cassel and Wirtemberg sold their
       people by regiments to England, to fight against the
       independence of the North American Colonies. ...

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

       Austria shared in the general intellectual awakening of
       Germany. Maria Theresa was a firm, strong character, with a
       clear mind and sincere desire for the people's welfare. She
       found Austria in decay, and was able to introduce many
       reforms. She alleviated the condition of the peasants, who
       were still mostly serfs. The nobles had before lived mainly
       for show, but she provided institutions for their education.
       ... It was a condition of the Peace of Hubertsburg that
       Frederick II. should give his electoral vote for the eldest
       son of Francis I. None of the other electors objected to the
       choice, and on March 27, 1764, they performed the ceremony of
       choosing Joseph 'King of the Romans,' but without power to
       interfere with the government during his father's life.
       Francis I. died August 18, 1765, and his son Joseph II.
       (1765-1790) was then crowned emperor in the traditional
       fashion. He was also associated with his mother in the
       government of' Austria; but she retained the royal power
       mainly in her own hands, assigning to her son the executive
       control of military affairs. Joseph II. was an impetuous and
       intellectual character, all aglow with the new ideas of
       enlightenment and progress, and was perhaps more deeply
       impressed by the example of Frederick II. than any other
       prince of the age. ... At the same time, Joseph II. was eager
       to aggrandize Austria, and at least to obtain an equivalent
       for Silesia.
    {1503}
       For a long time Austria had been longing to acquire Bavaria,
       and there now seemed to be some reason to hope for success,
       The ancient line of electors of the house of Wittelsbach died
       out in 1777 with Maximilian Joseph (December 30). The next
       heir was the Elector Palatine, Charles Theodore, also Duke of
       Jülich and Berg, who was not eager to obtain Bavaria, since,
       by the Peace of Westphalia, he must then forfeit the
       electorate of the Palatinate. ... Under these circumstances
       Joseph II. made an unfounded claim to Lower Bavaria, under a
       pretended grant of the Emperor Sigismund in 1426. A secret
       treaty was made by him with Charles Theodore, by which he was
       to pay that prince a large sum of money for Lower Bavaria; and
       soon after Maximilian Joseph's death, Joseph II. occupied the
       land with troops. Frederick II., who was ever jealous of the
       growth of Austria, resolved to prevent this acquisition. ...

          See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

       Thus the war of the Bavarian Succession broke out (1778-79).
       ... By the death of Maria Theresa, November 29, 1780, her son
       Joseph II. became sole monarch of Austria. ... Joseph II. was
       a man of large mind and noble aims. Like Frederick, he was
       unwearying in labor, accessible to everyone, and eager to
       assume his share of work or responsibility. The books and the
       people's memory are full of anecdotes of him, though he was
       far from popular during his life. But he lacked the strong
       practical sense and calculating foresight of the veteran
       Prussian king. In his zeal for reforms he hastened to heap one
       upon another in confusion. Torture was abolished, and for a
       time even the death penalty. Rigid equality before the law was
       introduced, and slavery done away.

          See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

       His reforms in the Church were still more sweeping. He closed
       more than half of the monasteries, and devoted their estates
       to public instruction; he introduced German hymns of praise
       and the German Bible. By his Edict of Toleration, June 22,
       1781, he secured to all Protestants throughout the Austrian
       states their civil rights and freedom of worship, 'in houses
       of prayer without bells or towers.' ... He zealously followed
       up Maria Theresa's policy of consolidating Austria into one
       state; and it was this course which made him enemies. He
       offended the powerful nobility of Hungary by abolishing
       serfdom (November 1, 1781), and the whole people by the
       measures he took to promote the use of the German language. In
       the Netherlands, he alienated from him the powerful clergy by
       his innovations; and they stirred up against him the people,
       already aggrieved by the loss of some of their ancient
       liberties. A revolution broke out among them in 1788, and was
       threatening to extend to Hungary and Bohemia, when the emperor
       suddenly died, still in the full vigor of manhood, at the age
       of forty-nine, February 20, 1790. ... After his death, the
       progress of reform was checked in Austria; but he had awakened
       new and strong forces there, and a complete return to the
       ancient system was impossible. ... Leopold II. (1790-1792),
       who succeeded his brother Joseph II., both in Austria and as
       emperor, was a self-indulgent but prudent ruler."

          C. T. Lewis,
          History of Germany,
          book 5, chapter 24, sections 8-18.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1772-1773.
       The first Partition of Poland.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1787.
       Prussian intervention in Holland.
       Restoration of the expelled stadtholder.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1791.
       The forming of the Coalition against French democracy.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
          and 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.
       The question of war with France, and the question of the
       Partition of Poland.
       Motives and action of Prussia and Austria.

       "After the acceptance of the Constitution by Louis XVI.
       [September--see FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER)], the
       Emperor indulged for a time a confident hope, that the French
       question was solved, and that he was relieved from all fear of
       trouble from that quarter. He had cares enough upon him to
       make him heartily congratulate himself on this result. ... In
       foreign affairs, the Polish question--the next in importance
       to the French--was still unsettled, and daily presented fresh
       difficulties. ... The fact that Russia began to show the
       greatest favour to the Emigrés, and to preach at Berlin and
       Vienna a crusade against the wicked Jacobins, only served to
       confirm the Emperor in his peaceful sentiments. He rightly
       concluded that Catharine wished to entangle the German Powers
       in a struggle with France, that she might have her own way in
       Poland; and he was not at all inclined to be the dupe of so
       shallow an artifice. ... At the same time he set about
       bringing his alliance with Prussia to a definite conclusion,
       in order to secure to himself a firm support for every
       emergency. On the 17th of November--a week after the
       enactment of the first edict against the Emigrés--Prince Reuss
       made a communication on this subject to the Prussian Ministry,
       and on this occasion declared himself empowered to commence at
       any moment the formal draft of an alliance. ... 'We are now
       convinced,' wrote the Ministers to their ambassador at Vienna,
       'that Austria will undertake nothing against France.' This
       persuasion was soon afterwards fully confirmed by Kaunitz, who
       descanted in the severest terms on the intrigues of the
       Emigrés on the Rhine, which it was not in the interest of any
       Power to support. It was ridiculous, he said, in the French
       Princes, and in Russia and Spain, to declare the acceptance of
       the constitution by the King compulsory, and therefore void;
       and still more so to dispute the right of Louis XVI. to alter
       the constitution at all. He said that they would vainly
       endeavour to goad Austria into a war, which could only have
       the very worst consequences for Louis and the present
       predominance of the moderate party in France. ... Here, again,
       we see that without the machinations of the Girondists, the
       revolutionary war would never have been commenced. It is true,
       indeed, that at this time a very perceptible change took place
       in the opinions of the second German potentate--the King of
       Prussia. Immediately after the Congress of Pillnitz, great
       numbers of French Emigrés, who had been driven from Vienna by
       the coldness of Leopold, had betaken themselves to Berlin. At
       the Prussian Court they met with a hospitable reception, and
       aroused in the King, by their graphic descriptions, a warm
       interest for the victims of the Revolution. ... He loaded the
       Emigrés with marks of favour of every kind, and thereby
       excited in them the most exaggerated hopes.
    {1504}
       Yet the King was far from intending to risk any important
       interest of the State for the sake of his protégés; he had no
       idea of pursuing an aggressive policy towards France; and the
       only point in which he differed from Leopold was in the
       feeling with which he regarded the development of the warlike
       tendencies of the French. His Ministers, moreover, were,
       without exception, possessed by the same idea as Prince
       Kaunitz; that a French war would be a misfortune to all
       Europe." As the year 1791 drew towards its close,
       "unfavourable news arrived from Paris. The attempts of the
       Feuillants had failed; Lafayette had separated himself from
       them and from the Court; and the zeal and confidence of
       victory among the Democrats were greater than ever. The
       Emigrés in Berlin were jubilant; they had always declared that
       no impression was to be made upon the Jacobins except by the
       edge of the sword, and that all hopes founded on the stability
       of a moderate middle party were futile. The King of Prussia
       agreed with them, and determined to begin the unavoidable
       struggle as quickly as possible. He told his Ministers that
       war was certain, and that Bischoffswerder ought to go once
       more to the Emperor. ... Bischoffswerder, having received
       instructions from the King himself, left Berlin, and arrived
       in Vienna, after a speedy journey, on the 28th of February.
       But he was not destined again to discuss the fate of Europe
       with his Imperial patron; for on the 29th the smallpox showed
       itself, of which Leopold died after three days sickness. The
       greatest consternation and confusion reigned in Vienna. ... No
       one knew to whom the young King Francis--he was as yet only
       king of Hungary and Bohemia--would give his confidence, or
       what course he would take; nay, his weakly and nervous
       constitution rendered it doubtful whether he could bear--even
       for a short period--the burdens of his office. For the present
       he confirmed the Ministers in their places, and expressed to them
       his wish to adhere to the political system of his father. ...
       He ... ordered one of his most experienced Generals, Prince
       Hohenlohe-Kirchberg, to be summoned to Vienna, that he might
       take council with Bischoffswerder respecting the warlike
       measures to be adopted by both Powers, in case of a French
       attack. At the same time, however, the Polish question was, if
       possible, to be brought to a decision, and Leopold's plan in
       all its details was to be categorically recommended for
       adoption, both in Berlin and Petersburg. ... The Austrian
       Minister, Spielmann, had prepared the memorial on Poland,
       which Prince Reuss presented at Berlin, on the 10th of March.
       It represented that Austria and Prussia had the same interest
       in stopping a source of eternal embarrassment and discussion,
       by strengthening the cause of peace and order in Poland. That
       herein lay an especially powerful motive to make the crown of
       that country hereditary; that for both Powers the Elector of
       Saxony would be the most acceptable wearer of that crown. ...
       The important point, the memorial went on to say, was this,
       that Poland should no longer be dependent on the predominant
       influence of any one neighbouring Power. ... When the King had
       read this memorial, in which the Saxon-Polish union was
       brought forward, not as an idea of the feeble Elector, but as
       a proposal of powerful Austria; he cried out, 'We must never
       give our consent to this.' He agreed with his Ministers in the
       conclusion that nothing would be more dangerous to Prussia,
       than the formation of such a Power as would result from the
       proposed lasting union of Poland and Saxony--a Power, which,
       in alliance with Austria, could immediately overrun Silesia,
       and in alliance with Russia, might be fatal to East Prussia.
       ... In the midst of this angry and anxious excitement, which
       for a moment alienated his heart from Austria, the King
       received a fresh and no less important despatch from
       Petersburg. Count Golz announced the first direct
       communication of Russia respecting Poland. 'Should Poland'
       [wrote the Russian Vice Chancellor] 'be firmly and lastingly
       united to Saxony, a Power of the first rank will arise, and
       one which will be able to exercise the most sensible pressure
       upon each of its neighbours. We are greatly concerned in this,
       in consequence of the extension of our Polish frontier; and
       Prussia is no less so, from the inevitable increase which
       would ensue of Saxon influence in the German Empire. We
       therefore suggest, that Prussia, Austria, and Russia, should
       come to an intimate understanding with one another on this
       most important subject.' ... This communication sounded
       differently in the ears of the King from that which he had
       received from Austria. The fears which agitated his own mind
       and those of the Russian chancellor were identical. While
       Austria called upon him to commit a political suicide, Russia
       offered her aid in averting the most harassing danger, and
       even opened a prospect of a considerable territorial increase.
       The King had no doubt to which of the two Powers he ought to
       incline. He would have come to terms with Russia on the spot,
       had not an insurmountable obstacle existed in the new path
       which was opened to the aggrandizement of Prussia,--viz., the
       Polish treaty of 1790; in which Prussia had expressly bound
       herself to protect the independence and integrity of Poland.
       ... He decided that there was no middle course between the
       Russian and Austrian plans. On the one side was his Polish
       treaty of 1790, the immediate consequence of which would be a
       new breach, and perhaps a war, with Russia, and the final
       result such a strengthening of Poland, as would throw back the
       Prussian State into that subordinate position, both in Germany
       and Europe, which it had occupied in the seventeenth century.
       On the other side there was, indeed, a manifest breach of
       faith, but also the salvation of Prussia from a perilous
       dilemma, and perhaps the extension of her boundaries by a
       goodly Polish Province. If he wavered at all in this conflict
       of feeling, the Parisian complications soon put an end to his
       doubts. In quick succession came the announcements that
       Delessart's peaceful Ministry had fallen; that King Louis had
       suffered the deepest humiliation; and that the helm of the
       State had passed into the hands of the Girondist war party. A
       declaration of war on the part of France against Francis· II.
       might be daily expected, and the Russian-Polish contest would
       then only form the less important moiety of the European
       catastrophe. Austria would now be occupied for a long time in
       the West; there could be no more question of the formation of
       a Polish-Saxon State; and Austria could no longer be reckoned
       upon to protect the constitution of 1791, or even to repel a
       Russian invasion of Poland. Prussia was bound to aid the
       Austrians against France, and for many months the King had
       cherished no more ardent wish than to fulfil this obligation
       with all his power.
    {1505}
       Simultaneously to oppose the Empress Catharine, was out of the
       question. ... The King wrote on the 12th of March to his
       Ministers as follows: ... 'Russia is not far removed from
       thoughts of a new partition; and this would indeed be the most
       effectual means of limiting the power of a Polish King,
       whether hereditary or elective. I doubt, however, whether in
       this case a suitable compensation could be found for Austria;
       and whether, after such a curtailment of the power of Poland,
       the Elector of Saxony would accept the crown. Yet if Austria
       could be compensated, the Russian plan would be the most
       advantageous for Prussia,--always provided that Prussia
       received the whole left bank of the Vistula, by the
       acquisition of which that distant frontier--so hard to be
       defended--would be well rounded off. This is my judgment
       respecting Polish affairs.' This was Poland's sentence of
       death. It was not, as we have seen, the result of a
       long-existing greed, but a suddenly seized expedient, which
       seemed to be accompanied with the least evil, in the midst of
       an unexampled European crisis. ... On the 20th of April the
       French National Assembly proclaimed war against the King of
       Hungary and Bohemia. A fortnight later the Prince of
       Hohenlohe-Kirchberg appeared in Berlin to settle some common
       plan for the campaign; and at the same time Kaunitz directed
       Prince Reuss to enter into negociations on the political
       question of expenditure and compensation. Count Schulenburg
       ... immediately sent a reply to the Prince, to the effect that
       Prussia--as it had uniformly declared since the previous
       summer--could only engage in the war on condition of receiving
       an adequate compensation. ... Both statesmen well knew with
       what secret mistrust each of these Powers contemplated the
       aggrandizement of the other; their deliberations were
       therefore conducted with slow and anxious caution, and months
       passed by before their respective demands were reduced to any
       definite shape."

          H. von Sybel,
          History of the French Revolution,
          book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1792.
       Accession of the Emperor Francis II.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1792-1793.
       War with Revolutionary France.
       The Coalition.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1791-1792; 1792 (APRIL-.JULY),
          and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
          1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY);
          1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), (MARCH-SEPTEMBER),
          and (JULY-DECEMBER).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1192-1796.
       The second and third Partitions of Poland.

          See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792; and 1793-1796.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1794.
       Withdrawal of Prussia from the Coalition.
       French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands and successes on
       the Rhine.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1795.
       Treaty of Basle between Prussia and France.
       Crumbling of the Coalition.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1797.
       Expulsion of Austria from Italy.
       Bonaparte's first campaigns.
       Advance of Moreau and Jourdan beyond the Rhine.
       Their retreat.
       Peace preliminaries of Leoben.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
          and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1797 (October).
       The Treaty of Campo Formio between Austria and France.
       Austrian cession of the Netherlands and Lombardy and
       acquisition of Venice.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1798.
       The second Coalition against Revolutionary France.
       Prussia and the Empire withheld from it.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1799.
       The Congress at Rastadt.
       Murder of French envoys.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1800 (May-December).
        The disastrous campaigns of Marengo and Hohenlinden.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
       The Peace of Luneville.
       Territorial cessions and changes.
       The settlement of indemnities in the Empire.
       Confiscation and secularization of the ecclesiastical
       principalities.
       Absorption of Free Cities.
       Re-constitution of the Electoral College.

       "By the treaty of Luneville, which the Emperor Francis was
       obliged to subscribe, 'not only as Emperor of Austria, but in
       the name of the German empire,' Belgium and all the left bank
       of the Rhine were again formally ceded to France; Lombardy was
       erected into an independent state, and the Adige declared the
       boundary betwixt it and the dominions of Austria; Venice, with
       all its territorial possessions as far as the Adige, was
       guaranteed to Austria; the Duke of Modena received the Brisgau
       in exchange for his duchy, which was annexed to the Cisalpine
       republic; the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the Emperor's brother,
       gave up his dominions to the infant Duke of Parma, a branch of
       the Spanish family [who was thereupon raised to royal rank by the
       fiat of Bonaparte, who transformed the grand-duchy of Tuscany
       into the kingdom of Etruria], on the promise of an indemnity
       in Germany; France abandoned Kehl, Cassel, and
       Ehrenbreitstein, on condition that these forts should remain
       in the situation in which they were when given up; the princes
       dispossessed by the cession of the left bank of the Rhine were
       promised an indemnity in the bosom of the Empire; the
       independence of the Batavian, Helvetic, Cisalpine and Ligurian
       republics was guaranteed, and their inhabitants declared 'to
       have the power of choosing whatever form of government they
       preferred.' These conditions did not differ materially from
       those contained in the treaty of Campo Formio, or from those
       offered by Napoleon previous to the renewal of the war. ...
       The article which compelled the Emperor to subscribe this
       treaty as head of the empire, as well as Emperor of Austria,
       gave rise in the sequel ... to the most painful internal
       divisions in Germany. By a fundamental law of the empire, the
       Emperor could not bind the electors and states of which he was
       the head, without either their concurrence or express powers
       to that effect previously conferred. ... The emperor hesitated
       long before he subscribed such a condition, which left the
       seeds of interminable discord in the Germanic body; but the
       conqueror was inexorable, and no means of evasion could be
       found. He vindicated himself to the electors in a dignified
       letter, dated 8th February 1801, the day before that when the
       treaty was signed. ... The electors and princes of the empire
       felt the force of this touching appeal; they commiserated the
       situation of the first monarch in Christendom, compelled to
       throw himself on his subjects for forgiveness of a step which
       he could not avoid; and one of the first steps of the Diet of
       the empire, assembled after the treaty of Luneville was
       signed, was to give it their solemn ratification, grounded on
       the extraordinary situation in which the Emperor was then
       placed.
    {1506}
       But the question of indemnities to the dispossessed princes
       was long and warmly agitated. It continued for above two years
       to distract the Germanic body; the intervention both of France
       and Russia was required to prevent the sword being drawn in
       these internal disputes; and by the magnitude of the changes
       which were ultimately made, and the habit of looking to
       foreign protection which was acquired, the foundation was laid
       of that league to support separate interests which afterwards,
       under the name of the Confederation of the Rhine, so well
       served the purposes of French ambition, and broke up the
       venerable fabric of the German empire."

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 32 (volume 7).

       "Germany: lost by this treaty about 24,000 square miles of its
       best territory and 3,500,000 of its people; while the princes
       were indemnified by the plunder of their peers. But the
       hardest task, the satisfactory distribution of this plunder,
       remained. While the Diet at Regensburg, after much complaint
       and management, assigned the arrangement of these affairs to a
       committee, the princely bargainers were in Paris, employing
       the most disgraceful means to obtain the favor of Talleyrand
       and other influential diplomatists. On the 25th of February,
       1803, the final decision of the delegation or committee of the
       empire was adopted by the Diet, and promulgated with the approval
       of the emperor, Francis II., and of Prussia and Bavaria. It
       confiscated all the spiritual principalities in Germany,
       except that the Elector of Mayence, Charles Theodore of
       Dalberg, received Regensburg, Aschaffenburg, and Wetzlar, as
       an indemnity, and retained a seat and a voice in the imperial
       Diet. Of the 48 free cities of the empire, six only
       remained--Hamburg, Bremen, Lubeck, Frankfort, Nuremburg, and
       Augsburg. Austria obtained the bishoprics of Trent and Brixen;
       Prussia, as a compensation for the loss of 1,018 square miles
       with 122,000 inhabitants west of the Rhine, received 4,875
       square miles, with 580,000 inhabitants, including the
       endowments of the religious houses of Hildesheim and
       Paderborn, and most of Münster; also Erfurt and Eichsfeld, and
       the free cities of Nordhausen, Mülhausen, and Goslar; Hanover
       obtained Osnabruck; to Bavaria, in exchange for the
       Palatinate, were assigned Würzburg, Bamberg, Freisingen,
       Augsburg, and Passau, besides a number of cities of the
       empire, in all about 6,150 square miles, to compensate for
       4,240, vastly increasing its political importance. Wirtemberg,
       too, was richly compensated for the loss of the Mömpelgard by
       the confiscation of monastery endowments and free cities in
       Suabia. But Baden made the best bargain of all, receiving
       about 1,270 square miles of land, formerly belonging to
       bishops or to the Palatinate, in exchange for 170. After this
       acquisition, Baden extended, though in patches, from the
       Neckar to the Swiss border. By building up these three South
       German states, Napoleon sought to erect a barrier for himself
       against Austria and Prussia. With the same design,
       Hesse-Darmstadt and Nassau were much enlarged. There were
       multitudes of smaller changes, under the name of
       'compensations and indemnities.' Four new lay electorates were
       established in the place of the three secularized prelacies,
       and were given to Baden, Wirtemberg, Hesse-Cassel, and
       Salzburg. But they never had occasion to take part in the
       election of an emperor."

          C. T. Lewis,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 25, sections 26-27.

          ALSO IN:
          A. Thiers,
          History of the Consulate and the Empire,
          books 7 and 15 (volume 1).

          J. R. Seeley,
          Life and Times of Stein,
          part 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1803.
       Bonaparte's seizure of Hanover in his war with England.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1805 (January-April).
       The third Coalition against France.
       Prussian Neutrality.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1805 (September-December).
       Napoleon's overwhelming campaign.
       The catastrophes at Ulm and Austerlitz.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
       The Peace of Presburg.
       Territorial losses of Austria.
       Aggrandizement of Bavaria and Würtemberg, which become
       kingdoms, and Baden a grand duchy.
       The Confederation of the Rhine.
       End of the Holy Roman Empire.

       "On the 6th of December, hostilities ceased, and the Russians
       retired by way of Galicia, but in accordance with the terms of
       the armistice, the French troops continued to occupy all the
       lands they had invaded, Austria, Tyrol, Venetia, Carniola,
       Carinthia, and Styria; within Bohemia they were to have the
       circle of Tabor, together with Brno and Znoymo in Moravia and
       Pozsony (Pressburg) in Hungary. The Morava (March) and the
       Hungarian frontier formed the line of demarcation between the
       two armies. A definitive peace was signed at Pressburg on the
       26th of December, 1805. Austria recognized the conquests of
       France in Holland and Switzerland and the annexation of Genoa,
       and ceded to the kingdom of Italy Friuli, Istria, Dalmatia with
       its islands, and the Bocche di Cattaro. A little later, by the
       explanatory Act of Fontainebleau, she lost the last of her
       possessions to the west of the Isonzo, when she exchanged
       those portions of the counties of Gorico and Gradisca which
       are situated on the right bank of that river for the county of
       Montefalcone in Istria. The new kingdoms of Bavaria and
       Würtemberg [brought into existence by this treaty, through the
       recognition of them by the Emperor Francis] were aggrandized
       at the expense of Austria. Bavaria obtained Vorarlberg, the
       county of Hohenembs, the town of Lindau, and the whole of
       Tyrol, with Brixen and Trent. Austrian Suabia was given to
       Würtemberg, while Breisgau and the Ortenau were bestowed on
       the new grand duke of Baden. One compensation alone, the duchy
       of Salzburg, fell to Austria for all her sacrifices, and this
       has remained in her possession ever since. The old bishopric
       of Würzburg was created an electorate and granted to Ferdinand
       III. of Tuscany and Salzburg. Altogether the monarchy lost
       about 25,400 square miles and nearly 3,000,000 of inhabitants.
       She lost Tyrol with its brave and loyal inhabitants and the
       Vörlande which had assured Austrian influence in Germany;
       every possession on the Rhine, in the Black Forest, and on the
       Lower Danube; she no longer touched either Switzerland or
       Italy, and she ceased to be a maritime power. Besides all
       this, she had to pay 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. On the 16th of January,
       1806, the emperor Francis returned to his capital.
    {1507}
       He was enthusiastically received, and the Viennese returned to
       the 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, Würtemberg and 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
       released all the Imperial officials from their engagements to
       him. Thus the sceptre of Charlemagne fell from the hands of
       the dynasty which had held it without interruption from 1438."

           L. Leger,
           History of Austro-Hungary,
           chapter 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
       Hohenlohe, Oettingen, Schwarzenberg, Thurn, and Taxis, the
       Truchsess von Waldburg, Fürstenberg, Fugger, Leiningen,
       Löwenstein, Solms, Hesse-Homburg, Wied-Runkel, and
       Orange-Fulda, became subject to the neighbouring Rhenish
       confederated 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 transferred thither from Ratisbon. The
       ancient Hanse-towns, Hamburg, Lübeck, and Bremen, alone
       retained their freedom."

          W. Menzel,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 253 (volume 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 Empire. Napoleon had not long assumed
       his new title when he began to mark a distinction between 'la
       France' and 'l'Empire Française.' France had, since A. D.
       1792, advanced to the Rhine, and, by the annexation of
       Piedmont, had overstepped the Alps; the French Empire
       included, besides the kingdom of Italy, a mass of dependent
       states, Naples, Holland, Switzerland, and many German
       principalities, the allies of France in the same sense in
       which the 'socii populi Romani' 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.
       Previous 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
       assumption 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 ambition 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 Confederation of the
       Rhine, signed at Paris, July 12th, 1806, Bavaria, Würtemberg,
       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 Regensburg 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 dignity. His deed states that finding it
       impossible, in the altered state of things, to fulfil the
       obligations imposed by his capitulation, 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 Austria.' 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 Frankish king, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight
       years after Cæsar had conquered at Pharsalia, the Holy Roman
       Empire came to its end."

          J. Bryce,
          The Holy Roman Empire,
          chapter 20.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (January-August).
       The Confederation of the Rhine.
       Cession of Hanover to Prussia.
       Double dealing and weakness of the latter.
       Her submission to Napoleon's insults and wrongs.
       Final goading of the nation to war.

       "The object at which all French politicians had aimed since
       the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the exclusion of both
       Austria and Prussia from influence in Western Germany, was now
       completely attained. The triumph of French statesmanship, the
       consummation of two centuries of German discord, was seen in
       the Act of Federation subscribed by the Western German
       Sovereigns in the summer of 1806. By this Act the Kings of
       Bavaria and Würtemberg, 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 furnish 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 meetings 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 domestic changes which took
       place within these States the work of consolidation begun in
       1801 was carried forward with increased vigour. Scores of tiny
       principalities which had escaped dissolution in the earlier
       movement were now absorbed by their stronger neighbours. ...
    {1508}
       With the establishment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the
       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 Empire then founded might have been
       permanently upheld, if Napoleon had abstained from attacking
       other States." During the winter of 1806, Count Haugwitz, the
       Prussian minister, had visited Paris "for the purpose of
       obtaining some modification in the treaty which he had signed
       [at the palace of Schönbrunn, near Vienna] on behalf of
       Prussia after the battle of Austerlitz. The principal feature
       in that treaty had been the grant of Hanover to Prussia by the
       French Emperor in return for its alliance. This was the point
       which above all others excited King Frederick 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 alteration in the terms of the treaty which
       should make the Prussian occupation of Hanover appear to be
       merely provisional, and reserve to the King of England at
       least a nominal voice in its ultimate transfer. In full
       confidence that Napoleon would agree to such a change, the
       King of Prussia, on taking possession of Hanover in January,
       1806, concealed the fact of its cession to himself by
       Napoleon, and published an untruthful 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 absolute 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 indignation 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 declaring itself endowed by Napoleon with Hanover in virtue
       of Napoleon's own right of conquest. 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 excluding
       the ships of England from the ports of Prussia and from those
       of Hanover itself (March 28, 1806). It was promptly followed
       by the seizure 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
       negotiations 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 endurance; 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 Government, and urged the King to
       strike for the credit of his country. ... Brunswick was
       summoned 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 language seldom used by a statesman, the
       character of the men by whom Frederick William was surrounded,
       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 Ministers, 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 Southern Germany was
       still in Napoleon's hands. The appearance of a Russian force
       in Dalmatia, after that country had been ceded by Austria to
       the French Emperor, had given Napoleon an excuse for
       maintaining his troops in their positions beyond the Rhine. As
       the probability of a war with Prussia became greater and greater,
       Napoleon tightened his grasp upon the Confederate States.
       Publications originating among the patriotic circles of
       Austria were beginning to appeal 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 ... Napoleon ...
       required a victim to terrify those who, among the German
       people, might be inclined 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 imperative 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 influence upon the course
       of political events. Prussia had already resolved upon war."

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 1, chapters 6-7.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir W. Scott,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapters 51-52.

          J. R. Seeley,
          Life and Times of Stein,
          part 2, chapters 4-5 (volume 1).

          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          volume 2, chapter 15.

    {1509}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (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 excitement. He again urged Frederick William to
       take up arms in the common cause, and offered to back him with
       all the forces of his own great empire. The English
       government, taking advantage 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 informed of what was passing in Berlin, and
       desirous, 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 'Moniteur' 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 kingdom during August and September. On the 1st of
       October the Prussian minister at Paris presented a note to
       Talleyrand, demanding, among other things, that the formation
       of a confederacy in the north of Germany should no longer be
       thwarted by French interference, and that the French troops
       within the territories of the Rhenish 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 Prussian note was a
       general order to his 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 Prussia, in
       thus rushing into hostilities without waiting 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 towards the French, instead of
       lying on their own frontier--a repetition of the great leading
       blunder 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
       Berlin 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 they, persisting in their advance, and taking up their
       position finally on the Saale, afforded him, as if studiously,
       the means of repeating, at their expense, the very manœvres which
       had ruined the Austrians in the preceding campaign." The flank
       of the Prussian position was turned,--the bridge across the
       Saale, at Saalfield, having been secured, after a hot
       engagement with the corps of Prince Louis of Prussia who fell
       in the fight,--"the French army passed entirely round them;
       Napoleon seized Naumburg and blew up the magazines
       there,--announcing, 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 endeavoured to concentrate his forces for
       the purpose 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 understood 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 present, advancing towards Naumburg;
       the latter attempting, in like manner, to force their passage
       through the French line in the neighbourhood 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 circumstance, 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 artillery 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 Prussians, 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 Emperor
       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 vehemence that their rout became inevitable.
       It ended in the complete breaking up of the army--horse and
       foot all flying together, in the confusion 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 Commander-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 prey. ... 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, consisting of about 10,000,
       under the command of the celebrated General Blucher, was so
       far behind as to render it possible for them to attempt
       escape. Their heroic leader traversed the country with them
       for some time unbroken, and sustained a variety of assaults,
       from far superior numbers, with the most obstinate resolution.
    {1510}
       By degrees, however, the French, under Soult, hemmed him in on
       one side, Murat on the other, 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 Prussian, 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
       farther 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. ...
       Buonaparte, in person, entered Berlin on the 25th of October;
       and before the end of November, except Konigsberg--where the
       King himself had found refuge, and gathered round, him a few
       thousand troops ... --and a few less important fortresses, the
       whole of the German possessions of the house of Brandenburg
       were in the hands of the conqueror. Louis Buonaparte, King of
       Holland, meanwhile had advanced into Westphalia and occupied
       that territory also, with great part of Hanover, East
       Friesland, Embden, and the dominions of Hesse-Cassel."

          J. G. Lockhart,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 20.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Adams,
          Great Campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870,
          chapter. 4.

          Baron Jomini,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 9 (volume 2),

          Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
          volume 6, pages 60-72.

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 43 (volume 10).

          Duke of Rovigo,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, part 2, chapters 21-23.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (October-December).
       Napoleon's ungenerous use of his victory.
       His insults 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. The
       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 invective. His states were
       overrun, and the official bulletins disgraced by a puerile
       tirade against a general who had 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 apprehensions 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 fortune had justly endeared her to her
       subjects, and rendered her the admiration of all Europe, was
       pursued in successive bulletins with unmanly 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 next 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 than theirs,--'I will render that
       noblesse so poor that they shall be obliged to beg their
       bread.' ... Meanwhile the French armies, without any further
       resistance, took possession of the whole country between the
       Rhine and the Oder; and in the rear of the victorious bands
       appeared, in severity unprecedented even in the revolutionary
       armies, the dismal scourge of contributions. Resolved to
       maintain the war exclusively on the provinces which were to be
       its theatre, Napoleon had taken only 24,000 francs in specie
       across the Rhine in the military chest 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 extraordinary war contribution of
       159,000,000 francs (£6,300,000) on the countries at war with
       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 detached himself from his alliance
       with Prussia], and the remainder by the lesser states in the
       Prussian confederacy. This enormous burden ... was levied with
       unrelenting severity. ... Nor was this all. The whole civil
       authorities who remained in the abandoned provinces were
       compelled to take an oath of fidelity to the French
       Emperor,--an unprecedented step, which clearly indicated the
       intention of annexing the Prussian dominions to the great
       nation. ... Early in November there appeared an elaborate
       ordinance, which provided for the complete civil organisation
       and military occupation of the whole country from the Rhine to
       the Vistula. By this decree the conquered states were divided
       into four departments; those of Berlin, of Magdeburg, of
       Stettin, and of Custrin; the military and civil government of
       the whole 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, which was speedily oppressed by
       grievous contributions. ... The Emperor openly announced his
       determination to retain possession of all these states till
       England consented to his demands on the subject of the liberty
       of the seas. ... Meanwhile the negotiations for the conclusion of
       a separate peace between France and Prussia were resumed. ...
       The severity of the terms demanded, as well as ... express
       assurances that no concessions, how great soever, could lead
       to a separate accommodation, as Napoleon was resolved 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 [who was vigorously preparing to fulfil his promise of
       help to the stricken nation]. This refusal was anticipated by
       Napoleon. It reached him at Posen, whither he had advanced on
       his road to the Vistula; and nothing remained but to enter
       vigorously on the prosecution of the war in Poland.
    {1511}
       To this period of the war belongs the famous Berlin decree
       [see FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810] of the 21st November against the
       commerce of Great Britain. ... Napoleon ... at Posen, in
       Prussian Poland, gave audience to the deputies of that unhappy
       kingdom, who came to implore his support to the remains of its
       once mighty dominion. His words were calculated to excite
       hopes which his subsequent conduct never realised. ... While
       the main body of the French army was advancing by rapid
       strides from the Oder to the Vistula, Napoleon, ever anxious
       to secure his communications, and clear his rear of hostile
       bodies, caused two different armies to advance to support the
       flanks of 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 of Poland. Vast as the forces of Napoleon were, such
       prodigious efforts, 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, offensive and defensive,
       between Saxony and France, was the natural result of these
       successes. This 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 military
       outpost of the great nation--while, by a subsidiary treaty,
       signed at Posen three days afterwards, the whole minor princes
       of the House of Saxony were also admitted into the
       Confederacy."

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 43, sections 87-99 (volume 10).

          ALSO IN:
          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          volume 2, chapter 16.

          Mrs. S. Austin,
          Germany from 1760 to 1814,
          page 294, and after.

          E. H. Hudson,
          Life and Times of Louisa,
          Queen of Prussia, volume 2, chapters 8-9.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.
       Opening of Napoleon's campaign against the Russians.
       The deluding 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 marched towards
       the Vistula, the former from the Memel, the latter from the
       Oder. Fifty thousand Russians pressed forward under General
       Benningsen; a second and equal army followed at a distance
       with a reserve force. Some of the Russian forces on the
       Turkish 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 Sweden, weak and impulsive,
       rushed headlong, without 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, Davout's 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
       Poland 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 Napoleon to justify the hopes
       of Poland, who looked to him as her savior. The Russian
       vanguard reached Warsaw before the French, but made no effort
       to remain there, and recrossed the Vistula. November 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 justice 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 willingly against Russia. He also
       offered part of 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 Polish legions
       left from the Italian war. Napoleon established a provisional
       government of well-known Poles in Warsaw, and required nothing
       but volunteers of the country. He had seized without a blow
       that line of the Vistula which the Prussian king would not
       barter for a truce, and might have gone into winter-quarters
       there; but the Russians were close at hand on the opposite
       shore, in two great divisions 100,000 strong, in a wooded and
       marshy country forming a sort of triangle, whose point touches
       the union of the Narew and Ukra rivers with the Vistula, a few
       leagues below Warsaw. The Russians communicated 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 Lithuania. 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, December 26] in the dense forests and deep
       bogs of the thawing land. Napoleon said that he had discovered
       a fifth element in Poland,--mud. Men and horses stuck in the
       swamp and the cannons could not be extricated. Luckily the
       Russians were in the incompetent hands of General Kamenski,
       and both parties fought in 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 Belostok, 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, suddenly resumed the
       offensive.
    {1512}
       General Benningsen, 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 watercourses 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 which 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 [February 8]. He
       had about 70,000 men, twice 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 battlefield was a fearful sight next
       day. Twelve thousand 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 Konigsberg, where he could
       rest and reinforce his army, and Napoleon was not strong
       enough to drive him from this last shelter."

          H. Martin,
          Popular History of France from 1789,
          volume 2, chapter 11.

          ALSO IN:
          Baron Jomini,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 10 (volume 2).

          C. Joyneville,
          Life and Times of Alexander I.,
          volume 1, chapter 8.

          J. C. Ropes,
          The First Napoleon,
          lecture 3.

          Baron de Marbot,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapters 29-30.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1810.
       Commercial blockade by the English Orders in Council and
       Napoleon's Decrees.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (February-June).
       Closer alliance of Prussia and Russia.
       Treaty of Bartenstein.
       Napoleon's victory at Friedland.
       End of the campaign.

       The effect produced in Europe by the doubtful battle of Eylau
       "was unlucky for France; in 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 opinion of Europe, encourage the Polish insurrection, and
       to curb the ill-will of Germany and Austria, Napoleon remained
       a week at Eylau. He negotiated: on one side he caused
       Talleyrand to write to Zastrow, the Prussian foreign minister,
       to propose peace and his alliance; he sent Bertrand to Memel
       to offer to re-establish the King of Prussia, on the condition
       of no foreign intervention. He also tried to negotiate with
       Bennigsen; to which the latter made answer, 'that his master
       had charged him to fight, and not negotiate.' 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 following points:
       1. The re-establishment of Prussia within the limits of 1805.
       2. The dissolution of the Confederation of the Rhine.
       3. The restitution to Austria of the Tyrol and Venice.
       4. The accession of England to the coalition, and the
       aggrandisement of Hanover.
       5. The co-operation 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 Napoleon at the Congress of Prague, in
       1813. Russia and Prussia proposed then to make a more pressing
       appeal to Austria, Sweden, and England; 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. Sweden was too weak;
       and notwithstanding his fury against Napoleon, Gustavus III.
       had just been forced to treat with Mortier. The English
       minister 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
       activity. The Sultan Selim III. declared war against Russia;
       General Sebastiani, the envoy at Constantinople, put the
       Bosphorus in a state of defence, and repulsed the English
       fleet [see TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807]; General Gardane left for
       Ispahan, with a mission to cause a Persian outbreak in the
       Caucasus. Dantzig had capitulated [May 24, after a long
       siege], and Lefèbvre's 40,000 men were therefore ready for
       service. Masséna 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 Heilsberg. 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 retreated; but being pressed, he had to draw up
       at Friedland, on the Alle. The position he had taken up was
       most dangerous. All his army was enclosed in an angle of the
       Alle, with the steep bed of the river at their backs, which in
       case of misfortune left them only one means of retreat, over
       the three bridges of Friedland. ... 'Where 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
       surprises 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
       irresistible fury; the Russians were riddled by his artillery
       at 150 paces: he successively crushed the chasseurs of the
       Russian Guard, the Ismaïlovski, 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, with the Semenovski and
       other troops, was hardly able to cover the defeat.
    {1513}
       On the Russian right, Gortchakof, who had advanced to attack
       the immovable Mortier, had only time to ford the 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 in the
       battle, arrived before Konigsberg. Lestocq, with 25,000 men,
       tried to defend it, but on learning the disaster of Friedland
       he hastily evacuated it. Only one fortress now remained to
       Frederick William--the little town of Memel. The Russians had
       lost at Friedland from 15,000 to 20,000 men, besides 80 guns
       (June 14, 1807). ... Alexander had no longer an army. Only one
       man, Barclay de Tolly, proposed to continue 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,
          History of Russia,
          volume 2, chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          Duke de Rovigo,
          Memoirs,
          volume 2, part 1, chapters 4-6.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (June-July).
       The Treaty of Tilsit.
       Its known and its unknown agreements.

       "Alexander I. now determined to negotiate in person with the
       rival emperor, and on the 25th of June the two sovereigns met
       at Tilsit, on a raft which was moored in the middle of the
       Niemen. The details of the conference are a secret, as
       Napoleon's subsequent account of it is untrustworthy, and no
       witnesses were present. All that is certain is that Alexander
       I., whose character was a curious mixture of nobility and
       weakness, 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
       to 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 alliance with France against England. Alexander had several
       grievances against the English government, especially the
       lukewarm support that had been given in recent operations, and
       made no objection to resume the policy of his predecessors in
       this respect. Two interviews sufficed to arrange the basis of
       an agreement. Both sovereigns abandoned their allies 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 induced to make war upon Russia. The Treaty of Tilsit
       was speedily drawn up; on the 7th 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
       kingdom west of the Elbe, together with all the acquisitions
       which Prussia had made in 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 payment 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 kingdom of Westphalia,
       which was given to Napoleon's youngest brother, Jerome. Of
       Polish Prussia, one province, Bialystock, 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 between Prussia and
       England was cut off. Alexander I., on his side, recognised all
       Napoleon's new creations in Europe--the Confederation of the
       Rhine, the kingdoms of Italy, Naples, Holland, and Westphalia,
       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, but the general drift of them is
       unquestionable. The bribe offered to Alexander was the
       aggrandisement of Russia in the East. To make him an
       accomplice in the acts of Napoleon, he was to be allowed to
       annex Finland from Sweden, and Moldavia and Wallachia from
       Turkey. With regard to England, Russia undertook to adopt
       Napoleon's blockade-system, and to obtain the adhesion of
       those states which still remained open to English
       trade--Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal."

          H. Lodge,
          History of Modern Europe,
          chapter 24, section 25.

       "'I thought,' said Napoleon at St. Helena, 'it would benefit
       the world 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 may be
       considered Russians, I refused to consent to it, especially as
       Alexander wanted Constantinople, which would have destroyed
       the equilibrium of power in Europe. France would gain Egypt,
       Syria, and the islands; but those were nothing to what Russia
       would have obtained.' This coincides with Savary's [Duke de
       Rovigo's] statement, that Alexander told him Napoleon said he
       was under no engagements to the new Sultan, and that changes
       in the world inevitably changed the relations of states to one
       another; and again, Alexander said that, in their
       conversations at Tilsit, Napoleon often told him he did not
       require the evacuation of Moldavia and Wallachia; he would
       place things in a train to dispense with it, and it was not
       possible to suffer longer the presence of the Turks in Europe.
       'He even left me,' said Alexander, 'to entertain the project
       of driving them back into Asia. It is only since that he has
       returned to the idea of leaving Constantinople to them, and
       some surrounding provinces.' Due 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 finger on Constantinople said several times to
       the secretary, 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 agreed to his [Alexander's]
       possessing himself of the Turkish Empire up to the Balkan, if
       not beyond; though Bignon denies that any plan for the actual
       partition of Turkey was embodied in the treaty of Tilsit.
       Hardenberg, not always well informed, asserts that it was.
    {1514}
       Savary says he could not believe that Napoleon would have
       abandoned the Turks without a compensation in some other
       quarter; and he felt certain Alexander 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.,
          volume 1, chapter 8.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 46 (volume 10).

          Count Miot de Melito,
          Memoirs,
          chapter 24.

          P. Lanfrey,
          History of Napoleon,
          chapters 3-4.

          Prince de Talleyrand,
          Memoirs,
          part 3 (volume 1).

          A. Thiers,
          History of the Consulate and the Empire,
          book 27 (volume 2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (July).
       The collapse of Prussia and its Causes.

       "For the five years that followed, Prussia is to be conceived,
       in 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
       conclusion 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 systematic 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 inflict 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 created 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 efficient. The
       catastrophe could not but seem as irremediable as it was
       sudden and complete." There may be discerned "three distinct
       causes for it. First, the 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
       Brunswick, 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
       corruption of the military system, which led to the surrender
       of the fortresses. Thirdly, a misfortune for which Prussia was
       not responsible, its desertion by Russia at a critical moment,
       and the formation of a close alliance between Russia and
       France."

          J. R. Seeley,
          Life and Times of Stein,
          part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.
       The great Revolutionary Reforms of Hardenberg, Stein and
       Scharnhorst.
       Edict of Emancipation.
       Military reorganization.
       Beginning of local self-government.
       Seeds of a new national life.

       "The work of those who resisted Napoleon--even if no one of
       them should ever be placed in the highest class of the
       benefactors of mankind--has in some cases proved enduring, and
       nowhere so much as in 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 retrogression, without mistake, except 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 unaware 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
       regime' 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 government for another, yet went so far beyond
       government, 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 who took the lead in her liberation from Napoleon,
       were Prussians. Blücher himself began life in the service of
       Sweden, Scharnhorst was a Hanoverian, so was Hardenberg, and
       Stein came from Nassau. Niebuhr was enticed to Berlin from the
       Bank of Copenhagen. Hardenberg served George III. and
       afterwards the Duke of Brunswick before he entered 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 measures 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 important and
       useful reforms were introduced by Stein, Hardenberg, and
       Scharnhorst. In the first place, such a word as reform is not
       properly applied to changes so vast, and in the second place.
       the changes then made or at least commenced, went far beyond
       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 dynasty, 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 the 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.
    {1515}
       When 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 he 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 upon
       him, and he began to create the nation by emancipating the
       peasantry, while Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were brooding over
       the ideas which, five years later, took shape in the Landwehr
       of East Prussia. Besides emancipating the peasant he
       emancipated industry,--everywhere abolishing that strange
       caste system which divided the population 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 land. 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 Städteordnung 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
       attempt a Parliament. France with her charte, and in imitation
       of France many of the small German States, had grand popular
       Parliaments, but no local liberties. And so for a long time
       Prussia was regarded as a backward 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 the way for
       legislative changes which have taken place since. How
       unprecedented in Prussia, for instance, was the dictatorial
       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 approaching 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 (Macmillan's Magazine,
          volume 36, pages 342-351).

          ALSO IN:
          J. R. Seeley,
          Life and Times of Stein,
          parts 3-5 (volumes 1-2).

          R. B. D. Morier,
          Agrarian Legislation of Prussia
          (Systems of Land Tenure: Cobden Club Essays,
          chapter 5).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1808.
       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 feelings! 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
       negotiations 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 excited 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 in the midst of such weighty
       matters he 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 therefore,
       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.
    {1516}
       Nothing could be 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,
       particularly 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 importance of
       instilling a love of duty for its own sake rather than for
       reward. The 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 subject 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 eighth Lecture propounds
       the question, 'What is a Nation in the higher signification of
       the word, and what is patriotism? 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 contents 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 Governments. 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
       transition 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 natural system."

          J. R. Seeley,
          Life and Times of Stein,
          part 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (January).
       Kehl, Cassel and Wesel annexed to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (April-December).
       The Tugendbund, and Stein's relations to it.

       "English 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 September [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 probable, 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 revolutionary edict had
       been promulgated in the October before. ... In his
       autobiography ... Stein [says]: 'An effect and not the cause
       of this passionate 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 Königsberg a society consisting of several
       officers, for example, Colonel Gneisenau, Grolmann, &c., and
       learned men, such as Professor 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 when later it proposed to exert an indirect
       influence upon educational and military institutions I
       rejected the proposal as encroaching on the department of the
       civil and ecclesiastical governing bodies. As I was driven
       soon afterwards out of the public service, I know nothing
       of the further operations of this Society.' ...
    {1517}
       He certainly seems to intend his readers to understand that he
       had not even any indirect or underhand 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 possible
       that by telling us that he had nothing to do with the step
       taken by the King when he sanctioned the statutes of the
       society he means to hint that; had his advice been taken, the
       society would not have been even allowed to exist. ... The
       principal fact affirmed by Stein is indeed now beyond
       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 mentions, were not among the first
       members, and Gneisenau, it seems, was never a member. The
       statutes were drawn by Krug, Bardeleben and Baersch, and if
       anyone 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, religion, 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
       administration, 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, Stallupöhnen; 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 organising 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
       possibility 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 consider
       it closely, nothing unnatural in the course which Stein
       declares himself to have taken."

          J. R. Seeley,
          Life and Times of Stein,
          part 4, chapter 3 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Frost,
          Secret Societies of the European Revolution,
          volume 1, chapter 4.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (September-October).
       Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

    GERMANY: 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.
       Austrian 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 suffering 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. Everyone 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 having gone to the assistance of Prussia
       after the Jena Campaign; and that the moment had arrived for
       all the Powers to coalesce against the common 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! The motto was to be 'victory or death.' But they were
       sure of victory. 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 Berlin 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 colours. 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 Generalissimo, there was an outburst of joy and
       confidence from one end of the Empire to the other."

          Imbert de Saint-Amand,
          Memoirs of the Empress Marie Louise,
          part 1, chapter 2.

       "On receiving decisive intelligence of these hostile
       preparations, Napoleon 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 frontiers
       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 neutral, 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 exception of a
       Bavarian garrison, that still held out in Kufstein.
    {1518}
       The French army was at this time dispersed over a line of
       forty leagues in extent, with numerous undefended apertures
       between the corps; so that the fairest possible opportunity
       presented 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
       subjected to most impolitic delays by the Aulic Council; and
       time was allowed Napoleon to arrive on the theatre of war
       (April 17), and repair the faults committed by his
       adjutant-general, Berthier. He 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, Eckmühl, and Ratisbon. The Archduke
       Charles retired into Bohemia to collect reinforcements, but
       General Hiller was, in consequence of the delay in repairing
       the fortifications of Linz, unable to maintain that place, the
       possession of which was important, on account of its forming a
       connecting point between Bohemia and the Austrian Oberland.
       Hiller, however, at least saved his honour by pushing forward
       to the Traun, and in a fearfully bloody encounter at
       Ebersberg, captured three French eagles, one of his colours
       alone falling into the enemy's hands. He was, nevertheless,
       compelled to retire before the superior forces of the French,
       and crossing over at Krems to the left 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 defence,
       capitulated to Napoleon on the 12th of May. The Archduke
       Charles had hoped to reach the capital before the French, 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 arrived, when too late,
       from Bohemia. Both armies, separated by the Danube, stood
       opposed to one another in 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 allowed 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 Lannes 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 provisions, 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,
       narrowly 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 Viceroy Eugene at Salice, on the 16th
       of April. Favoured by the simultaneous revolt of the Tyrolese,
       he might have obtained the most decisive results from this
       victory, but the extraordinary progress of Napoleon down the
       valley of the Danube 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
       Carinthia, 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
       obeying 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
       victory 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 Bernadotte and the Saxons, who were incapable of
       offering any serious resistance. Such a force, concentrated on
       the direct line of Napoleon's communications, immediately
       after his defeat at Aspern, on the 22nd, would have deprived
       him of all means of extricating himself from the most perilous
       situation in which he 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 joined Napoleon at Vienna. The Archduke
       John united his forces at Raab with those of the Hungarian
       insurrection, under his brother, the Palatine. The viceroy
       again marched against him, and defeated him at Raab on the
       14th of June. The Palatine remained with the Hungarian
       insurrection in Komorn; Archduke John moved on to Presburg. In
       the north, the Archduke 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,
          History of the House of Austria (Continuation of Coxe),
          chapter 4.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 56-57 (volume 12).

          Duke de Rovigo,
          Memoirs,
          volume 2, part 2, chapters 3-12.

          Baron Jomini,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 14 (volume 3).

          Baron de Marbot,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapters 42-48.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (April-July).
       Risings against the French in the North.

       "A general revolt against the French had nearly taken place in
       Saxony and Westphalia, 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 advance of
       the Austrians towards Franconia and Saxony, at the beginning
       of the war, blew up the flame. The two first attempts at
       insurrection, headed respectively by Katt, a Prussian officer
       (April 3), and Dornberg, a Westphalian colonel (April 23),
       proved abortive; but the enterprise of the celebrated Schill
       was of a more formidable character.
    {1519}
       This enthusiastic patriot, 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 himself into
       Stralsund. Here he was speedily invested; the place was
       stormed (May 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 incursion in June,
       occupied Dresden and Leipsic, and drove the King of Westphalia
       into France. After the battle of Wagram he made his way across
       all Northern Germany, and was eventually conveyed, with his
       gallant followers, still 2,000 strong, to England."

          Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
          sections 525-526.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (July-September).
       Napoleon's victory at Wagram.
       The Peace of Schonbrunn.
       Immense surrender of Austrian territory.

       "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 villages of Enzersdorf
       and Muhlleuten, debouched on the Marchfeld, wheeling to their
       left. Napoleon was on horseback in the midst of them by
       daylight; all the Austrian fortifications erected to defend
       the former bridge were turned, the villages occupied by their
       army taken, and the Archduke Charles was menaced both in flank
       and rear, the French line of battle appuyed on Enzersdorf
       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 extended from
       Loibersdorf on the right to some two miles beyond Wagram on
       the left. Napoleon passed the night in massing his centre,
       still determining to manœuvre 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 enemies
       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 hundred guns,
       supported by two whole divisions of infantry in column. The
       artillery, when within half 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 confusion. 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 effected in tolerably good order.
       By noon the whole Austrian 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 of 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 Schonbrunn while the
       plenipotentiaries settled the terms of peace. ... English
       Ministers displayed another instance of their customary spirit
       of procrastination. Exactly eight days after the armistice of
       Znaim, which assured them 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 command of
       Lord Chatham, to besiege Antwerp. ...

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

       Operations against Naples proved equally abortive. ... In
       Spain alone English arms were successful. 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 Confederation of the Rhine; part of Bohemia, Cracow,
       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 Illyrian possessions, 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 45,000 square miles, with a
       population of nearly 4,000,000. He also paid a large
       contribution in money."

          R. H. Horne,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 32.

    {1520}

       "The cessions made directly to Napoleon were the county of
       Görtz, or Goricia, and that of Montefalcone, forming the
       Austrian Friuli; the town and government of Trieste, Carniola,
       the circle of Villach in Carinthia, part of Croatia and
       Dalmatia, and the lordship of Räzuns in the Grison territory.
       All these provinces, with the exception of Räzuns, were
       incorporated by a decree of Napoleon, with Dalmatia and its
       islands, into a single state with the name of the Illyrian
       Provinces. They were never united with France, but always
       governed by Napoleon as an independent state. A few districts
       before possessed by Napoleon were also incorporated with them:
       as Venetian Istria and Dalmatia with the Bocca di Cattaro,
       Ragusa, and part of the Tyrol. ... The only other articles of
       the treaty of much importance 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 Russia, and his engaging to cease all
       correspondence and relationship with Great Britain. By a
       decree made at Ratisbon, April 24th, 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
       incorporated Mergentheim, with the rights, domains, and
       revenues attached to the Grand Mastership of the Order, with
       the Kingdom of Würtemberg. These dispositions were confirmed
       by the Treaty of Schönbrunn. The effect aimed at by the Treaty
       of Schönbrunn 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 augmentation awarded to
       the duchy of Warsaw. Hence the first occasion of coldness
       between him and Napoleon, whom he suspected of a design to
       reestablish the Kingdom of Poland."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          book 7, chapter 14 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapters 59-60 (volume 13).

          General Count M. Dumas,
          Memoirs,
          chapter 13 (volume 2).

          E. Baines,
          History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
          book 4, chapter 9 (volume 3).

          J. C. Ropes,
          The First Napoleon,
          lecture 4.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810.
       Humboldt's reform of Public Instruction in Prussia.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN:
          EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.-PRUSSIA: A. D. 1809.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (April-February).
       The revolt 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 mountaineers, 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 country submitted restlessly to the yoke of the Rhine
       League until the spring of 1809. A secret understanding 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 people 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. Austria
       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
       garrisons. 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 Capuchin monk, Haspinger, 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 Innsprück (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 Iselberg, near Innsprück. But
       here they were surrounded on every side, and forced to
       surrender. The first Austrian soldiers, under General
       Chasteler, 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 mutiny, and set a price upon Chasteler's head.
       Neither Chasteler nor any of the Austrian officers 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 Innsprück.
       Chasteler withdrew, and the Bavarians and French, under Wrede
       and Lefevre, entered the capital. The country again appeared
       to be subdued. But cruelty had embittered 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.
    {1521}
       The Bavarians, 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
       imperial proclamation formally assured the Tyrolese that they
       should never be severed from the Austrian Empire; 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 Znaim. But in this
       the Tyrol was not mentioned, and the French and their allies
       prepared to chastise the loyal and abandoned country."

          C. T. Lewis,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 28.

       "In the mouth 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, entered from Clagenfurth, on
       the southern side of the Tyrolese Alps. Undismayed by this
       double and formidable invasion, they assailed the invaders 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 explain in part the means by which
       these victories were obtained. 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,
       where the precipices, becoming more and more narrow as they
       advanced, seemed about to close above their heads. No sound
       but of the screaming of the eagles disturbed 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 of
       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 in heaps
       for the purpose, began now to descend 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 afford 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
       vanguard, which had 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 Tyrolese, 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 acquisition 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. Hofer, and about thirty chiefs of these
       valiant defenders of their country, were put to death
       [February, 1810], in poor revenge for the loss their bravery
       had occasioned. But their fame, as their immortal 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,
          volume 2, chapter 7.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 58 (volume 12).

          History of Hofer
          (Quarterly Review, July, 1817).

          C. H. Hall,
          Life of Andrew Hofer.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1810.
       Annexation of the Hanse Towns and territory on the North Sea
       to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1810-1812.
       Marriage of the Archduchess Marie Louise
       of Austria to Napoleon.
       Alliance of German powers with Napoleon against Russia.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1812.
       The Russian campaign of Napoleon and its disastrous ending.

          See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER),
          (SEPTEMBER), and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.
       The Teutonic uprising against Napoleon.
       Beginning of the War of Liberation.
       Alliance of Prussia and Russia.

       "During Napoleon's march on Moscow and 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 Courland, 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 Russians
       bravely; they retained some scruples relative 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
       York; the former was completely dazzled by his triumphs, and
       aspired to nothing less than to destroy Napoleon and liberate
       Europe, even France! With mingled enthusiasm and calculation,
       he promised all things to all men; on returning to Wilna, he
       granted an amnesty for all acts committed in Poland 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 enfranchisement of Germany, protesting, at
       the same time, that he would not dispute 'the legitimate
       greatness' of France.
    {1522}
       The French army, on hearing of York's defection, left
       Königsberg with ten or twelve thousand sick men and eight or
       ten thousand armed troops, withdrawing to the Vistula 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 through 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 including their Austrian and Saxon allies,
       who had fallen back on Warsaw and seemed disposed to fight no
       more. Murat, 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 Königsberg, 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 History of France from 1789,
          volume 2, chapter 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 February, 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 population was put under arms.
       The standing army was increased: to each regiment were
       appended troops of volunteers, Jaegers, composed of young' men
       belonging to the higher classes, who furnished their own
       equipments: a numerous Landwehr, a sort of militia, was, as in
       Austria, 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 Landsturm. The enthusiastic people, besides furnishing 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
       German empire now invoked in Prussia, for in that name alone
       could all the races of Germany be united against their
       hereditary foe. The celebrated proclamation, promising
       external and internal 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 replied, 'Pah! Germans never can
       become Spaniards!' With his customary rapidity he levied in
       France a fresh army 300,000 strong, with which he so
       completely awed the Rhenish confederation as to compel it once
       more to take the field with thousands of Germans against their
       brother Germans. The troops, however, reluctantly obeyed, and
       even the traitors were but lukewarm, for they doubted of
       success. Mecklenburg alone sided with Prussia. Austria
       remained 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
       Hamburg and expelled the French authorities from the city. The
       heavily oppressed people of Hamburg, whose commerce had been
       totally annihilated 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. Dörnberg, the ancient foe to France, with another
       flying 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 February, patriotic proclamations had
       been disseminated 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
       Mökern, repulsed 40,000 French who were advancing upon Berlin.
       The Prussians, under their veteran general, Blücher, 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. Blücher, whose gallantry in
       the former wars had gained for him the general esteem and
       whose kind and generous disposition had won the affection of
       the soldiery, was nominated 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,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 260 (volume 3).

       Bernadotte, 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 Sandels. On
       the 18th of May, 1813, Bernadotte landed at Stralsund."

          Lady Bloomfield,
          Biographical Sketch of Bernadotte
          (Memoir of Lord Bloomfield, volume 1, page 31).

          ALSO IN:
          J. R. Seeley,
          Life and Times of Stein,
          part 7 (volume 3).

          A. Thiers,
          History of the Consulate and the Empire,
          book 47 (volume 4).

    {1523}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (April-May).
       Battle of Lützen.
       Humiliation of the King of Saxony.

       "On the 14th April, Napoleon left Paris to assume the command
       of the army. Previous to his departure, with a view, perhaps,
       of paying a compliment 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 auxiliary
       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
       was already at Erfurt, in the midst of his newly-raised army.
       The roads were everywhere crowded with troops and artillery,
       closing in towards the banks 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, taken
       Merseburg by assault, the whole army, which Bade, the ablest
       and most accurate of the authors who have written on this
       campaign, estimates at 140,000 men, was assembled for action.
       With this mighty force Napoleon determined to seek out the
       enemy, and bring them quickly 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 King of Saxony had abandoned, and
       advanced to the banks of the Saale. General Blücher commanded
       the Prussians, and Count Wittgenstein the Russian corps; and,
       death having closed the career of old Marshal Kutusoff, ...
       the command of both armies devolved upon the last mentioned
       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
       cavalry giving them perfect command of this wide and open
       country. Napoleon, always anxious for battle, determined to
       press on towards Leipzig, behind which he expected to find 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 Lützen, 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 May, Napoleon established his quarters
       in the small town of Lützen. The Allies, conscious of the vast
       numerical superiority 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 gates of Leipzig, induced Scharnhorst
       to propose an 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 Lützen. It was
       expected that a decisive blow might be struck against this
       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
       cavalry, which formed the principal strength of the Allies,
       spoke in favour of the plan. ... The bold attempt was
       immediately resolved upon, and the onset fixed for the
       following morning. The annals of war can hardly offer a plan
       of battle more skilfully 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 Lauriston, was already at the gates of
       Leipzig, preparing for an attack on the city, when about one
       o'clock [May 2] the roar of artillery burst suddenly on the
       ear, and gathering thicker and thicker as it rolled along,
       proclaimed that a general action was engaged in the plain of
       Lützen,--proclaimed that the army was taken completely at
       fault, and placed in the most imminent peril. ... The Allies,
       who, by means of their numerous cavalry, could easily mask
       their movement, had advanced unobserved into the plain of
       Lützen," and the action was begun by a brigade of Blücher's
       corps attacking the French in the village of Great-Görschen
       (Gross-Görschen). "Reinforcements ... poured in from both
       sides, and the narrow and intersected ground between the
       villages became the scene of a most murderous and
       closely-contested combat of infantry. ... But no attempt 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-Görschen was the sole trophy of the murderous fight that
       remained in the hands of the Allies. ... On the side of the
       Allies, 2,000 Russians and 8,000 Prussians had been killed or
       wounded: among the slain was Prince Leopold of Hessen-Homburg;
       among the wounded was the admirable Scharnhorst, who died a
       few weeks afterwards. ... 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 battlefield, had taken two
       pieces of artillery, and 800 prisoners. ... 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 fray; and the wrath of Blücher,
       who deemed victory certain, was altogether boundless when he
       found the retreat determined upon. But ... opinion has, by
       degrees, justified Count Wittgenstein's resolution to recross
       the Elbe and fall back on the reinforcements advancing to join
       the army. ... On the 8th of May, Napoleon held his triumphal
       entrance into Dresden. ... On the advance of the Allies, the
       Saxon monarch had retired 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 Thielman, commanding the Saxon
       troops at Torgau, to maintain the most perfect neutrality, and
       to admit neither of the contending parties within the 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
       acceptance or refusal;

    {1524}

       1. 'General Thielman and the Saxon troops instantly evacuate
       Torgau, and form the 7th corps under General Réynier; and all
       the resources of the country to be at the disposal of the
       Emperor, in conformity with the principles of the
       Confederation of the Rhine.'

       2. 'The Saxon Cavalry'--some regiments had accompanied the
       King--'return immediately to Dresden.'

       3. 'The King declares, in a letter to the Emperor, that he is
       still a member of the Confederation of the Rhine, and ready to
       fulfil all the obligations which it imposes upon him.'

       'If these conditions are not immediately complied with,' says
       Napoleon in the instructions to his messenger, 'you will cause
       his Majesty to be informed that he is guilty of felony, has
       forfeited the Imperial protection, and has ceased to reign.'
       ... Frederick Augustus, finding himself threatened 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."

          Lieutenant Colonel J. Mitchell,
          The Fall of Napoleon,
          book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1789-1815,
          chapter 75 (volume 13).

          Duchess d'Abrantes,
          Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 2, chapter 44.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (May-August).
       Battle of Bautzen.
       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 position on the morning of
       the 21st of May. Its strength was obviously great. In their
       front was the river Spree: wooded hills supported their right,
       and eminences well fortified their left. The action began with
       an attempt to turn their 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 22d; 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. During 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 disadvantageous 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, reproaching 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,
       before 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 continued their retreat into Upper Silesia; and
       Buonaparte 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 peaceful 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 usually named]. The French
       Emperor then returned to Dresden, and a general congress of
       diplomatists prepared to meet at Prague. England alone refused
       to send any representative to Prague, alleging that Buonaparte
       had as yet signified no disposition to recede from his
       pretensions on Spain, and that he had consented 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 completion of the
       Prussian organization; and, above all, for determining the
       policy of Vienna. Metternich, the Austrian minister, repaired
       in person to Dresden, and while inferior diplomatists wasted
       time in endless discussions at Prague, one interview 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 Illyria satisfy you? I only
       wish you to be neutral--I can deal with these Russians and
       Prussians single-handed.'
    {1525}
       Metternich stated plainly that the time in which Austria could
       be neutral was past; that the situation of Europe at large
       must be considered; ... that events had proved the
       impossibility of a steadfast peace unless the sovereigns of
       the Continent were restored to the rank of independence; in a
       word, that the Rhenish Confederacy must be broken up; that
       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, Metternich,' said he, 'tell me honestly how
       much the English have given you to take their part against
       me.' The Austrian court at length sent a formal document,
       containing its ultimatum, the tenor of which Metternich had
       sufficiently indicated in this conversation. Talleyrand and
       Fouché, 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 insinuated 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 arrogance and self-confidence, and
       incapable of weighing any other considerations against what he
       considered as the essence of his personal glory, Napoleon
       refused to abate one iota of his pretensions--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 considerable
       number of the Austrian stipulations. But this was on the 11th
       of August. The day preceding was that on which, by the
       agreement, the armistice was to end. On that day Austria had
       to sign an alliance, offensive and defensive, with Russia and
       Prussia. On the night between the 10th and 11th, rockets
       answering rockets, from height to height along the frontiers
       of Bohemia and Silesia, had announced to all the armies of the
       Allies this accession of strength, and the immediate
       recommencement of hostilities."

          J. G. Lockhart,
          Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
          chapters 32-33.

       "On the 14th of June Great Britain had become a party to the
       treaty concluded between Russia and Prussia. She had promised
       assistance in this great struggle; but no aid could have been
       more effectual than that which she was rendering in the
       Peninsula."

          C. Knight,
          Popular History of England,
          chapter 32 (volume 7).

          ALSO IN:
          G. R. Gleig,
          The Leipsic Campaign,
          chapters 7-16.

          A. Thiers,
          History of the Consulate and the Empire,
          book 48-49 (volume 4).

          Prince Metternich,
          Memoirs, 1773-1815,
          book 1, chapter 8 (volume 1).

          J. R. Seeley,
          Life and Times of Stein,
          part 7, chapters 4-5 (volume 3).

          J. Philippart,
          Northern Campaign, 1812-1813,
          volume 2.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (August).
       Great battle and victory of Napoleon at Dresden.
       French defeats at Kulm, Gross-Beeren and the Katzbach.

       "Dresden, during the armistice, had been converted by Napoleon
       into such a place of strength that it might be called one
       citadel. All the trees in the 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; redoubts, field-works, and fosses had
       been constructed. The chain of fortresses garrisoned by French
       troops secured to Napoleon the rich valley 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 25,000 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,
       Oudinot, 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. Augereau with 24,000 occupied
       Bavaria. The 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
       Schwartzenburg; the army of Silesia, commanded by Blucher; and
       the troops under the command of Bernadotte, stationed near
       Berlin. These immense hosts were strong in 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 counsels 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'armée
       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 followed: 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 decisive 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,
       retreated before the irresistible torrent and threw himself
       into the Saxon capital, which he prepared to defend with his
       own forces and the garrison left by the Emperor.
    {1526}
       It was a service of the last importance. With Dresden Napoleon
       would lose his 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 engaged in the Silesian passes. Early on the
       morning of the 26th the allies advanced to the assault in six
       columns, under cover of a tremendous artillery fire. 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 before 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 demanded 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 calculated 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; consequently, to reach the city in safety, he was
       compelled to dismount at the most exposed part, and, according
       to Baron Odeleben (one of his aides-de-camp), creep along on his
       hands and knees (ventre à 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 advantage in numbers, for Klenau's division
       never came up; and Napoleon, now that Victor and Marmont's
       corps had arrived, concentrated nearly 200,000 men. ... The
       next day broke in a tempest 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 result 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 Vandamme's corps, and the
       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 cannon, and many waggons. The killed
       and wounded amounted on each side to seven or eight thousand.
       The first cannon-shot fired by the guard under the
       direction of Napoleon mortally wounded Moreau while talking to
       the Emperor Alexander. ... The French left wing, composed of
       the three corps of Vandamme, St. Cyr, and Marmont, were
       ordered to march by their left along the Pirna road in pursuit
       of the foe, who was retreating into Bohemia in three columns,
       and had traversed the gorges of the Hartz Mountains in safety,
       though much baggage, several ammunition waggons, and 2,000
       prisoners, fell into the hands of the French. The Russians,
       under Ostermann, halted on the plain of Culm [or Kulm] for the
       arrival of Kleist's Prussians; the Austrians hurried along the
       Prague route. Vandamme marched boldly on, neglecting even the
       precaution 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 headquarters at Toplitz. Barclay de Tolly, having
       executed a rapid detour from left to right, brought the bulk
       of his Russian forces to bear on Vandamme, who, on reaching
       Culm, was attacked in front and rear [August 29-30], surprised
       and taken, losing the whole of his artillery and between 7,000
       and 8,000 prisoners; the rest of his corps escaped and
       rejoined the army. This disaster totally deranged Napoleon's
       plans, which would have led him to follow up the pursuit
       towards Bohemia in person. Oudinot was ordered to march
       against Bülow's corps at Berlin and the Swedes commanded by
       Bernadotte, taking with him the divisions of Bertrand 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 6,000
       men, was defeated near Leibnitz, with the loss of 1,000 men,
       and some cannon and baggage. Macdonald encountered Blucher in
       the plains between Wahlstadt and the Katzbach under
       disadvantageous circumstances [August 26], and was obliged to
       retire in disorder."

          R. H. Horne,
          History of Napoleon,
          chapter 37.

       "The great battle of the Katzbach, the counterpart to that of
       Hohenlinden, [was] one of the most glorious ever gained in the
       annals of European fame. Its trophies were immense. ...
       Eighteen thousand prisoners, 103 pieces of cannon, and 230
       caissons, besides 7,000 killed and wounded, presented a total
       loss to the French of 25,000 men."

          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe,
          chapter 80, section 68 (volume 17).

       "Of the battle of Kulm it is not too much to say that it was
       the most critical in the whole war of German liberation. The
       fate of the coalition was determined absolutely by its
       results. Had Vandamme been strong enough to keep his hold of
       Bohemia, and to block up from 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,
          chapter 27.

    {1527}

          ALSO IN:
          Baron Jomini,
          Life of Napoleon,
          chapter 20 (volume 4).

          Major C. Adams,
          Great Campaigns in Europe,
          1796 to 1870, chapter 5.

    GERMANY: 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] Army of the North had been nearly idle since the
       battle of Grossbeeren. The Prussian generals were extremely
       indignant against Bernadotte, whose slowness and inaction were
       intolerable 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 Oudinot, Regnier, Bertrand, and
       Arrighi, with 70,000 men. On September 6 Tauenzien met their
       superior forces at Jüterbogk, but sustained himself valiantly
       through a perilous fight. Bernadotte was but two hours' march
       away, but as usual disregarded Bülow's request to bring aid.
       But Bülow himself brought up his corps on the right, and took
       the brunt of the battle, extending it through the villages
       south of Jüterbogk, 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. ... Bülow 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 from 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. Bülow and Tauenzien seriously proposed to
       Blücher to leave the Swedish prince, whom they openly
       denounced as a traitor. Blücher 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 Blücher 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 Blücher, but again failed to bring
       about an action. At this time public opinion throughout Europe
       was undergoing 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 impatient for it, and his German
       allies and subjects lost all regard and hope for his cause. On
       October 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 Benningsen, 57,000
       strong, were also advancing through Silesia toward Bohemia.
       Blücher 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 Wartenburg, and just at the
       bend Blücher 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 struggle 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
       victory 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 concerted attack.
       Leipsic was designated as the point at which the armies should
       combine. Napoleon could no longer hold Dresden, lest he should
       be cut off from France by a vastly superior force. The
       partisan corps of the allies were also growing bolder and more
       active far in Napoleon's rear, and on October 1 Czernicheff
       drove Jerome out of Cassel and proclaimed the kingdom 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
       overthrow of one of Napoleon's military kingdoms was immense.
       On October 7 Napoleon left Dresden, and marched to the Mulde.
       Blücher's forces were arrayed along both sides of this stream,
       below Düben. But he quietly and successfully retired, on
       perceiving Napoleon's purpose to attack 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 boldness astonished both
       friend and foe. He resolved to cross the Elbe, to seize Berlin
       and the Marches, now uncovered, and thus, supported by his
       fortresses of Magdeburg, Stettin, Dantzic, and Hamburg, 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 abandon
       this plan, which was desperate, but might have been effectual.
       The suggestion of it terrified Bernadotte, whose province of
       Lower Pomerania would be threatened, and he would have
       withdrawn in headlong haste across the Elbe had not Blücher
       persisted in detaining him. Napoleon now resolved to march
       against the Bohemian army at Leipsic. On October 14, on
       approaching 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 sharp
       but indecisive cavalry battle with Murat at the village of
       Liebertwolkwitz, south of Dresden.
    {1528}
       In the broad, thickly settled plains around Leipsic, the
       armies of Europe now assembled for the final and decisive
       conflict. Napoleon's command included Portuguese, Spaniards,
       Neapolitans, 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 civilization from Attila, had
       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 Lützen and Weissenfels. South of the
       city and east of the Pleisse lie a number of villages, of
       which Wachau, Liebertwolkwitz, and Probstheida, nearer the
       city, were important points during the battle. The little
       river Partha approaches the city on the east, 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,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 30, sections 7-11.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Baines,
          History of the Wars of the French Revolution,
          book 4, chapter 23 (volume 3).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (October).
       "The Battle of the Nations."

       "The 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 defended
       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 Guards placed as a reserve. On the north, Marmont was
       placed between Mœckern and Euterist, to make head against
       Blücher, 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 230,000 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 daybreak on the 16th of October
       the battle began, The French position was assailed along all
       the southern front with the greatest fury. ... The Allies
       having made six desperate attempts, ... all of them
       unsuccessful, Napoleon in turn assumed 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 manner. 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-Maubourg and Kellermann, poured through the gap in the
       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
       Grenadiers of the Russian reserve. At this moment, while the
       French were disordered by their own success, Alexander, who
       was present, 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, Blücher 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 Mœckern, together
       with 20 pieces of artillery and 2,000 prisoners. But on the
       south side the contest continued doubtful. Gossa was still
       disputed. ... General 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 relinquished one foot of their original position, though
       attacked by such superior numbers. Marmont had indeed been
       forced back by Blücher, and compelled 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 acceptance 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 circuit of defence,
       and the French were posted on an inner line, nearer to
       Leipsic, of which Probtsheyda was the central point. ...
       Barclay, Wittgenstein, and Kleist advanced on Probtsheyda,
       where they were opposed by Murat, Victor, Augereau, and
       Lauriston, under the eye of Napoleon himself. On the left
       Macdonald 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 them 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 which cost them so
       dear; and, withdrawing their troops, kept up a dreadful fire
       with their artillery.
    {1529}
       The French replied with equal spirit, 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 person. On the northern
       side, the yet greater superiority of numbers placed Ney in a
       precarious situation; and, pressed hard both by Blücher 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 sudden 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 unexpected 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 Poniatowski ... to defend
       the rear. ... A temporary bridge which had been erected had
       given way, and the old bridge on the road to Lindenau was the
       only one that remained for the passage of the whole French
       army. But the defence 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. Poniatowski ... 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 quantity of artillery and baggage."

           W. Hazlitt,
           Life of Napoleon,
           chapter 50 (volume 3).

       "The battle of Leipsic was over. Already had the allied
       sovereigns entered the town, and forcing, not without
       difficulty, 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 Leipsic 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 enormous 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 artillery so vast having been at any
       time brought into action with more murderous effect. ... About
       1,300 pieces, on the one side, were answered, during two days,
       by little short of 1,000 on the other. ... We look in vain for
       any manifestations of genius or military skill, either in the
       combinations which rendered the battle of Leipsic inevitable,
       or in the arrangements according to which the attack and
       defence of the field were conducted. ... It was the triumph,
       not of military skill, but of numbers."

          G. R. Gleig,
          The Leipsic Campaign,
          chapter 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
       defeat 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 acquired by folly; errors which are
       found on a large and terrible scale in this gigantic gambler,
       who plays with human blood as others play with 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,
          History of the Consulate and the Empire,
          book 50 (volume 4).

          ALSO IN:
          Duke de Rovigo,
          Memoirs,
          volume 3, part 2, chapter 17.

          J. C. Ropes,
          The First Napoleon.

          Baron de Marbot,
          Memoirs,
          volume 2, chapter  38-39.

    GERMANY: 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, with Langeron and Sacken, moved in pursuit of the
       French army, which, disorganised and dejected, was wending 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 reorganising his army, the
       thirteen corps of which were now formed into six, commanded by
       Victor, Ney, Bertrand, Augereau, Marmont, and Macdonald, and
       amounting in all to less than 90,000 men; while twice that
       number were left blockaded in the fortresses on the Elbe, the
       Oder, and the Vistula. On the 25th, after parting for the last
       time with Murat, who here quitted him and returned to Naples,
       he resumed his march, retreating 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 in the rear. But here fresh
       dangers awaited them.
    {1530}
       After the treaty of the 8th October, by which Bavaria had
       acceded to the grand alliance, an Austro-Bavarian force under
       Marshal 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 Mayence, 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 continued, till the arrival of the guards and main body
       changed the aspect of affairs. Under cover of the terrible
       fire of Drouot's artillery, Sebastiani 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 following day, with considerable loss to their
       opponents. The total losses of the Allies amounted to 10,900
       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 Germany. On the 2d of November the French reached
       Mayence, and Napoleon, after remaining there six days to
       collect the 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 Allied
       troops, following closely on the footsteps of the retreating
       French, poured in prodigious strength down the valley of the
       Maine. On 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
       tête-du-pont of Mayence at Cassel, 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 dynasty 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 difficulty; and
       against him Walmoden and Bernadotte moved with 40,000 men. The
       French marshal had taken up a position on 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 permanent treaty [of Kiel]. ...

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.

       When Napoleon (Oct. 7) marched northwards from Dresden, he had
       left St. Cyr in that city with 30,000 men, opposed 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 under Klenau and Tolstoi;
       and St. Cyr, who was encumbered with a vast number of sick and
       wounded, and was almost without provisions, 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 Schwartzenberg,
       and the whole were made prisoners of war--a proceeding which
       the French, not without some justice, declaim against as a
       gross breach of faith--and thus no less than 32 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 contained
       the military hospitals and reserve parks of artillery left by
       the grand army on its retreat from the Elbe, yielded at
       discretion to Tauenzein (December 26), after a siege of two
       months. But such was the dreadful state of the garrison, from
       the ravages 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 procured 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 (November 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 1,200, on the 25th; and
       at the close of the year, France retained beyond the Rhine
       only Hamburg, Magdeburg, and Wittenberg, on the Elbe; Custrin
       and Glogau on the Oder; and the citadels of Erfurth and
       Würtzburg, which held out after the capitulation of the
       towns."

          Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
          sections 737-742
          (chapter 82, volume 17, in complete work).

       "The princes of the Confederation of the Rhine, with the
       exception of the captive King of Saxony, and one or two minor
       princes, deserted Napoleon, and entered into treaties with the
       Allies."

          T. H. Dyer,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 4, page 538.

          ALSO IN:
          M. Bourrienne,
          Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
          volume 4, chapter 16.

          The Year of Liberation: Journal of the Defence of Hamburgh.

          J. Philippart,
          Campaign in Germany and France, 1813,
          volume 1, pages 230-278.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1814.
       The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
       Fall of Napoleon.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),
          and (MARCH-APRIL).

    {1531}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1814 (May).
       Readjustment of French boundaries by the Treaty of Paris.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1815.
       The Congress of Vienna.
       Its territorial and political readjustments.

          See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
       Reconstruction of Germany.
       The Germanic Confederation and its constitution.

       "Germany was now utterly disintegrated. The Holy Roman Empire
       had ceased to exist; the Confederation of the Rhine had
       followed it; and from the Black Forest to the Russian frontier
       there was nothing but angry ambitions, 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 question; 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 états de l'Allemagne seront
       indépendants et unis par un lien fédératif.' But how was this to
       be 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
       unfavourable 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 Germany, 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 reconstruction by circles, the effect of
       which would have been to have thrown all the power of Germany
       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 consent to the formation of a really
       united Fatherland with a powerful executive and a national
       parliament--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 dominions. 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 Münster, 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 perhaps have been settled better than
       they ultimately were, if the return of Napoleon from Elba had
       not frightened all Europe from its propriety, and turned the
       attention of the sovereigns towards warlike preparations. ...
       The document 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 Münster, and the Emperor Alexander. Next, in
       the month of September, it took the form of an official plan,
       handed by Hardenberg to Metternich, and consisting of
       forty-one articles. This plan contemplated 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
       consequence of the difficulties which we have noticed above,
       and out of it, and of ten other official proposals, twelve
       articles were sublimated by the rival chemistry of Hardenberg
       and Metternich. Upon these twelve articles the representatives
       of Austria, Prussia, Hanover, and Wurtemberg, deliberated.
       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 proposed 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 plenipotentiaries
       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, including 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
       altogether thirty-nine. ... The following are the chief
       stipulations of the Federal Act. The object of the
       Confederation is the external and internal security of
       Germany, and the independence and inviolability of the
       confederate states. A diète fédérative (Bundes-Versammlung) is
       to be created, and its attributions are sketched. The Diet is,
       as soon as possible, to draw up the fundamental 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 'Landständische
       Verfassung'--'il y aura des assemblées d'états dans tous les
       pays de la Confedération.' Art. 14 reserves many rights to the
       mediatised princes. Equal civil and political rights are
       guaranteed to all Christians in all German States, and
       stipulations 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 succeeding month
       more heavily upon Germany, and got at last the control of the
       Confederation entirely into their hands.
    {1532}
       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 conferences which
       immediately succeeded it at Vienna; and the adoption by the
       Diet of the Final Act (Sehluss Acte) of the Confederation on
       the 8th of June 1820. The following are the chief stipulations
       of the Final Act:--The Confederation 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 permission. The regulations for the
       conduct of business 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 Confederation 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 Confederation is attacked in its
       non-federal territory if the attack seems likely to endanger
       Germany."

          M. E. G. Duff,
          Studies in European Politics,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          J. R. Seeley,
          Life and Times of Stein,
          part 8 (volume 3).

          E. Hertslet,
          The Map of Europe by Treaty,
          volume 1, number 26
          (Text of Federative Constitution).

          See, also, VIENNA: CONGRESS OF.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1815.
       Napoleon's return from Elba.
       The Quadruple Alliance.
       The Waterloo campaign and its results.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.

    GERMANY: 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 FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE),
          (JULY-NOVEMBER).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1815.
       The Holy Alliance.

          See HOLY ALLIANCE.

    GERMANY: 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 what was considered hateful in
       the institutions of some of the German States. These youthful
       excesses were viewed by the Governments 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
       police interference. Matters grew worse in consequence 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 was held that this bloody deed must needs be
       the result of a wide-spread conspiracy: the authorities
       suspected demagogues everywhere. Ministers, of course at the
       instigation of Metternich, met at Karlsbad, and determined on
       repressive measures. These were afterwards adopted by the
       Federal Diet at Frankfort, which henceforth became 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 Germany against
       all who identified themselves with the popular movement; many
       young men were thrown into prison; gymnastic and other
       societies were arbitrarily suppressed; a rigid censorship of
       the press was established, and the freedom of the Universities
       restrained; various professors, among them Arndt, whose songs had
       helped to fire the enthusiasm of the Freiheitskämpfer--the
       soldiers of Freedom--in the recent 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, bore a
       political colouring and placed the demand for German Unity in
       the foreground."

          G. Krause,
          The Growth of German Unity,
          chapter 8.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.
       Arbitrary rulers and discontented subjects.
       The ferment before revolution.
       Formation of the Zollverein.

       "The history of Germany during the thirty years of peace which
       followed [the Congress of Carlsbad] 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
       enmity on the part of the people. Instead of becoming loving
       families, as the Holy Alliance designed, the States (except
       some of the little principalities) were divided into two
       hostile classes. There was material growth everywhere; the
       wounds left by war and foreign occupation were gradually
       healed; there was order, security for all who abstained from
       politics, and a comfortable 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 stronger life existing in
       her people, was falling 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
       Austria 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 (out of their reigning families) and the
       English Duke, Ernest Augustus, was made viceroy of Hannover.
    {1533}
       These four States also adopted a constitutional form of
       government. The German 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 repression, and some of the smaller States took
       advantage of their independence to introduce various measures
       of reform. As industry, commerce and travel increased, the
       existence of so many boundaries, with their custom-houses,
       taxes and other hindrances, became an unendurable burden.
       Bavaria and Würtemberg formed a customs union in 1828, Prussia
       followed, and by 1836 all of Germany except Austria was united
       in the Zollverein (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 overthrew the
       constitution he had accepted, and Ludwig I. of Bavaria,
       renouncing all his former professions, made his land a very
       nest of absolutism and Jesuitism. In Prussia, such men as
       Stein, Gneisenau, 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 succeeded by his son, Frederick William IV., a
       man of great wit and intelligence, who had made himself
       popular as Crown-prince, and whose accession the people hailed
       with joy, in the enthusiastic 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 condition 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 government, the people were bitterly
       deceived. Frederick William IV. took no steps towards the
       adoption of a Constitution; he made the censorship and the
       supervision of the police more severe; he interfered in the
       most arbitrary and bigoted manner in the system of religious
       instruction 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 sultry
       and disturbed. ... There were signs of impatience in all
       quarters; various local outbreaks occurred, and the aspects
       were so threatening that in February, 1847, Frederick William
       IV. endeavored to silence the growing opposition by ordering
       the formation of a Legislative Assembly. 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,
          History of Germany,
          chapter 37.

          ALSO IN:
          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 2, chapters 5 and 7.

          See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D.1815-1835.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1820-1822.
       The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.

          See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1835-1846.
       Death of the Emperor Francis I. of Austria.
       Accession of Ferdinand I.
       Extinction of the Polish republic of Cracow.
       Its annexation to Austria.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1839-1840.
       The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
       Quadruple Alliance.

          See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (March).
       Revolutionary outbreaks.
       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
       proclamation of a republic, had kindled from one end to the
       other of Europe the enthusiasm of the republican party. The
       conflagration rapidly extended itself. The Rhenish provinces
       of Prussia, whose near neighbourhood and former connexion with
       France made them more peculiarly combustible, broke out with a
       cry for the most extensive reforms; that is to say, for
       representative institutions, 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, Königsberg, and Berlin, were in
       violent commotion. In the month of March, 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 disturbance. The troops acted
       with great firmness. The mob gathered together, but did not
       show much fight; but they were dispersed with difficulty, 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
       enacted at Breslau and Königsberg, 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 resolved to put himself at
       the head of it. It was probably the only course open to him,
       if he would preserve his crown. ...
    {1534}
       The king must have previously had the questions which were
       agitating Germany under careful consideration; for he at once
       published a proclamation embodying the whole of them: the
       unity of Germany, by forming it into a federal state, with a
       federal 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 customs
       union, and included in the Zollverein; one system of money,
       weights, and measures; and the freedom of the press. These
       were the subjects touched upon. ... The popularity of the
       proclamation with the mob-leaders was unbounded, and the mob
       shouted. Every line of it contained their own ideas,
       vigorously expressed. Their delight was proportionate to their
       astonishment. A crowd got together at the palace to express
       their gratitude; the king came out of a window, and was loudly
       cheered. Two regiments of dragoons unluckily mistook the
       cheering for an attack, and began pushing them back by forcing
       their horses forward. ... Unfortunately, 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, exasperated by what they thought an unfair
       species of fighting, were by no means unwilling for the fray.
       ... The troops carried barricade after barricade, and gave no
       quarter even to the unresisting. 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 flight raged for fifteen hours. Either the king
       lost his head when it began, or the troops, having 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 successful at all points.
       ... The king put out a manifesto at seven o'clock, declaring
       that the whole business arose from an unlucky misunderstanding
       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 proclaimed
       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 withdrawn. 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
       obtained. ... Of the troops, according to the official
       returns, there fell 3 officers and 17 non-commissioned
       officers and privates; of wounded there were 14 officers, 14
       non-commissioned officers, and 225 privates, and 1 surgeon.
       ... The 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 the
       first of the German states where the old order of things was
       overturned. During the whole of the month of March, Germany
       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 established, and other popular
       demands granted. In Vienna, the old system of Metternich was
       abolished, 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 previously 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,
          volume 2: Germany, chapter 2.

          ALSO IN:
          C. E. Maurice,
          The Revolutionary Movement of 1848-9,
          chapter 7.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (March-September).
       Election and meeting of the National Assembly at Frankfort.
       Resignation of the Diet.
       Election of Archduke John to be Administrator of Germany.
       Powerlessness of the new government.
       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 assembly of March
       5th, consisting of the former opposition leaders in the
       various Chambers, issued a call to the German nation, and
       chose a commission of seven men, who were to make propositions
       with regard to a permanent parliament and to summon a
       preliminary parliament at Frankfort. This preliminary
       parliament assembled in St. Paul's church, March 31st. ... The
       majority, 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 measures
       did not satisfy the radical party, whose leaders were Hecker
       and Struve. As their proposition to set up a sovereign
       assembly, and republicanize Germany, was rejected, they left
       Frankfort, and held in the highlands of Baden popular meetings
       at which they demanded the proclamation of the republic.
    {1535}
       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 proprietors, destroyed the archives, with
       the odious tithe and rental books, and demolished a few
       castles. The Diet, which in the meantime continued its
       illusory existence, thought to extricate itself from the
       present difficulties by a few concessions. 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 Würtemberg, began their work on the 30th
       of March. The elections for the National Assembly stirred to
       their innermost fibres the German people, dreaming of the
       restoration of their former greatness. May 18th about 320
       delegates assembled in the Imperial Hall, in the Römer (the
       Rathhaus), at Frankfort. ... Never has a political assembly
       contained a greater number of intellectual and scholarly
       men--men of character 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 majority. ... It was decided ... that a
       provisional central executive should be created in the place
       of the Diet, and created, not by the National Assembly in
       concert with the princes, but by the National Assembly alone.
       June 27th, following out the bold conception of its president,
       the assembly decided to appoint an irresponsible
       administrator, with a responsible ministry; and June 29th,
       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, apparently for the last time. It
       resigned its authority into the hands of the Administrator,
       and, after an existence of 32 years, left the stage unmourned.
       Archduke John was a popular prince, who found more pleasure in
       the mountain air of Tyrol and Styria than in the perfumed
       atmosphere 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
       revolution. ... Orders were issued by the federal minister of
       war that all the troops of the Confederation 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
       Assembly, 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 separate governments; and
       it opened, as well, a dangerous gulf in the Assembly itself.
       The question at issue was one of succession [see SCANDINAVIAN
       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 preliminary
       parliament [this having occurred in April, before the meeting
       of the National Assembly] approved the application of
       Schleswig for admission, and commissioned Prussia, in
       conjunction with the 10th army corps of the Confederation, to
       occupy Schleswig and Holstein. On the 21st of April, 1848,
       General Wrangel crossed the Eider as commander of the forces
       of the Confederation; and on the 23d, 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 $2,250,000). 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 indemnified 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 Malmö, in Sweden, on
       the 26th 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 the armistice,
       and the countermanding of the order to retreat. ... A bill to
       that effect, demanded by the honor of Germany, had scarcely
       been passed by the majority, on the 5th of September, 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 excited people.
       In consequence of this the previous vote was rescinded, and
       the armistice of Malmö 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. ...
    {1536}
       A collision ensued [September 18]; barricades were erected,
       but were carried by the troops without much bloodshed. ...
       General Auerswald and Prince Lichnowsky, riding on horseback
       near the city, were followed by a mob. They took refuge in a
       gardener's house on the Bornheimer-heide, but were dragged out
       and murdered with the most disgraceful atrocities. Thereupon
       the city was declared in a state of siege, all societies were
       forbidden, and strong measures were taken for the maintenance
       of 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. Müller,
          Political History of Recent Times,
          section 17.

          ALSO IN:
          Sir A. Alison,
          History of Europe, 1815-1852,
          chapter 53.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1849.
       Revolutionary risings in Austria and Hungary.
       Bombardment of Vienna.
       The war in Hungary.
       Abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand.
       Accession of Francis Joseph.

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.
       The Prussian National Assembly, and its dissolution.
       The work and the failure of the National Assembly of
       Frankfort.
       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 for the Frankfort Parliament, were to take place (May
       1). The Prussian National Assembly was to meet May 22. The
       Prussian people, under the new election law, if left to
       themselves, would have quietly chosen a body of competent
       representatives; but the revolutionary party thought nothing
       could be done without the ax 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 21. ... One of the first resolutions
       proceeded from Behrend of the Extreme Left. 'The Assembly
       recognizes the revolution, and declares that the combatants
       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. ... In the evening of the same day,
       in consequence of the rejection of the Behrend resolution, the
       arsenal was attacked by a large body of laborers. The
       burgher-guard were not prepared, and made a feeble defense.
       There was a great riot. The building was stormed and partially
       plundered. ... The sketch of a constitution proposed by the
       king 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 in their own
       right, and, in addition, 60 members from the wealthiest of the
       kingdom to be selected by the king, their office hereditary.
       This constitution was immediately rejected. On the rejection
       of the constitution the ministry Camphausen resigned. ... 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 jurisdiction.
       As the drama drew nearer its close, the Assembly became more
       open in its intention to overthrow the monarchy. On October 12
       discussions began upon a resolution to strike from the king's
       title the words, 'By the grace of God,' and to abolish all
       titles of nobility and distinctions of rank. The Assembly
       building, during the sitting, was generally surrounded by
       threatening crowds. ... Of course, during this period business
       was suspended, and want, beggary, and drunkenness, as well as
       lawless disorder, increased. ... 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 Assembly was struck mute with
       stupefaction. The Prince of Prussia, the late Emperor William
       I., supposed to be in England, in terror for his life,
       appeared at the door, accompanied by two officers, all three
       in full uniform, and marched directly 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 in the slightest danger of being abolished; but
       he spoke with the modesty and good sense of a prince who
       frankly accepted the vast transformation which the government
       had undergone, and who intended honestly to endeavor to carry
       out the will 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
       Wrangel. ... He proceeded without delay to encircle the city
       with the 25,000 troops. At the same time, a cabinet order of
       the king (September 21) named a new ministry. ... At this
       moment, the revolution over all Europe was nearly exhausted.
       Cavaignac had put down the June insurrection. The Prussian
       flag waved above the flag of Germany. The Frankfort Parliament
       was rapidly dying out. ... On November 2, Count Brandenburg
       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 meetings, not in
       Berlin, but in Brandenburg' (fifty miles from Berlin). After
       reading the message, Count Brandenburg, his colleagues, and
       all the members of the Right retired. ... The Assembly ...
       adjourned, and met again in the evening. ... On November 10,
       the Assembly met again. Their debates were interrupted by
       General Wrangel, who had entered Berlin by the Brandenburg
       gate, at the head of 25,000 troops. ... An officer from
       General Wrangel entered the hall and politely announced that
       he had received orders to disperse the Assembly. The members
       submitted, and left the hall. ...
    {1537}
       An order was 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. President von Unruh
       declared he could not consistently 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 the 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 election 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 Frankfort 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. Austria 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 Austria 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 various propositions (all rejected) were the following: 1.
       A Directory, consisting of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria,
       Würtemberg, and Saxony. II. The King of Prussia and Emperor of
       Austria to alternate 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 January 23, 1849, the resolution that
       one of the reigning 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 German 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 27, the hereditability passed by a majority of
       four. On March 28, the constitution, with the democratic
       electoral law, universal suffrage, 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, consisting 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 accept 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 representatives from
       Frankfort. The King of Würtemberg accepted; but rejected the
       House of Hohenzollern as head of the Empire. Bavaria, Hanover,
       Saxony, 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
       governments, inviting them to send representatives to Berlin,
       for the purpose of framing a new constitution. The note added:
       In case of any attempt to force the Frankfort constitution
       upon the country, Prussia was ready to render to the
       governments all necessary assistance. ... On May 3, an
       insurrection 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 representatives. ... By
       the gradual disappearance of most of the moderate members ...
       the Parliament, now a mere revolutionary committee, dwindled
       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, Rastadt. There
       were, in all, three attempts at revolution 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
       imprisonment for life in the fortress of Spandau. Carl Schurz
       aided him in escaping."

          T. S. Fay,
          The Three Germanys,
          chapters 25-26 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 3, chapter 2.

          H. von Sybel,
          The Founding of the German Empire,
          books 2-5 (volumes 1-2).

          See, also, CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1862.
       Opening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
       War with Denmark.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1853-1875.
       Commercial treaties with Austria and France.
       Progress towards free trade.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
       Advent of King William I. and Prince Bismarck in Prussia.
       Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
       Conquest of the duchies by Prussia and Austria.
       Consequent quarrel and war.

       "King Frederic William IV. [of Prussia], never a man of strong
       head, had for years been growing weaker and more eccentric.
       ... In the early part of 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 commission was only for three months. ... The Prince's
       temporary commission was renewed from time to time; but it
       soon became apparent that Frederic William's case was
       hopeless, and his brother was formally installed as Regent in
       October, 1858.
    {1538}
       Ultimately, the King died in January, 1861, and his brother
       succeeded to the throne as William I." In September, 1862,
       Otto von Bismarck became the new King's chief minister, with
       General Roon for Minister of War, appointed to carry out a
       reorganization of the Prussian army which King William had
       determined to effect. Bismarck found his first opportunity for
       the aggrandizement of Prussia in a reopening of the
       Schleswig-Holstein question, which came about in November,
       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
       monarchy, but had in certain respects a separate
       administrative existence. This Denmark, in the year of
       Christian's accession, had materially infringed 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 new King of Denmark
       as Duke of Holstein 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 collective 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
       compassed along with Holstein, so much the better. But there
       were two difficulties 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 cause of the
       father of the beautiful princess she had adopted as her own.
       The German Confederation would oppose Prussia's naked effort
       to aggrandise herself; 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 opportunity 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
       submit. The Austro-Prussian troops marched through Holstein
       into Sleswig, 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 Düppel, when Prince Frederic Charles
       succeeded 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
       unfortunate 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
       everything save the possession of heroic bravery; but most of
       all by the fire of the needle-gun and the Prussian advantage
       in the possession of rifled artillery. Only part of the
       Prussian infantry had used the needle-gun in the reduction of
       the Baden insurrection in 1848; now, however, the whole army
       was equipped with it. ... In their retreat from the Dannewerke
       into the Düppel position, the Danes suffered severely from the
       inclemency of the weather, and fought a desperate rear-guard
       engagement with the Austrians. ... The Prussians undertook the
       task of reducing Düppel; the Austrians marched northward into
       Jutland, and driving back the Danish troops they encountered
       in their march, sat down before the fortress of Fredericia,
       and swept the Little Belt with their cannon. The sieges, both
       of Düppel and of Fredericia, were conducted with extreme
       inertness." But the former was taken and the latter abandoned.
       "The Danish war was terminated by the Treaty of Vienna on the
       30th October, 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 inevitably the war of 1866, between Prussia and
       Austria. The wolves quite naturally wrangled over the carcase,
       and the astuter wolf had so much the better of the wrangle
       that the duller one, unless he chose to be partly bullied,
       partly tricked out of his share, had no alternative but to
       fight for it, with the result that he clean lost that and a
       great deal more besides. The future of the Elbe Duchies was
       played at pitch and toss with between Prussia and Austria for
       the best part of a year; the details of the game were too
       intricate to be followed here. The condominium of the two
       Powers in the duchies produced constant friction, which was
       probably Bismarck's intention, especially as Prussia had taken
       care to keep stationed in them twice as many troops as Austria
       had left there. Relations were becoming very strained when in
       August, 1865, the Emperor Francis Joseph and King William met
       at the little watering-place of Gastein, and from their
       interview originated the short-lived arrangement known as the
       Convention of Gastein. By that compact, while the two Powers
       preserved 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 construction
       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
       provisional, as on all hands it was regarded, Prussia clearly
       had the advantage under it. ... But the Gastein Convention
       contained another provision--that Austria should sell to
       Prussia all her rights in the duchy of Lauenburg (an outlying
       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
       German Confederation.
    {1539}
       The Convention of Gastein pleased nobody, but that mattered
       little to Bismarck. ... Bickerings recommenced before the year
       1865 was out, and early in 1866 Austria began to arm. ... In
       March, 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 brigade
       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 Confederation,
       by declaring war against three of its component members,
       Hanover, Hesse, and Saxony. There was no formal declaration of
       war between Austria and Prussia, only a notification of
       intended hostile action sent by the Prussian commanders 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 Germany,
          chapters 7-8.

          ALSO IN:
          H. von Sybel,
          The Founding of the German Empire,
          books 9-16 (volumes 3-4).

          C. Lowe,
          Prince Bismarck,
          chapters 5-7 (volume 1),
          and appendices. A, B, C (volume 2).

          J. G. L. Hesekiel,
          Life of Bismarck,
          book 5, chapter 3.

          Count von Beust,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapters 22-28.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1862.
       The Schleswig-Holstein question.

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

    GERMANY: 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 shouting for Austria. On the 10th of June,
       Bismark laid before the German governments the outlines of a
       new federal constitution, but was not listened to; on the 15th
       he made proposals to the states in the immediate neighborhood
       of Prussia for a peace on these foundations, and demanded
       their neutrality, adding 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 the North Sea to the Main. On the 18th of
       June, the Prussian general Bayer entered Cassel; the Elector
       was surprised at Wilhelmshöhe. 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 27th, his brave troops were
       surrounded. The King capitulated on the 29th. His army was
       disbanded, he himself allowed to go to Vienna. On the 18th the
       Prussians were in Dresden; on the 19th, in Leipzig; by the
       20th, all Saxony except the fortress of Königstein was in
       their hands. The king and army of Saxony, on the approach of
       the Prussians, had left the country by the railroads to
       Bohemia to form a junction with the Austrians. The Saxon army
       consisted of 23,000 men and 60 cannon. Everyone 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,
       762 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
       Landwehr. The whole force in this quarter numbered 280,000 men
       and 800 guns. ... The Prussians knew what they were fighting
       for. To the Austrians the idea of this war was something
       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 unable,
       from want of means, to attack, he concentrated his army
       between Josephstadt and the county of Glatz. He thought only
       of defence. ... On the 23rd of June the great Prussian army
       commenced contemporaneously its march to Bohemia from the
       Riesengebirge, from Lusatia, from Dresden. It advanced from
       four points to Josephstadt-Koniggrätz, 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
       Bohemia 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 Koniggrätz 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 Vienna after
       hearing of the victory over the Italians at Custozza.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

    {1540}

       The emperor replied by ordering him briefly to give battle
       immediately. Benedek, on the 1st of July, again sent word to
       the emperor, 'Your majesty must conclude peace.' Yet on these
       repeated warnings came the order to fight at once. Benedek had
       provided for such an answer by his arrangements for July the
       2nd. He had placed his 500 guns in the most favorable
       positions, and occupied the 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 attack
       the Austrians on the 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 Königgrätz. Part of
       the Crown Prince's army were still five German miles from the
       intended battle ground. Prince Frederick Charles and Herwarth
       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;
       Herwarth on the right at Nechanitz; the Crown Prince was to
       advance on the left from Königinhof. 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 Prussian 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 Saxons, and threatened
       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 Frederick
       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
       destructive to the Austrians. The Austrian troops fought with
       thorough gallantry. ... Respecting 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,
       including the prisoners. The Prussians acknowledged 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 movements were put a stop to by the five days'
       armistice, which began on the 22d 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, distinguished 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,
       Würtemberg, Electoral Hesse, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, and
       12,000 Austrians under Prince Alexander of Hesse, was so
       mismanaged that the Würtemberg 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. Frankfort, 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 successor of Falkenstein. The
       latter sum was remitted 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 Würzburg;
       Göben defeated the army of Baden at Werbach, and that of
       Würtemberg at Tauberbischofsheim; before this the eighth
       federal army corps joined the Bavarian army, and on the 25th
       and 26th of July the united forces were defeated at Gerschheim
       and Rossbrunn, and on the 27th, the citadel of Würzburg 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 Würzburg to the
       Prussians. Thus of the eighth army corps, the Würtembergers
       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; Würtemberg had to pay
       eight millions of gulden, Baden six millions, Hesse-Darmstadt
       three millions, Bavaria thirty millions of gulden. The
       Würtemberg minister, Varnbüler, and the Baden minister,
       Freydorf, offered to form an offensive and defensive alliance
       with Prussia 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
       small district in the north. Hesse-Darmstadt ceded
       Hesse-Homburg and some pieces of territory, and entered the
       North German Confederation, giving to Prussia the right of
       keeping a garrison in Mainz.
    {1541}
       Austria renounced her claims on Schleswig and Holstein,
       acknowledged the dissolution 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 incorporation of
       Schleswig-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 two Mecklenburgs, 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 Confederation 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 Confederation was to be a subject of future
       discussion. Moreover, Bavaria, Baden and Würtemberg 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 indemnities, eighty-two millions of
       gulden. Thus ended in the year 1866 the struggle [known as the
       Seven Weeks War] between Austria and Prussia for the
       leadership of Germany."

          W. Zimmermann,
          Popular History of Germany,
          book 6, chapter 3 (v. 4).

          ALSO IN:
          H. von Sybel,
          The Founding of the German Empire,
          books 17-20 (volume 5).

          Major C. Adams,
          Great Campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870,
          chapter 10.

          Count von Beust,
          Memoirs,
          volume 1, chapters 29-34.

          G. B. Malleson,
          The Refounding of the German Empire,
          chapters 6-10.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1867.
       Foreshadowings of the new 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 Prussia and of the new organization of the
       Tariff-Union. ... The natural and inevitable course of events
       must here irresistibly break its way, unless 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 efficient in military
       organization, guided by the firm hand of King William,
       counselled by the representatives of the North German
       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 relation 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 the 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 Government. The former period aimed at the
       appointment of a Constitutional and hereditary emperor, with
       responsible 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
       undecided, the Crown Prince Frederick William, who in general
       had in mind for the supreme head of the Confederation a higher
       rank and position of power than did the Ring, 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. 'These,' 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
       project; 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
       imperial 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 proposition 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 Empire by William I.,
          book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5).

    {1542}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.
       Territorial concessions demanded by France.
       Rapid progress of German unification.
       The Zollparlament.
       The Luxemburg question.
       French determination 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
       Austria, whose friendship he foresaw that Germany would need.
       Meanwhile Napoleon's interference continued. 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.'--'Eh bien, 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 Würtemberg, 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 German States appeared at Berlin to negotiate
       with Bismarck, and Benedetti's draft-treaty was communicated
       to them, there was a complete change of disposition. They then
       wished to go much further than the Prussian Statesman was
       prepared 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
       result 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 German 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. Progress had
       meanwhile been made with the construction 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 representatives 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
       Germany, 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
       Confederation. 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 Würtemberg, 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,
       Saarbrücken, Saarlouis, and Luxemburg, together with Prussia's
       consent to the annexation of Belgium by France. If that could
       not be obtained, he would be satisfied 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 Netherlands 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 Bismarck 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
       Emperor'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 negotiations with the King of Holland, as
       Grand-Duke of Luxemburg.
    {1543}
       Great excitement was thereby caused in Germany, and, as a
       timely warning to France, Bismarck 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 Germany, 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 Government of the Hague that the cession of Luxemburg
       would be 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 satisfaction 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 Germany 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 Growth of German Unity,
          chapter 13-14.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Simon,
          The Emperor William and his Reign,
          chapter 9-10 (volume l).

          C. A. Fyffe,
          History of Modern Europe,
          volume 3, chapter 5-6.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (June-July).
       "The Hohenzollern incident."
       French Declaration of War.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (September-December).
       The Germanic Confederation completed.
       Federative treaties with the states of South Germany.
       Suggestion of the Empire.

       "Having decided on taking Strasburg and Metz from France"
       Prussia "could only justify that conquest by considerations of
       the safety of South Germany, and she could only defend these
       interests 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
       negotiations were opened, in the middle of September, 1870,
       between Bavaria and Prussia, with the participation of Baden,
       Wurtemberg and Hesse-Darmstadt. ... Prussia asked at first for
       entire and unreserved adhesion to the Northern Confederation,
       a solution acceptable to Baden, Wurtemberg 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, Wurtemberg accepted the same arrangement.
       These three States agreed to the constitution, slightly
       modified, of the Northern Confederation; the new treaties were
       completed by military conventions, establishing the fusion of
       the respective Corps d'Armée with the Federal Army of the
       North, under the command of the King of Prussia. The Treaty
       with Bavaria was signed at Versailles on the 23rd of November.
       The concessions 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-Office 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
       consent. Such were the Treaties submitted on the 24th of
       November to the sanction of the Parliament of the North,
       assembled in an Extraordinary Session. They met with intense
       opposition from the National Liberal and from the Progressive
       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 Emperor 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
       ote 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 desirous of receiving his new dignity
       from the hands of a Parliament; the assent of the sovereigns
       was in his eyes far more essential."

          E. Simon,
          The Emperor William and his Reign,
          chapter 13 (volume 2).

          ALSO IN:
          G. Freytag,
          The Crown Prince and the Imperial Crown.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1871.
       Victorious war with France.
       Siege of Paris.
       Occupation of the city.
       Enormous indemnity exacted.
       Acquisition of Alsace and part of Lorraine.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST)
          to 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1871 (January).
       Assumption of the Imperial dignity by King William,
       at Versailles.

       "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
       substitution 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 Germany, approaches
       with the prayer that your Majesty will deign to consecrate the
       work of unification by accepting the Imperial Crown of Germany.
    {1544}
       The Teutonic Crown on the head of your Majesty will
       inaugurate, for the re-established Empire of the German
       nation, an era of power, of peace, of well-being, and of
       liberty secured under the protection of the laws.' The 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 dignity had yet to be received from the minor
       German 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 Germany,
          chapter 12.

       King William's formal assumption of the Imperial dignity took
       place on the 18th of January, 1871. "The Crown Prince was
       entrusted with all the preparations 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
       officers to Versailles, and all the higher officers who could
       be spared from duty were ordered to attend, for the 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
       representatives were assembled in the Galerie des Glaces. A
       special service was read by the military chaplains, and then
       the Emperor, mounting on the dais, announced his assumption of
       Imperial authority, 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 his
       Imperial Father. 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 Emperor,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Lowe,
          Prince Bismarck,
          chapter 9 (volume 1).

    GERMANY: 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, there be
       substituted a Constitution for the German Empire,--the text of
       which appeared as an appendix to this imperial decree. For a
       full translation of the text of the Constitution,

          See CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Hertslet,
          The Map of Europe by Treaty,
          volume 3, Number 442.

          C. Lowe,
          Prince Bismarck,
          appendix F. (volume 2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.
       Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as an
       imperial province.

       "How to garner the territorial harvest of the
       war--Alsace-Lorraine--was a question which greatly vexed the
       parliamentary mind. Several possible solutions had presented
       themselves. 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 years of the most careful nursing
       to reconcile the kidnapped children of France to their
       adoptive parent. For him, the only serious question was
       whether Alsace-Lorraine should be annexed 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 at of "Prussian,"
       the latter being detested in France in comparison with the
       other.' In its first session, accordingly, the Diet was asked
       to pass a law incorporating Alsace-Lorraine with the Empire,
       and placing the annexed provinces under a provisional
       dictatorship till the 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 period within which the
       Imperial Government alone was to have the right of making laws
       for Alsace-Lorraine, was shortened till 1st January, 1873;
       while the Diet, on the other hand, was 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 accordingly. For the next three years, therefore, the
       Reichsland was governed from the Wilhelmstrasse, as India is
       ruled from Downing Street. ... In the beginning of 1874 ...
       fifteen deputies from Alsace-Lorraine--now thus far admitted
       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--bearing the unfortunate name 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 Mr. 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 behind only did so to
       complain of the 'intolerable tyranny' under which the
       provinces were groaning, and to move for the repeal of the law
       (of December, 1871) which invested the local Government with
       dictatorial powers. ...
    {1545}
       Believing 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 part of the Imperial
       edifice; and, in the autumn of 1874, he advised the Emperor to
       grant the Alsace-Lorrainers (not by law, but by ordinance,
       which could easily be revoked) 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), therefore, there met at Strasburg the first
       Landesausschuss, or Provincial Committee, composed of
       delegates, thirty in number, from the administrative District
       Councils. ... So well, indeed, on the whole, did this
       arrangement work, that within 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 Berlin, the making of its laws was more and more
       confined to Strasburg. ... The party of the Irreconcilables
       had been gradually giving way to the Autonomists, or those who
       subordinated the question of nationality to that of home-rule.
       Rapidly gaining in strength, this latter party at last (in the
       spring of 1879) petitioned the Reichstag for an independent
       Government, with its seat in Strasburg, for the representation
       of the Reichsland in the Federal Council, and for an
       enlargement of the functions of the Provincial Committee.
       Nothing could have been more gratifying to Bismarck than this
       request, amounting, as it did, to a reluctant recognition of
       the Treaty of Frankfort on the part of the Alsace-Lorrainers.
       He therefore replied that he was quite willing to confer on
       the provinces 'the highest degree of independence compatible
       with the military security of the Empire.' The Diet, without
       distinction of party, applauded his words; and not only that,
       but it hastened to pass a bill embodying ideas at which the
       Chancellor himself had hinted in the previous year. By this
       bill, the government of Alsace-Lorraine was to centre in a
       Statthalter, or Imperial Viceroy, living at Strasburg, instead
       of, as heretofore, in the chancellor. ... Without being a
       Sovereign, this Statthalter was to exercise all but sovereign
       rights. ... For this high office the Emperor selected the
       brilliant soldier-statesman, Marshal Manteuffel. ...
       Certainly, His Majesty could not possibly have chosen a better
       man for the responsible office, which the Marshal assumed on
       the 1st October, 1879. Henceforth, the conquered provinces
       entered an entirely new phase of their existence. ... Whether
       the Reichsland will ever ripen into an integral part of
       Prussia, or into a regular Federal State with a Prussian
       prince for its Sovereign, the future alone can show."

          C. Lowe,
          Prince Bismarck,
          chapter 14 (volume 2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
       The Culturkampf.
       The "May Laws" and their repeal.

       "The German Culturkampf, or civilization-fight, as its
       illustrious chief promoter is said to have named it, may
       equally well be styled the religion combat, or education
       strife. ... The arena of the Culturkampf in Germany is,
       strictly speaking, Prussia and Hesse Darmstadt--pre-eminently
       the former. According to the last census, taken December 1,
       1880, the population of Prussia is 27,278,911. Of these, the
       Protestants are 17,645,462, being 64.7 per cent., and the
       Catholics 9,205,136, or 34.1 per cent., of the total
       population. The remainder are principally Jews, amounting to
       363,790, or 1.334 per cent. It was on the 9th of January,
       1873, that 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 because they
       were generally passed in the month of May, although in
       different years, but also called the Falk Laws, from the
       Minister who framed them]. These laws, which, for the future,
       were to regulate 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 main objects were: first, to insure greater liberty
       to individual lay members of those churches; secondly, to
       secure a German and national, rather than an 'Ultramontane'
       and non-national, training for the clergy; and, thirdly, to
       protect the inferior clergy against the tyranny of their
       superiors--which simply meant, as proved in the sequel, the
       withdrawal of priests and people, in matters spiritual, from
       the jurisdiction of the bishops, and the separation of
       Catholic Prussia from the Centre of Unity; thus substituting a
       local or national Church, bound hand and foot, under State
       regulation, for a flourishing branch of the Universal Church.
       To promote these objects, it was provided, that all
       Ecclesiastical seminaries should be placed under State
       control; and that all candidates for the priesthood should
       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 provisional
       exception of those which devoted themselves to the care of the
       sick; and all Catholic seminaries were closed. ... The Bishops
       refused to obey the new laws, which in conscience they could
       not accept; and they subscribed a collective declaration to
       this effect, on the 26th of May 1873. On the 7th of August
       following, Pope Pius IX. addressed a strong letter of
       remonstrance to the Emperor William; but entirely without
       effect, as may be seen in the Imperial reply of the 5th of
       September. In punishment 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, Primate of Prussia, the Bishop of
       Munster, the Prince Bishop of Breslau, the Bishop of
       Paderborn, and Cardinal Ledochowski, Archbishop of Gnesen and
       Posen, on whom, then in prison, a Cardinal's hat was conferred
       by the Pope, in March 1875, as a mark of sympathy, encouragement,
       and approval. ... The fifteen Catholic dioceses of Prussia
       comprised, in January 1873, a Catholic aggregate of 8,711,535
       souls. They were administered by 4,627 parish-priests, and
       3,812 coadjutor-priests, or curates, being a total of 8,439
       clergy. Eight years later, owing to the operation of the May
       Laws, there were exiled or dead, without being replaced, 1,770
       of these clergy, viz., 1,125 parish-priests, and 645,
       coadjutor-priests; and there were 601 parishes, comprising
       644,697 souls, quite destitute of clerical care, and 584
       parishes, or 1,501,994 souls, partially destitute thereof.
       Besides these 1,770 secular priests, dead or exiled, and not
       replaced, there were the regular clergy (the members of
       religious orders), all of whom had been expelled."

          J. N. Murphy,
          The Chair of Peter,
          chapter 29.

    {1546}

       "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
       public expenditure for religious purposes. Consequently, in
       1839, the King of Prussia suppressed Calvinism and
       Lutheranism, and established a new Evangelical Church on their
       ruins, with constitution 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 government 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 amenable to the
       general in command. ... I have no doubt whatever that this is
       the real explanation of the Kulturkampf, and that all other
       explanations are excuses and inventions. ... The Chancellor,
       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 pursuing his scheme."

          S. Baring-Gould,
          Germany, Present and Past,
          chapter 13 (volume 2).

       "The passive resistance of the clergy and laity, standing on
       their own ground, and acting together in complete agreement,
       succeeded in the end. The laity had recognised their own
       priests, even when suspended by government, and had resolutely
       refused to receive others; and both priests and laity insisted
       upon the Church regulating its own theological education.
       Prussia and Baden became weary of the contest. In 1880 and
       1881 the 'May Laws' were suspended, and, after negotiation
       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 legislative 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."

          S. Baring-Gould,
          The Church in Germany,
          chapter 21.

       By the Bill passed in 1887, "all religious congregations which
       existed before the passing of the law of May 31, 1875, were to
       be allowed to re-establish themselves, provided their objects
       were purely religious, charitable, or contemplative. ... The
       Society of Jesus, which is a teaching order, was not included
       in this permission. But Prince Bismarck's determination never
       to readmit the Jesuits is well known. ... The Bill left very
       few vestiges of the May laws remaining."

          Annual Register, 1887,
          part 1, page 245.

          ALSO IN:
          C. Lowe,
          Prince Bismarck,
          chapters 12-13 (volume 2).

    GERMANY: A. D. 1878-1879.
       Prince Bismarck's economic revolution.
       Adoption of the Protective policy.

          See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1878-1893.
       The Socialist Parties.

          See SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1882.
       The Triple Alliance.

          See TRIPLE ALLIANCE.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1884-1889.
       Colonization in Africa.
       Territorial seizures.
       The Berlin Conference.

          See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
       Death of the Emperor William I.
       Accession and death of Frederick III.
       Accession of William II.

       The Emperor William 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 decree, dated the 21st of
       March, was addressed to the Crown Prince and published,
       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 representative of the Emperor,
       without obtaining an especial authorisation on each occasion.
       ... The insidious malady from which the Emperor suffered
       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 The Times,
          volume 4, pages 112-115.

          ALSO IN:
          R. Rodd,
          Frederick, Crown Prince and Emperor.

          G. Freytag,
          The Crown Prince.

    GERMANY: 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. Lübeck took this step
       some twenty-two years ago [1866], Hamburg and Bremen not till
       October, 1888--so long had they resisted Prince Bismarck'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 foundation 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 Hamburg, was restricted to the
       city and port, and withdrawn from the rest of the State, which
       extends to the mouth of the Elbe and embraces about 160 square
       miles, while the free-port territory was reduced to 28 square
       miles.
    {1547}
       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, character, 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 common 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. Zimmern,
          The Hansa Towns, period 3,
          chapter 8, note.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1888-1889.
       Prussian Free School laws.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
          PRUSSIA: 1885-1889.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1889-1890.
       Rupture between Emperor William II. and Chancellor Bismarck.
       Retirement of the great Chancellor.

       Soon after the accession of William II., signs of discord
       between the young Emperor and the veteran statesman,
       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; suddenly
       Prince Bismarck interfered, declaring that it was against the
       agrarian interest, and the Landtag, 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 overthrow him under Frederic III., but had not
       succeeded, 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 Chancellor's policy, the forcing of war
       upon Russia. The Count from Trondhjem addressed a telegraphic
       denial to the paper, stating that he had never presented such
       a Memoir; but the Nachrichten 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 existed already a hitch between
       the policy of the Chancellor and that of the Emperor, who had
       arrived 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
       Bismarck, 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 intercourse with deputies to
       any control, and added that he was ready to resign."

          The Change of Government in Germany
          (Fortnightly Review, August, 1890),
          pages 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 Emperor
       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 history
       to draw up a proper memorial. This he took two days to write.
       ... He has since repeatedly demanded the publication of this
       memorial, but without success. ... On 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 Caprivi]
       forced Bismarck to quit the Chancellor's official residence in
       such haste that ... 'Bismarck himself compared his exit to the
       expulsion of a German family from Paris in 1870.'"

          Nation, March 22, 1894 (reviewing 'Das Deutsche
          Reich zur Zeit Bismarcks,' von Dr. Hans Blum).

    {1548}

    GERMANY: A. D. 1890.
       Settlement of African claims with England.
       Acquisition of Heligoland.

          See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

    GERMANY: A. D. 1894.
       Reconciliation of Bismarck with the Emperor.

       In January, 1894, the complete rupture of friendly relations
       between Prince Bismarck and the Emperor, and the Emperor's
       government, which had existed since the dismissal of the
       former, was terminated by a dramatic reconciliation. The
       Emperor made a peace-offering, 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 reception was accorded to the venerable
       ex-chancellor at the capital, by court and populace alike.

    ----------GERMANY: End----------

    GERMINAL, The month.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

    GERONA, Siege of.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1809. (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

    GERONTES.
       Spartan senators, or members of the Gerusia.

          See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

    GERONTOCRACY.

          See HAYTI: A.D. 1804-1880.

    GEROUSIA.

          See GERUSIA.

    GERRY, Elbridge, and the framing of the Federal Constitution.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

    GERRYMANDERING.

       "In the composition of the House of Representatives [of the
       Congress 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 legislature,
       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 majority for
       the party which conducts the operation. This is done sometimes
       by throwing the greatest possible number of hostile voters
       into a district which is anyhow certain to be hostile,
       sometimes by adding to a district where parties are equally
       divided some place in which the majority of friendly voters is
       sufficient to turn the scale. There is a district in
       Mississippi (the so-called Shoe-String District) 250 miles
       long by 30 broad, and another in Pennsylvania resembling a
       dumb-bell. ... In Missouri a district has been contrived
       longer, if measured along its windings, than the state itself,
       into which as large a number as possible of the negro voters
       have been thrown.' This trick is called gerrymandering, from
       Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, who was vice-president of
       the United States from 1813 to 1817. It seems to have been
       first devised in 1788 by the enemies of the Federal
       Constitution in Virginia, in order to prevent the election of
       James Madison to the first Congress, and fortunately it was
       unsuccessful. It was introduced some years afterward into
       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 Government in the U. S.,
          pages 216-218.

          ALSO IN:
          J. Bryce,
          The American Commonwealth,
          volume 1, page 121.

          J. W. Dean,
          The Gerrymander (New England History
          and Genealogical Register, October, 1892).

    GERSCHHEIM, Battle of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

    GERTRUYDENBERG: Prince Maurice's siege and capture of.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

    GERTRUYDENBERG: Conferences at.

          See FRANCE: 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
       constitution or functions. It was composed of thirty members,
       corresponding to the number of the 'obes,' a division as
       ancient as that of the tribes, which alone would suffice to
       refute the legend that the first council was formed of the
       thirty who aided Lycurgus in his enterprise, even without the
       conclusive fact that two of the 'obes' were represented by the
       kings. ... So far as we know, the twenty-eight colleagues of
       the kings were always elected by the people, without regard to
       any qualification besides age and personal merit. The mode of
       election breathes a spirit of primitive simplicity: the
       candidates, who were required to have reached the age of
       sixty, presented themselves in succession to the assembly, and
       were received with applause proportioned to the esteem in
       which they were held by their fellow-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 commonwealth next to the throne. The senators held their
       office for life."

          C. Thirlwall,
          History of Greece,
          chapter 8 (volume 1).

    {1549}

          ALSO IN:
          G. F. Schöman,
          Antiquity of Greece: The State,
          part 3, chapter 1.

          See, also, SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

    GES TRIBES, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
          TUPI.
          GUARANI.
          TUPUYAS.

    GESITHS.--GESITHCUND.

          See COMITATUS;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

    GESORIACUM.

       The principal Roman port and naval station on the Gallic side
       of the English Channel--afterwards called Bononia-modern
       Boulogne. "Gesoriacum was the terminus of the great highway,
       or military marching road, which had been constructed by
       Agrippa across Gaul."

          H. M. Scarth,
          Roman Britain,
          chapter 4.

    GETA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 211-212.

    GETÆ, The.

          See DACIA; THRACIANS; SARMATIA;
          and GOTHS, ORIGIN OF.

    GETTYSBURG, Battle of.

          See UNITED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

    GETULIANS, The.

          See LIBYANS.

    GEWISSAS, The.

       This was the earlier name of the West Saxons.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

    GHAZNEVIDES, OR GAZNEVIDES.

          See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

    GHENT: A. D. 1337.
       Revolt under Jacques Van Arteveld.

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337.

    GHENT: A. D. 1345.
       The end of Jacques Van Arteveld.

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1345.

    GHENT: A. D. 1379-1381.
       The revolt of the White-Hoods.
       The captaincy of Philip Van Arteveld.

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

    GHENT: A. D. 1382-1384.
       Resistance to the Duke of Burgundy.

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

    GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.
       Revolt against the taxes of Philip of Burgundy.

       In 1450, Philip, Duke of Burgundy, having exhausted his usual
       revenues, rich as they were, by the unbounded extravagance of
       his court, laid a heavy tax on salt in Flanders. The sturdy
       men of Ghent were little disposed to submit to an imposition
       so hateful as the French "gabelle"; still less when, the next
       year, a new duty on grain was demanded from them. They rose in
       revolt, put on their white hoods, and prepared for war. It was
       an unfortunate contest for them. They were defeated in nearly
       every engagement; each encounter was a massacre, with no
       quarter given on either side; the surrounding country was laid
       waste and depopulated. A final battle, fought at Gavre, or
       Gaveren, July 22, 1453, went against them so murderously that
       they submitted and went on their knees to the duke--not
       metaphorically, but actually. "The citizens were deprived of
       the banners of their guilds; and the duke was henceforward to
       have an equal voice with them in the appointment of their
       magistrates, whose judicial authority was considerably
       abridged; the inhabitants likewise bound themselves to
       liquidate the expenses of the war, and to pay the gabelle for
       the future." The Hollanders and Zealanders lent their
       assistance to the duke against Ghent, and were rewarded by
       some important concessions.

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

       "The city lost her jurisdiction, her dominion over the
       surrounding country. She had no longer any subjects, was
       reduced to a commune, and a commune, too, in ward two gates,
       walled up forever, were to remind her of this grave change of
       state. The sovereign banner of Ghent, and the trades' banners,
       were handed over to Toison d'Or, who unceremoniously thrust
       them into a sack and carried them off."

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 12, chapter 1 (volume 2).

    GHENT: A. D. 1482-1488.
       In trouble with the Austrian ducal guardian.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

    GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.
       The last peal of the great bell Roland.

       Once more, in 1539, Ghent became the scene of a memorable
       rising of the people against the oppressive exactions of their
       foreign masters. "The origin of the present dispute between
       the Ghenters and the court was the subsidy of 1,200,000
       guilders, demanded by the governess [sister of the emperor
       Charles V.] in 1536, which ... it was found impossible to levy
       by a general tax throughout the provinces. It was therefore
       divided in proportional shares to each; that of Flanders being
       fixed at 400,000 guilders, or one-third of the whole. ... The
       citizens of Ghent ... persisted in refusing the demand,
       offering, instead, to serve the emperor as of old time, with
       their own troops assembled under the great standard of the
       town. ... The other cities of Flanders showed themselves
       unwilling to espouse the cause of the Ghenters, who, finding
       they had no hope of support from them, or of redress from the
       emperor, took up arms, possessed themselves of the forts in
       the vicinity of Ghent, and despatched an embassy to Paris to
       offer the sovereignty of their city to the king." The French
       king, Francis I., not only gave them no encouragement, but
       permitted the emperor, then in Spain, to pass through France,
       in order to reach the scene of disturbance more promptly. In
       the winter of 1540, the latter presented himself before Ghent,
       at the head of a German army, and the unhappy city could do
       nothing but yield itself to him.

          C. M. Davies,
          History of Holland,
          part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).

       At the time of this unsuccessful revolt and the submission of
       the city to Charles V., "Ghent was, in all respects, one of
       the most important cities in Europe. Erasmus, who, as a
       Hollander and a courtier, was not likely to be partial to the
       turbulent Flemings, asserted that there was no town in all
       Christendom to be compared to it for size, power, political
       constitution, or the culture of its inhabitants. It was, said
       one of its inhabitants at the epoch of the insurrection,
       rather a country than a city. ... Its streets and squares were
       spacious and elegant, its churches and other public buildings
       numerous and splendid. The sumptuous church of Saint John or
       Saint Bavon, where Charles V. had been baptized, the ancient
       castle whither Baldwin Bras de Fer had brought the daughter of
       Charles the Bald [see FLANDERS: A. D. 863], the city hall with
       its graceful Moorish front, the well-known belfry, where for
       three centuries had perched the dragon sent by the Emperor
       Baldwin of Flanders from Constantinople, and where swung the
       famous Roland, whose iron tongue had called the citizens,
       generation after generation, to arms, whether to win battles
       over foreign kings at the head of their chivalry, or to plunge
       their swords in each others' breasts, were all conspicuous in
       the city and celebrated in the land. Especially the great bell
       was the object of the burghers' affection, and, generally, of
       the sovereign's hatred; while to all it seemed, as it were, a
       living historical personage, endowed with the human powers and
       passions which it had so long directed and inflamed. ...
       Charles allowed a month of awful suspense to intervene between
       his arrival and his vengeance.
    {1550}
       Despair and hope alternated during the interval. On the 17th
       of March, the spell was broken by the execution of 19 persons,
       who were beheaded as ringleaders. On the 29th of April, he
       pronounced sentence upon the city. ... It annulled all the
       charters, privileges, and laws of Ghent. It confiscated all
       its public property, rents, revenues, houses, artillery,
       munitions of war, and in general everything which the
       corporation, or the traders, each and all, possessed in
       common. In particular, the great bell Roland was condemned and
       sentenced to immediate removal. It was decreed that the
       400,000 florins, which had caused the revolt, should forthwith
       be paid, together with an additional fine by Ghent of 150,000,
       besides 6,000 a year, forever after."

          J. L. Motley,
          The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
          introduction, section 11.

    GHENT: A. D. 1576.
       The Spanish Fury.
       The treaty of the "Pacification of Ghent."

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

    GHENT: A. D. 1584.
       Disgraceful surrender to the Spaniards.
       Decline of the city.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

    GHENT: A. D. 1678.
       Siege and capture by the French.

          See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

    GHENT: A. D. 1678.
       Restored to Spain.

          See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

    GHENT: A. D. 1706.
       Occupied by Marlborough.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

    GHENT: A. D. 1708-1709.
       Taken by the French and retaken by the Allies.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

    GHENT: A. D. 1745-1748.
       Surrendered to the French, and restored to Austria.

          See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D.1745;
          and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.

    GHENT: A. D. 1814.
       Negotiation of the Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and
       the United States.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

    ----------GHENT: End----------

    GHERIAH, Battle of (1763).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

    GHIBELINS.

          See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES.

    GHILDE.

          See GUILDS.

    GHORKAS, OR GOORKAS, English war with the.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

    GIAN GALEAZZO,
       Lord of Milan, A. D. 1378-1396;
       Duke, 1396-1402.
       Gian Galeazzo II., Duke of Milan, 1476-1494.

    GIBBORIM, The.

       King David's chosen band of six hundred, his heroes, his
       "mighty men," his standing army.

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 3.

    GIBEON, Battle of.

          See BETH-HORON, BATTLES OF.

    GIBEONITES, The.

       The Gibeonites were a "remnant of the Amorites, and the
       children of Israel had sworn unto them" (ii Samuel xxi., 2).
       Saul violated the pledged faith of his nation to these people
       and "sought to slay them." After Saul's death there came a
       famine which was attributed to his crime against the
       Gibeonites; whereupon David sought to make atonement to them.
       They would accept nothing but the execution of vengeance upon
       seven of Saul's family, and David gave up to them two sons of
       Saul's concubine, Rizpah, and five sons of Michel, the
       daughter of Saul, whom they hanged.

          H. Ewald,
          History of Israel,
          book 3.

    GIBRALTAR, Origin of the name.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

    GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1309-1460.
       Taken by the Christians, recovered by the Moors, and finally
       wrested from them, after several sieges.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

    GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1704.
       Capture by the English.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

    GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1713.
       Ceded by Spain to England.

          See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

    GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1727.
       Abortive siege by the Spaniards.
       The lines of San Roque.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

    GIBRALTAR: A. D. 1780-1782.
       Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards and French.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

    ----------GIBRALTAR: End----------

    GILBERT, Sir Humphrey:
       Expedition to Newfoundland.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.

    GILBOA, Battles of.

          See MEGIDDO.

    GILDO, Revolt of.

          See ROME: A. D. 396-398.

    GILDS.

          See GUILDS.

    GILEAD.

          See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

    GILLMORE, General Q. A.
       Siege and reduction of Fort Pulaski.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

       The siege of Charleston.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1863 (JULY: S. CAROLINA),
          and (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

    GIOVANNA.

          See JOANNA.

    GIOVANNI MARIA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1402-1412.

    GIPSIES.

          See GYPSIES.

    GIRONDINS.-GIRONDISTS, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER); 1791-1792;
          1792 (JUNE-AUGUST), (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
          1793 (MARCH-JUNE), (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER),
          (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER); 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

    GIRTON COLLEGE.

          See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: 1865-1883.

    GITANOS.

          See GYPSIES.

    GIURGEVO, Battle of (1595).

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
          14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

    GLADIATORS, Revolt of the.

          See SPARTACUS.

    GLADSTONE MINISTRIES.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870; 1873-1880 to 1885;
          1885-1886; and 1892-1893.

    GLATZ, Capture of.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

    GLENCO, Massacre of.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.

    GLENDALE, Battle of.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
          A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

    GLENDOWER'S REBELLION.

          See WALES: A. D. 1402-1413.

    GLENMALURE, Battle of (1580).

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

    GLEVUM.

       Glevum was a large colonial city of the Romans in Britain,
       represented by the modern city of Gloucester. It "was a town
       of great importance, as standing not only on the Severn, near
       the place where it opened out into the Bristol Channel, but
       also as being close to the great Roman iron district of the
       Forest of Dean."

          T. Wright,
          Celt, Roman and Saxon,
          chapter 5.

    {1551}

    GLOGAU, The storming of (1642).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

    GLOSSATORS, The.

          See BOLOGNA: 11TH CENTURY.--SCHOOL OF LAW.

    GLOUCESTER, Origin of.

          See GLEVUM.

    GLOUCESTER: A. D. 1643.
       Siege of.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

    GLYCERIUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 473-474.

    GNOSTICS-GNOSTICISM.

       "In a word ... Gnosticism was a philosophy of religion; but in
       what sense was it this? The name of Gnosticism--Gnosis--does
       not belong exclusively to the group of phenomena with whose
       historical explanation we are here concerned. Gnosis is a
       general idea; it is only as defined in one particular manner
       that it signifies Christian Gnosticism in a special sense:
       Gnosis is higher Knowledge, Knowledge that has a clear
       perception of the foundations on which it rests, and the
       manner in which its structure has been built up; a Knowledge
       that is completely that which, as Knowledge, it is called to
       be. In this sense it forms the natural antithesis to Pistis,
       Faith [whence Pistics, believing Christians]: if it is desired
       to denote Knowledge in its specific difference from faith, no
       word will mark the distinction more significantly than Gnosis.
       But we find that, even in this general sense, the Knowledge
       termed Gnosis is a religious Knowledge rather than any other;
       for it is not speculative Knowledge in general, but only such
       as is concerned with religion. ... In its form and contents
       Christian Gnosticism is the expansion and development of
       Alexandrian religious philosophy; which was itself an offshoot
       of Greek philosophy. ... The fundamental character of
       Gnosticism in all its forms is dualistic. It is its
       sharply-defined, all-pervading dualism that, more than
       anything else, marks it directly for an offspring of paganism.
       ... In Gnosticism the two principles, spirit and matter, form
       the great and general antithesis, within the bounds of which
       the systems move with all that they contain. ... A further
       leading Gnostic conception is the Demiurgus. The two highest
       principles being spirit and matter, and the true conception of
       a creation of the world being thus excluded, it follows in the
       Gnostic systems, and is a characteristic feature of them, that
       they separate the creator of the world from the supreme God,
       and give him a position subordinate to the latter. He is
       therefore rather the artificer than the creator of the world.
       ... The oldest Gnostic sects are without doubt those whose
       name is not derived from a special founder, but only stand for
       the general notion of Gnosticism. Such a name is that of the
       Ophites or Naassenes. The Gnostics are called Ophites,
       brethren of the Serpent, not after the serpent with which the
       fathers compared Gnosticism, meaning to indicate the dangerous
       poison of its doctrine, and to suggest that it was the hydra,
       which as soon as it lost one head at once put forth another;
       but because the serpent was the accepted symbol of their lofty
       Knowledge. ... The first priests and supporters of the dogma
       were, according to the author of the Philosophoumena, the
       so-caned Naassenes--a name derived from the Hebrew name of
       the serpent. They afterwards called themselves Gnostics,
       because they asserted that they alone knew the things that are
       deepest. From this root the one heresy divided into various
       branches; for though these heretics all taught a like
       doctrine, their dogmas were various."

          F. C. Baur,
          The Church History of the First Three Centuries,
          volume 1, pages 187-202.

       "Bigotry has destroyed their [the Gnostics'] writings so
       thoroughly, that we know little of them except from hostile
       sources. They called themselves Christians, but cared little
       for the authority of bishops or apostles, and borrowed freely
       from cabalists, Parsees, astrologers, and Greek philosophers,
       in building up their fantastic systems. ... Much as we may
       fear that the Gnostic literature was more remarkable for
       boldness in speculation than for, clearness of reasoning or
       respect for facts, it is a great pity that it should have been
       almost entirely destroyed by ecclesiastical bigotry."

          F. M. Holland,
          The Rise of Intellectual Liberty,
          chapter 3, section 6.

          ALSO IN:
          J. L. von Mosheim,
          Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity,
          century 1,
          sections 60-70, century 2, sections 41-65.

          C. W. King,
          The Gnostics and their Remains.

          A. Neander,
          General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
          volume 2.

          See, also, DOCETISM.

    GOA, Acquisition by the Portuguese (1510).

          See INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.

    GODERICH MINISTRY, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.

    GODFREY DE BOUILLON:
       His crusade and his kingdom of Jerusalem.

          See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
          and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099, and 1099-1144.

    GODOLO, Battle of (1849).

          See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    GODOLPHIN AND THE ENGLISH TREASURY.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

    GODWINE, Earl: Ascendancy in England.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066.

    GOIDEL, The.

          See CELTS, THE.

    GOITO, Battles of(1848).

          See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

    GOLD DISCOVERY IN AUSTRALIA.

          See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

    GOLD DISCOVERY IN CALIFORNIA.

       See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

    GOLDEN BIBLE, The.

          See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.

    GOLDEN BOOK OF VENICE.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

    GOLDEN BOUGH, The.

          See ARICIAN GROVE.

    GOLDEN BULL, Byzantine.

       A document to which the emperor attached his golden seal was
       called by the Byzantines, for that reason, a chrysobulum or
       golden bull. The term was adopted in the Western or Holy Roman
       Empire.

          G. Finlay,
          History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
          page 190.

    GOLDEN BULL OF CHARLES IV., The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493;
          and 13TH CENTURY.

    GOLDEN BULL OF HUNGARY.

          See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

    GOLDEN CHERSONESE.

          See CHRYSE.

    {1552}

    GOLDEN CIRCLE, Knights of the.

        David Christy published his 'Cotton is King' in the year
        [1856] in which Buchanan was elected [President of the United
        States], and the Knights of the Golden Circle appear to have
        organized about the same time. The Golden Circle had its
        centre at Havana, Cuba, and with a radius of sixteen degrees
        (about 1,200 miles) its circumference took in Baltimore, St.
        Louis, about half of Mexico, all of Central America, and the
        best portions of the coast along the Caribbean Sea. The
        project was, to establish an empire with this circle for its
        territory, and by controlling four great staples--rice,
        tobacco, sugar, and cotton--practically govern the
        commercial world. Just how great a part this secret
        organization played in the scheme of secession, nobody that
        was not in its counsels can say; but it is certain that it
        boasted, probably with truth, a membership of many
        thousands."

          Rossiter Johnson,
          Short History of the War of Secession,
          page 24.

       During the American Civil War, the Order of the Knights of
       the Golden Circle was extended (1862-1864) through the
       Northern States, as a secret treasonable organization, in aid
       of the Southern Rebellion.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

    GOLDEN FLEECE, Knights of the Order of the.

       "It was on the occasion of his marriage [A. D. 1430] that
       Philip [Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders,
       etc.], desirous of instituting a national order of knighthood,
       chose for its insignia a 'golden fleece,' with the motto,
       'Pretium non vile laborum,'--not to be condemned is the reward
       of labour. ... For the first time labour was given heraldic
       honours. The pride of the country had become laden with
       industrial recollections, its hope full of industrial
       triumphs; if feudalism would keep its hold, it must adopt or
       affect the national feeling. No longer despised was the
       recompense of toil; upon the honour of knighthood it should so
       be sworn; nay knighthood would henceforth wear appended to its
       collar of gold no other emblem than its earliest and most
       valued object--a golden fleece."

          W. T. McCullagh,
          Industrial History of Free Nations,
          volume 2, chapter 10.

       "This order of fraternity, of equality between nobles, in
       which the duke was admonished, 'chaptered,' just the same as
       any other, this council, to which he pretended to communicate
       his affairs, was at bottom a tribunal where the haughtiest
       found the duke their judge; he could honour or dishonour them
       by a sentence of the order. Their scutcheon answered for them;
       hung up in St. Jean's, Ghent, it could either be erased or
       blackened. ... The great easily consoled themselves for
       degradation at Paris by lawyers, when they were glorified by
       the duke of Burgundy in a court of chivalry in which kings
       took their seat."

          J. Michelet,
          History of France,
          book 12, chapter 4.

       "The number of the members was originally fixed at 31,
       including the sovereign, as the head and chief of the
       institution. They were to be: 'Gentilshommes de nom et d'armes
       sans reproche.' In 1516, Pope Leo X. consented to increase the
       number to 52, including the head. After the accession of
       Charles V., in 1556, the Austro-Spanish, or, rather, the
       Spanish-Dutch line of the house of Austria, remained in
       possession of the Order. In 1700, the Emperor Charles VI. and
       King Philip of Spain both laid claim to it. ... It now passes
       by the respective names of the Spanish or Austrian. 'Order of
       the Golden Fleece,' according to the country where it is
       issued."

          Sir B. Burke,
          Book of Orders of Knighthood,
          page 6.

          ALSO IN:
          J. F. Kirk,
          History of Charles the Bold,
          book 1, chapter 2.

    GOLDEN GATE, The.

       "The Bay of San Francisco is separated by [from] the sea by
       low mountain ranges. Looking from the peaks of the Sierra
       Nevada, the coast mountains present an apparently continuous
       line, with only a single gap, resembling a mountain pass. This
       is the entrance to the great bay. ... On the south, the
       bordering mountains come down in a narrow ridge of broken
       hills, terminating in a precipitous point, against which the
       sea breaks heavily. On the northern side, the mountain
       presents a bold promontory, rising in a few miles to a height
       of two or three thousand feet. Between these points is the
       strait--about one mile broad in the narrowest part, and five
       miles long from the sea to the bay. To this Gate I gave the
       name of Chrysopylæ, or Golden Gate; for the same reasons that
       the harbor of Byzantium (Constantinople afterwards), was
       called Chrysoceras, or Golden Horn. Passing through this gate,
       the bay opens to the right and left, extending in each
       direction about 35 miles, making a total length of more than
       70, and a coast of about 275 miles."

          J. C. Fremont,
          Memoirs of my life,
          volume 1, page 512.

    GOLDEN HORDE, The.

          See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

    GOLDEN HORN, The.

          See BYZANTIUM.

    GOLDEN HORSESHOE, Knights of the.

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.

    GOLDEN HOUSE, The.

       The imperial palace at Rome, as restored by Nero after the
       great fire, was called the Golden House. It was destroyed by
       Vespasian.

          C. Merivale,
          History of the Romans under the Empire,
          chapters 53 and 90.

    GOLDEN, OR BORROMEAN, LEAGUE, The.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

    GOLDEN SPUR, Order of the.

       An order of knighthood instituted in 1550 by Pope Paul III.

    GOLDSBORO, General Sherman's march to.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
          (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS),
          and (FEBRUARY-MARCH: N. CAROLINA).

    GOLIAD, Massacre at (1836).

          See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

    GOLOWSTSCHIN, Battle of (1708).

          See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

    GOLYMIN, Battle of (1806).

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

    GOMER, OR OMER, The.

          See EPHAH.

    GOMERISTS. See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

    GOMPHI.

       Gomphi, a city on the border of Thessaly, shut its gates
       against Cæsar, shortly before the battle of Pharsalia. He
       halted one day in his march, stormed the town and gave it up
       to his soldiers to be sacked.

          G. Long,
          Decline of the Roman Republic,
          volume 5, chapter 15.

    GONDS, The.

          See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

    GONFALONIERE.

          See CARROCCIO.

    GONZAGA, The House of.

       "The house of Gonzaga held sovereign power at Mantua, first as
       captains, then as marquesses, then as dukes, for nearly 400
       years" (1328-1708).

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          volume 1, page 243.

    GOOD ESTATE OF RIENZI, The.

          See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

    GOOD HOPE, Cape of:
       The Discovery and the Name.

          See PORTUGAL: A. D.1463-1498.

    GOOD HOPE, Cape of:
       The Colonization.

          See SOUTH AFRICA.

    {1553}

    GOORKAS, OR GURKHAS, OR GHORKAS, The.

          See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
          and A. D. 1805-1816.

    GOOROO, OR GURU.

          See SIKHS.

    GORDIAN I. and II., Roman Emperors, A. D. 238.
       Gordian III., Roman Emperor, A. D. 238-244.

    GORDIAN KNOT, Cutting the.

       "It was about February or March 333 B. C., when Alexander
       reached Gordium; where he appears to have halted for some
       time, giving to the troops which had been with him in Pisidia
       a repose doubtless needful. While at Gordium, he performed the
       memorable exploit familiarly known as the cutting of the
       Gordian knot. There was preserved in the citadel an ancient
       waggon of rude structure, said by the legend to have once
       belonged to the peasant Gordius and his son Midas--the
       primitive rustic kings of Phrygia, designated as such by the
       Gods and chosen by the people. The cord (composed of fibres
       from the bark of the cornel tree), attaching the yoke of this
       waggon to the pole, was so twisted and entangled as to form a
       knot of singular complexity, which no one had ever been able
       to untie. An oracle had pronounced, that to the person who
       should untie it the empire of Asia was destined. ...
       Alexander, on inspecting the knot, was as much perplexed as
       others had been before him, until at length, in a fit of
       impatience, he drew his sword and severed the cord in two. By
       everyone this was accepted as a solution of the problem."

          G. Grote,
          History of Greece,
          part 2, chapter 93.

    GORDON, General Charles George,
       In China.

          See CHINA: A. D.1850-1864.

       In the Soudan.

          See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883, and 1884-1885.

    GORDON RIOTS, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

    GORDYENE, OR CORDYENE, OR CORDUENE.

       The tribes of the Carduchi which anciently occupied the region
       of northern Mesopotamia, east of the Tigris, have given their
       name permanently to the country, but in variously modified
       forms. In the Greek and Roman period it was known as Gordyene,
       Cordyene, Corduene; at the present day it is Kurdistan. Under
       the Parthian domination in Asia, Gordyene was a tributary
       kingdom. In the early part of the last century B. C. it was
       conquered by Tigranes, king of Armenia, who chose a site
       within it for building his vast new capital, Tigranocerta, to
       populate which twelve Greek cities were stripped of
       inhabitants. It was included among the conquests of Trajan for
       the Romans, but relinquished by Hadrian.

          G. Rawlinson,
          Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
          chapter 10, and after.

          See, also, CARDUCHI, THE.

    GORGES, Sir Ferdinando, and the colonization of Maine.

          See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631, and 1635;
          also MAINE: A. D. 1639.

    GORM, King of Denmark, A. D. 883-941.

    GOROSZLO, Battle of (1601).

          See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-18TH CENTURIES
          (ROUMANIA, &c.).

    GORTYN.

          See CRETE.

    GOSHEN, Land of.

          See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

    GOSNOLD'S VOYAGE TO NEW ENGLAND.

          See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

    GOSPORT NAVY YARD, Abandonment and destruction of the.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

    GOTHA, Origin of the Dukedom of.

          See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

    GOTHI MINORES, The.

          See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381.

    GOTHIA, in central Europe.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.

    GOTHIA, in Gaul.

       Septimania, the strip of land along the Mediterranean between
       the Pyrenees and the Rhone, was the last possession of the
       Goths in Gaul, and the name Gothia became for a time attached
       to it.

          E. A. Freeman,
          Historical Geography of Europe,
          chapter 5, section 5.

          See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.

    GOTHINI, The.

       The Gotini or Gothini were a people of ancient Germany who
       "are probably to be placed in Silesia, about Breslau." "The
       Gotini and Osi [who held a part of modern Gallicia, under the
       Carpathian mountains] are proved by their respective Gallic
       and Pannonian tongues, as well as by the fact of their
       enduring tribute, not to be Germans. ... The Gotini, to
       complete their degradation, actually work iron mines."

          Tacitus,
          Minor Works,
          translated by Church and Brodribb:
          The Germany, with geographical notes.

    GOTHLAND IN SWEDEN.

          See GOTHS: ORIGIN OF THE.

    GOTHONES, The.

       A tribe in ancient Germany, mentioned by Tacitus. They
       "probably dwelt on either side of the Vistula, the Baltic
       being their northern boundary. Consequently, their settlements
       would coincide with portions of Pomerania and Prussia. Dr.
       Latham thinks they were identical with the Æstii."

          Church and Brodribb,
          Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus.

          See GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

    GOTHS, Origin of the.

       "The Scandinavian origin of the Goths has given rise to much
       discussion, and has been denied by several eminent modern
       scholars. The only reasons in favor of their Scandinavian
       origin are the testimony of Jornandes and the existence of the
       name of Gothland in Sweden; but the testimony of Jornandes
       contains at the best only the tradition of the people
       respecting their origin, which is never of much value; and the
       mere fact of the existence of the name of Gothland in Sweden
       is not sufficient to prove that this country was the original
       abode of the people. When the Romans first saw the Goths, in
       the reign of Caracalla, they dwelt in the land of the Getæ [on
       the northern side of the lower Danube]. Hence Jornandes,
       Procopius, and many other writers, both ancient and modern,
       supposed the Goths to be the same as the Getæ of the earlier
       historians. But the latter writers always regarded the Getæ as
       Thracians; and if their opinion was correct, they could have
       had no connection with the Goths. Still, it is a startling
       fact that a nation called Gothi should have emigrated from
       Germany, and settled accidentally in the country of a people
       with a name so like their own as that of Getæ. This may have
       happened by accident, but certainly all the probabilities are
       against it. Two hypotheses have been brought forward in modern
       times to meet this difficulty. One is that of Grimm, in his
       History of the German Language, who supposes that there was no
       migration of the Goths at all, that they were on the Lower
       Danube from the beginning, and that they were known to the
       earlier Greek and Latin writers as Getæ: but the great
       objection to this opinion is the general belief of the earlier
       writers that the Getæ were Thracians, and the latter were
       certainly not Germans.
    {1554}
       The other is that of Latham, who supposes, with much
       ingenuity, that the name of Get, or Goth, was the general name
       given by the Slavonic nations to the Lithuanians. According to
       this theory, the Goth-ones, or Guth-ones, at the mouth of the
       Vistula, mentioned by Tacitus and Ptolemy, are Lithuanians,
       and the Get-æ, on the Danube, belong to the same nation.
       Latham also believes that the Goths of a later period were
       Germans who migrated to the Danube, but that they did not bear
       the name of Goths till they settled in the country of the
       Getæ.

          See Latham,
          The Germania of Tacitus,
          Epil., p. xxxviii., seq."

          W. Smith,
          Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 10.

       "The first clear utterance of tradition among the Goths points
       to Sweden as their home. It is true that this theory of the
       Swedish origin of the Goths has of late been strenuously
       combatted, but until it is actually disproved (if that be
       possible) it seems better to accept it as a 'working
       hypothesis,' and, at the very least, a legend which influenced
       the thoughts and feelings of the nation itself. Condensing the
       narrative of Jornandes ... we get some such results as these:
       'The island of Scanzia [peninsula of Norway and Sweden] lies
       in the Northern Ocean, opposite the mouths of the Vistula, in
       shape like a cedar-leaf. In this island, a warehouse of
       nations ("officina gentium"), dwelt the Goths, with many other
       tribes,' whose uncouth names are for the most part forgotten,
       though the Swedes, the Fins, the Heruli, are familiar to us.
       'From this island the Goths, under their king Berig, set forth
       in search of new homes. They had but three ships, and as one
       of these during their passage always lagged behind, they
       called her "Gepanta," "the torpid one," and her crew, who ever
       after showed themselves more sluggish and clumsy than their
       companions when they became a nation, bore a name derived from
       this circumstance, Gepidae, the Loiterers'." Settling, first,
       near the mouth of the Vistula, these Gothic wanderers
       increased in numbers until they were forced once more to
       migrate southward and eastward, seeking a larger and more
       satisfactory home. In time, they reached the shores of the
       Euxine. "The date of this migration of the Goths is uncertain;
       but, as far as we can judge from the indications afforded by
       contemporary Roman events, it was somewhere between 100 and
       200 A. D. At any rate, by the middle of the third century, we
       find them firmly planted in the South of Russia. They are now
       divided into three nations, the Ostrogoths on the East, the
       Visigoths on the West, the lazy Gepidae a little to the
       rear--that is, to the North of both. ... It is important for
       us to remember that these men are Teutons of the Teutons. ...
       Moreover, the evidence of language shows that among the
       Teutonic races they belonged to the Low German family of
       peoples: more nearly allied, that is to say, to the Dutch, the
       Frieslanders, and to our own Saxon forefathers, all of whom
       dwelt by the flat shores of the German Ocean or the Baltic
       Sea, than to the Suabians and other High German tribes who
       dwelt among the hills."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          introduction, chapter 3 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          T. Mommsen,
          History of Rome,
          book 8, chapter 6.

          T. Smith,
          Arminius,
          part 2, chapter 2.

          See, also, VANDALS.

    GOTHS:
       Acquisition of Bosphorus.

       "The little kingdom of Bosphorus; whose capital was situated
       on the straits through which the Mæotis communicates itself to
       the Euxine, was composed of degenerate Greeks and
       half-civilized barbarians. It subsisted as an independent
       state from the time of the Peloponnesian war, was at last
       swallowed up by the ambition of Mithridates, and, with the
       rest of his dominions, sunk under the weight of the Roman
       arms. From the reign of Augustus the kings of Bosphorus were
       the humble but not useless allies of the empire. By presents,
       by arms, and by a slight fortification drawn across the
       isthmus, they effectually guarded, against the roving
       plunderers of Sarmatia, the access of a country which, from
       its peculiar situation and convenient harbours, commanded the
       Euxine Sea and Asia Minor. As long as the sceptre was
       possessed by a lineal succession of kings, they acquitted
       themselves of their important charge with vigilance and
       success. Domestic factions, and the fears or private interest
       of obscure usurpers who seized on the vacant throne, admitted
       the Goths [already, in the third century, in possession of the
       neighboring region about the mouth of the Dneiper] into the
       heart of Bosphorus. With the acquisition of a superfluous
       waste of fertile soil, the conquerors obtained the command of
       a naval force sufficient to transport their armies to the
       coast of Asia."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 10.

    GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.
       First invasions of the Roman Empire.

       As early as the reign of Alexander Severus (A. D. 222-235) the
       Goths, then inhabiting the Ukraine, had troubled Dacia with
       incursions; but it was not until the time of the Emperor
       Philip, called the Arabian (244-249), that they invaded the
       Empire in force, passing through Dacia and crossing the Danube
       into Mœsia (Bulgaria). They had been bribed by a subsidy to
       refrain from pillaging Roman territory, but complained that
       their "stipendia" had not been paid. They made their way
       without opposition to the city of Marcianopolis, which Trajan
       had founded in honor of his sister, and which was the capital
       of one of the two provinces into which Mœsia had been divided.
       The inhabitants ransomed themselves by the payment of a large
       sum of money, and the barbarians retired. But their expedition
       had been successful enough to tempt a speedy repetition of it,
       and the year 250 found them, again, in Mœsia, ravaging the
       country with little hindrance. The following year they crossed
       the Hæmus or Balkan mountains and laid siege to the important
       city of Philippopolis--capital of Thrace, founded by Philip of
       Macedon. Now, however, a capable and vigorous emperor, Decius,
       was briefly wearing the Roman purple. He met the Goths and
       fought them so valiantly that 30,000 are said to have been
       slain; yet the victory remained with the barbarians, and
       Philippopolis was not saved. They took it by storm, put
       100,000 of its inhabitants to the sword and left nothing in
       the ruins of the city worth carrying away. Meantime the
       enterprising Roman emperor had reanimated and recruited his
       troops and had secured positions which cut off the retreat of
       the Gothic host. The peril of the barbarians seemed so great,
       in fact, that they offered to surrender their whole booty and
       their captives, if they might, on so doing, march out of the
       country undisturbed. Decius sternly rejected the proposition,
       and so provoked his dangerous enemies to a despair which was
       fatal to him. In a terrible battle that was fought before the
       close of the year 251, at a place in Mœsia called Forum
       Trebonii, the Roman emperor perished, with the greater part of
       his army. The successor of Decius, Gallus, made haste to
       arrange a payment of annual peace-money to the Goths, which
       persuaded them to retire across the Danube.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          introduction, chapter 8 (volume 1).

    {1555}

    GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
       Naval expeditions in the East.

       Having acquired command of a port and a navy by their conquest
       of or alliance with the little kingdom of Bosporus in the
       Chersonesus Taurica (modern Crimea), the Goths launched forth
       boldly upon a series of naval marauding expeditions, which
       spread terror and destruction along the coasts of the Euxine,
       the Ægean and the straits between. The first city to suffer
       was Pityus, on the Euxine, which they totally destroyed, A. D.
       258. The next was Trebizond, which fell a victim to the
       negligence with which its strong walls were guarded. The Goths
       loaded their ships with the enormous booty that they took from
       Trebizond, and left it almost a ruined city of the dead.
       Another expedition reached Bithynia, where the rich and
       splendid cities of Chalcedon, Nicea, Nicomedia, Prusa, Apamæa,
       nd others were pillaged and more or less wantonly destroyed. "In
       the year 267, another fleet, consisting of 500 vessels, manned
       chiefly by the Goths and Heruls [or Heruli], passed the
       Bosphorus and the Hellespont. They seized Byzantium and
       Chrysopolis, and advanced, plundering the islands and coasts
       of the Ægean Sea, and laying waste many of the principal
       cities of the Peloponnesus. Cyzicus, Lemnos, Skyros, Corinth,
       Sparta, and Argos are named as having suffered by their
       ravages. From the time of Sylla's conquest of Athens, a period
       of nearly 350 years had elapsed, during which Attica had
       escaped the evils of war; yet when the Athenians were called
       upon to defend their homes against the Goths, they displayed a
       spirit worthy of their ancient fame. An officer, named
       Cleodamus, had been sent by the government from Byzantium to
       Athens, in order to repair the fortifications, but a division
       of these Goths landed at the Piræus and succeeded in carrying
       Athens by storm, before any means were taken for its defence.
       Dexippus, an Athenian of rank in the Roman service, soon
       contrived to reassemble the garrison of the Acropolis; and by
       joining to it such of the citizens as possessed some knowledge
       of military discipline, or some spirit for warlike enterprise,
       he formed a little army of 2,000 men. Choosing a strong
       position in the Olive Grove, he circumscribed the movements of
       the Goths, and so harassed them by a close blockade that they
       were soon compelled to abandon Athens. Cleodamus, who was not
       at Athens when it was surprised, had in the meantime assembled
       a fleet and gained a naval victory over a division of the
       barbarian fleet, These reverses were a prelude to the ruin of
       the Goths. A Roman fleet entered the Archipelago, and a Roman
       army, under the emperor Gaillenus, marched into Illyricum; the
       separate divisions of the Gothic expedition were everywhere
       overtaken by these forces, and destroyed in detail. During
       this invasion of the empire, one of the divisions of the
       Gothic army crossed the Hellespont into Asia, and succeeded in
       plundering the cities of the Troad, and in destroying the
       celebrated temple of Diana of Ephesus. ... The celebrity of
       Athens, and the presence of the historian Dexippus, have given
       to this incursion of the barbarians a prominent place in
       history; but many expeditions are casually mentioned which
       must have inflicted greater losses on the Greeks, and spread
       devastation more widely over the country."

          G. Finlay,
          Greece Under the Romans,
          chapter 1, section 14.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 10.

    GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.
       Defeat by Claudius.

       "Claudius II. and his successor Aurelian, notwithstanding the
       shortness of their reigns, effectually dissipated the
       mosquito-swarms of barbarian invaders and provincial usurpers
       who were ruining the unhappy dominions of Gallienus. The two
       campaigns (of 268 and 269) in which the Emperor Claudius
       vanquished the barbarians are related with great brevity, and
       in such a shape that it is not easy to harmonise even the
       scanty details which are preserved for us. It seems clear,
       however, that the Goths (both Ostrogoths and Visigoths), with
       all their kindred tribes, poured themselves upon Thrace and
       Macedonia in vaster numbers than ever. The previous movements
       of these nations had been probably but robber-inroads: this
       was a national immigration. ... A few years earlier, so vast
       an irruption must inevitably have ruined the Roman Empire. But
       now, under Claudius, the army, once more subjected to strict
       discipline, had regained, or was rapidly regaining, its tone,
       and the Gothic multitudes, vainly precipitating themselves
       against it, by the very vastness of their unwieldy masses,
       hastened their own destruction. A great battle was fought at
       Naissus (Nisch, in Servia), a battle which was not a complete
       victory, which according to one authority was even a defeat
       for the Romans, but since the barbarians as an immediate
       consequence of it lost 50,000 men, their doubtful victory may
       fairly be counted as a defeat. In the next campaign they were
       shut up in the intricate passes of the Balkans by the Roman
       cavalry. Under the pressure of famine they killed and ate the
       cattle that drew their waggons, so parting with their last
       chance of return to their northern homes. ... At length the
       remnants of the huge host seem to have disbanded, some to have
       entered the service of their conqueror as 'foederati,' and
       many to have remained as hired labourers to plough the fields
       which they had once hoped to conquer. ... The vast number of
       unburied corpses bred a pestilence, to which the Emperor fell
       a victim. His successor Aurelian, the conqueror of Zenobia ...
       made peace wisely as well as war bravely, and, prudently
       determining on the final abandonment of the Roman province of
       Dacia, he conceded to the Goths the undisturbed possession of
       that region [A. D. 270], on condition of their not crossing
       the Danube to molest Moesia. Translating these terms into the
       language of modern geography, we may say, roughly, that the
       repose of Servia and Bulgaria was guaranteed by the final
       separation from the Roman Empire of Hungary, Transylvania,
       Moldavia, and Wallachia, which became from this time forward
       the acknowledged home of the Gothic nation. ... For about a
       century (from 270 to 365) the Goths appear to have been with
       little exception at peace with Rome."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          introduction, chapter 3.

    {1556}

    GOTHS: A. D. 341-381.
       Conversion to Christianity.

       The introduction of Christianity among the Goths seems to have
       begun while they were yet on the northern side of the Danube
       and the Black Sea. It first resulted, no doubt, from the
       influence of many Christian captives who were swept from their
       homes in Mœsia, Greece, and Asia Minor, and carried away to
       spend their lives in slavery among the barbarians. To these
       were probably added a considerable number of Christian
       refugees from Roman persecution, before the period of
       Constantine. But it was not until the time of Ulfilas, the
       great apostle and bishop of the Goths (supposed to have held
       the office of bishop among them from about A. D. 341 to 381),
       that the development and organization of Christianity in the
       Gothic nation assumed importance. Ulfilas is represented to
       have been a descendant of one of the Christian captives
       alluded to above. Either as an ambassador or as a hostage, he
       seems to have passed some years in his early manhood at
       Constantinople. There he acquired a familiar knowledge of the
       Greek and Latin languages, and became fitted for his great
       work--the reducing of the Gothic language to a written form,
       with an alphabet partly invented, partly adapted from the
       Greek, and the translation of the Bible into that tongue. The
       early labors of Ulfilas among his countrymen beyond the Danube
       were interrupted by an outbreak of persecution, which drove
       him, with a considerable body of Christian Goths, to seek
       shelter within the Roman empire. They were permitted to settle
       in Mœsia, at the foot of the Balkans, round about Nicopolis,
       and near the site of modern Tirnova. There they acquired the
       name of the Gothi Minores, or Lesser Goths. From this Gothic
       settlement of Ulfilas in Mœsia the alphabet and written
       language to which he gave form have been called Mœso-Gothic.
       The Bible of Ulfilas--the first missionary translation of the
       Scriptures--with the personal labors of the apostle and his
       disciples, were powerfully influential, without doubt, in the
       Christianizing of the whole body of the Goths, and of their
       German neighbors, likewise. But Ulfilas had imbibed the
       doctrines of Arianism, or of Semi-Arianism, at Constantinople,
       and he communicated that heresy (as it was branded by the
       Athanasian triumph) to all the barbarian world within the
       range of Gothic influence. It followed that, when the kingdoms
       of the Goths, the Vandals, and the Burgundians were
       established in the west, they had to contend with the
       hostility of the orthodox or Catholic western church, and were
       undermined by it. That hostility had much to do with the
       breaking down of those states and with the better success of
       the orthodox Franks.

          C. A. A. Scott,
          Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths.

          See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

    GOTHS: (Ostrogoths) A. D. 350-375.
       The empire of Ermanaric or Hermanric.

       "Ermanaric, who seems to have been chosen king about the year
       350, was a great warrior, like many of his predecessors; but
       his policy, and the objects for which he fought, were markedly
       different from theirs. ... Ermanaric made no attempt to invade
       the provinces of the Roman Empire; but he resolved to make his
       Ostrogothic kingdom the centre of a great empire of his own.
       The seat of his kingdom was, as tradition tells us, on the
       banks of the Dnieper [and it extended to the Baltic]. ... A
       Roman historian compares Ermanaric to Alexander the Great; and
       many ages afterwards his fame survived in the poetic
       traditions of Germans, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons. ...
       Ermanaric was the first king since Ostrogotha who belonged to
       the Amaling family. ... Henceforward the kingship of the
       Ostrogoths became hereditary among the descendants of
       Ermanaric. During this time the Visigoths appear to have been
       practically independent, divided into separate tribes ruled by
       their own 'judges' or chieftains; but ... it is probable that in
       theory they acknowledged the supremacy of the Ostrogothic
       king. ... Ermanaric died in the year 375, and the Ostrogoths
       were subdued by the Hunnish king Balamber. For a whole century
       they remained subject to the Huns." One section of the
       Ostrogothic nation escaped from the Hunnish conquest and
       joined the Visigoths, who found a refuge on the Roman side of
       the Danube. The bulk of the nation bore the yoke until the
       death of the great Hun king, Attila, in 453, when the strife
       between his sons gave them an opportunity to throw it off.

          H. Bradley,
          Story of the Goths,
          chapter 5.

       "The forecast of European history which then [during the reign
       of Hermanric] seemed probable would have been that a great
       Teutonic Empire, stretching from the Danube to the Don, would
       take the place which the colossal Slav Empire now holds in the
       map of Europe, and would be ready, as a civilised and
       Christianised power, to step into the place of Eastern Rome
       when, in the fulness of centuries, the sceptre should drop
       from the nerveless hands of the Cæsars of Byzantium."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 4, chapter 1.

    GOTHS: (Visigoths) A. D. 376.
       Admission into the Roman Empire.

       "Let us suppose that we have arrived at the year (364) when
       the feeble and timid Valens was placed on the Eastern throne
       by his brother Valentinian. At that time, Ulfilas would be in
       the fifty-third year of his age and the twenty-third of his
       episcopate. Hermanric, king of the Ostrogoths, a centenarian
       and more, was still the most important figure in the loosely
       welded Gothic confederacy. His special royalty may possibly
       have extended over Northern Hungary, Lithuania, and Southern
       Russia. The 'torpid' Gepidæ, dwelt to the north of him, to the
       south and west the Visigoths, whose settlements may perhaps
       have occupied the modern countries of Roumania, Transylvania
       and Southern Hungary. The two great nations, the Ostrogoths
       and Visigoths, were known at this time to the Romans, perhaps
       among themselves also, by the respective names of the
       Gruthungi and Thervingi, but it will be more convenient to
       disregard these appellations and speak of them by the names
       which they made conspicuous in later history."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          introduction, chapter 3.

       This was the situation of Gothia, or the Gothic Empire of
       Central Europe, when the Huns made their appearance on the
       scene. "An empire, formerly powerful, the first monarchy of
       the Huns, had been overthrown by the Sienpi, at a distance of
       500 leagues from the Roman frontier, and near to that of
       China, in the first century of the Christian era. ... The
       entire nation of the Huns, abandoning to the Sienpi its
       ancient pastures bordering on China, had traversed the whole
       north of Asia by a march of 1,300 leagues. This immense horde,
       swelled by all the conquered nations whom it carried along in
       its passage, bore down on the plains of the Alans, and
       defeated them on the banks of the Tanais in a great battle.
    {1557}
       It received into its body a part of the vanquished tribe,
       accompanied by which it continued to advance towards the West;
       while other Alans, too haughty to renounce their independence,
       had retreated, some into Germany, whence we shall see them
       afterwards pass into Gaul; others into the Caucasian
       mountains, where they preserve their name to this day. The
       Goths, who bordered on the Alans, had fertilised by their
       labours the rich plains which lie to the north of the Danube
       and of the Black Sea. More civilised than any of the kindred
       Germanic tribes, they began to make rapid progress in the
       social sciences. ... This comparatively fortunate state of
       things was suddenly interrupted by the appearance of the
       Huns,--the unlooked-for arrival of that savage nation,
       which, from the moment it crossed the Borysthenes, or the
       Dnieper, began to burn their villages and their crops; to
       massacre, without pity, men, women, and children; to devastate
       and destroy whatever came within the reach of a Scythian
       horseman. ... The great Hermanric, whose kingdom extended from
       the Baltic to the Black Sea, would not have abandoned his
       sceptre to the Huns without a struggle; but at this very time
       he was murdered by a domestic enemy. The nations he had
       subjugated prepared on every side for rebellion. The
       Ostrogoths, after a vain resistance, broke their alliance with
       the Visigoths; while the latter, like an affrighted flock of
       sheep, trooping together from all parts of their vast
       territory to the right bank of the Danube, refused to combat
       those superhuman beings by whom they were pursued. They
       stretched out their supplicating hands to the Romans on the
       other bank, entreating that they might be permitted to seek a
       refuge from the butchery which threatened them, in those wilds
       of Mœsia and Thrace which were, almost valueless to the
       empire." Their prayer was granted by the Emperor Valens, on
       the condition that they surrender their arms and that the sons
       of their chief men be given as hostages to the Romans. The
       great Visigothic nation was then (A. D. 376) transported
       across the Danube to the Mœsian shore--200,000 warriors in
       number, besides children and women and slaves in proportion.
       But the Roman officers charged with the reception of the Goths
       were so busy in plundering the goods and outraging the
       daughters and wives of their guests that they neglected to
       secure the arms of the grim warriors of the migration. Whence
       great calamities ensued.

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 3 and 5 (volume 1).

    GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 378.
       Defeat and destruction of Valens.

       When the Visigothic nation was permitted to cross the Danube,
       A. D. 376, to escape from the Huns, and was admitted into
       Lower Mœsia, nothing seems to have been left undone that would
       exasperate and make enemies of these unwelcome colonists.
       Every possible extortion and outrage was practised upon them.
       To buy food, they were driven to part, first, with their
       slaves, then with their household goods, and finally with
       their children, whom they sold. In despair, at last, they
       showed signs of revolt, and the fatuous Roman commander
       precipitated it by a murderous outrage at Marcianople (modern
       Shumla). In a battle which soon followed near that town, the
       Romans were disastrously beaten. The Visigoths were now joined
       by a large body of Ostrogoths, who passed the Danube without
       resistance, and received into their ranks, moreover, a
       considerable force of Gothic soldiers who had long been in the
       service of the empire. The open country of Mœsia and Thrace was
       now fully exposed to them (the fortified cities they could not
       reduce), and they devastated it for a time without restraint.
       But Valens, the emperor in the east, and Gratian in the west,
       exerted themselves in co-operation to gather forces against
       them, and for two years there was a doubtful struggle carried
       on. The most serious battle, that of The Willows (Ad Salices),
       fought in the region now called the Dobrudscha, was a victory
       to neither side. On the whole the Romans appear to have had
       some advantage in these campaigns, and to have narrowed the
       range of the Gothic depredations. But the host of the
       barbarians was continually increased by fresh reinforcements
       from beyond the Danube. Even their own ferocious enemies, Huns
       and Alans, were permitted to join their standard. Yet, in face
       of this fact, the folly and jealousy of the Emperor Valens led
       him to stake all on the chances of a battle which he made
       haste to rush into, when he learned that his nephew Gratian
       was marching to his assistance from the west. He coveted the
       sole honors of a victory; but death and infamy for himself and
       an overwhelming calamity to the empire were what he achieved.
       The battle was fought near Hadrianople, on the 9th day of
       August, A. D. 378. Two-thirds of the Roman army perished on
       the awful field, and the body of the emperor was never found.

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 1, chapter 1.

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapters 26.

          H. Bradley,
          Story of the Goths,
          chapter 8.

          See, also, ROME: A. D, 363-379.

    GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.
       Settlement of the Goths by Theodosius, in Mœsia and Thrace.

       "The forces of the East were nearly annihilated at the
       terrible battle of Adrianople: more than 60,000 Roman soldiers
       perished in the fight or in the pursuit; and the time was long
       past when such a loss could have been easily repaired by fresh
       levies. Nevertheless, even after this frightful massacre, the
       walls of Adrianople still opposed an unconquerable resistance
       to the barbarians. Valour may supply the place of military
       science in the open field, but civilised nations recover all
       the advantages of the art of war in the attack or defence of
       fortified towns. ... The Goths, leaving Adrianople in their
       rear, advanced, ravaging all around them, to the foot of the
       walls of Constantinople; and, after some unimportant
       skirmishes, returned westward through Macedonia, Epirus and
       Dalmatia. From the Danube to the Adriatic, their passage was
       marked by conflagration and blood. Whilst the European
       provinces of the Greek empire sunk under these calamities, the
       Asiatic provinces took a horrible vengeance on the authors of
       them." The Gothic youths who had been required as hostages
       when the nation crossed the Danube, and those who were
       afterwards sold by their starving parents, were now gathered
       together in different cities of the Asiatic provinces and
       massacred in cold blood, at a given signal, on the same day
       and hour. By this atrocious act, all possible reconciliation
       with the Goths might well seem to be destroyed. The prospect
       was discouraging enough to the new emperor who now ascended
       the vacant throne of Valens (A. D. 379),--the soldier
       Theodosius, son of Theodosius who delivered Britain from the
       Scots.
    {1558}
       Chosen by the Emperor Gratian to be his colleague and Emperor
       of the East, Theodosius undertook a most formidable task. "The
       abandonment of the Danube had opened the entrance of the
       empire, not only to the Goths, but to all the tribes of
       Germany and Scythia. ... The blood of the young Goths which
       had been shed in Asia was daily avenged with interest over all
       that remained of Mœsian, Thrasian, Dalmatian, or Grecian race.
       It was more particularly during these four years of
       extermination that the Goths acquired the fatal celebrity
       attached to their name, which is still that of the destroyers
       of civilisation. Theodosius began by strengthening the
       fortified cities, recruiting the garrisons, and exercising his
       soldiers in small engagements whenever he felt assured of
       success; he then waited to take advantage of circumstances; he
       sought to divide his enemies by intrigue, and, above all,
       strenuously disavowed the rapacity of the ministers of Valens,
       or the cruelty of Julius; he took every occasion of declaring
       his attachment and esteem for the Gothic people, and at length
       succeeded in persuading them that his friendship was sincere.
       ... The very victories of the Goths, their pride, their
       intemperance, at length impaired their energy. Fritigern, who,
       in the most difficult moments, had led them on with so much
       ability, was dead; the jealousies of independent tribes were
       rekindled. ... It was by a series of treaties, with as many
       independent chieftains, that the nation was at length induced
       to lay down its arms: the last of these treaties was concluded
       on the 30th of October, 382. It restored peace to the Eastern
       empire, six years after the Goths crossed the Danube. This
       formidable nation was thus finally established within the
       boundary of the empire of the East. The vast regions they had
       ravaged were abandoned to them, if not in absolute
       sovereignty, at least on terms little at variance with their
       independence. The Goths settled in the bosom of the empire had
       no kings; their hereditary chiefs were consulted under the
       name of judges, but their power was unchanged. ... The Goths
       gave a vague sort of recognition to the sovereignty of the
       Roman emperor; but they submitted neither to his laws, his
       magistrates, nor his taxes. They engaged to maintain 40,000
       men for the service of Theodosius; but they were to remain a
       distinct army. ... It was, probably, at this period that their
       apostle, bishop Ulphilas, who had translated the Gospels into
       their tongue, invented the Mœso-Gothic character, which bears
       the name of their new abode."

          J. C. L. de Sismondi,
          Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 5 (volume 1).

          ALSO IN:
          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 26.

    GOTHS: A. D. 395.
       Alaric's invasion of Greece.

       "The death of Theodosius [A. D. 395] threw the administration
       of the Eastern Empire into the hands of Rufinus, the minister
       of Arcadius; and that of the Western into those of Stilicho,
       the guardian of Honorius. The discordant elements which
       composed the Roman empire began to reveal all their
       incongruities under these two ministers. ... The two ministers
       hated one another with all the violence of aspiring ambition."

          G. Finlay,
          Greece under the Romans,
          chapter 2, section 8.

       "The animosity existing between Stilicho and the successive
       ministers of the Eastern Emperor (an animosity which does not
       necessarily imply any fault on the part of the former) was one
       most potent cause of the downfall of the Western Empire. ...
       Alaric (the all-ruler) surnamed Baltha (the bold) was the
       Visigothic chieftain whose genius taught him the means of
       turning this estrangement between the two Empires to the best
       account. He was probably born about 360. His birth-place was
       the island Peuce, in the Delta of the Danube, apparently south
       of what is now termed the Sulina mouth of that river. We have
       already met with him crossing the Alps as a leader of
       auxiliaries in the army of Theodosius."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 1, chapter 4.

       "At this time [A. D. 395] Alaric, partly from disgust at not
       receiving all the preferment which he expected, and partly in
       the hope of compelling the government of the Eastern Empire to
       agree to his terms, quitted the imperial service and retired
       towards the frontiers, where he assembled a force sufficiently
       large to enable him to act independently of all authority.
       Availing himself of the disputes between the ministers of the
       two emperors, and perhaps instigated by Rufinus or Stilicho to
       aid their intrigues, he established himself in the provinces
       to the south of the Danube. In the year 395 he advanced to the
       walls of Constantinople; but the movement was evidently a
       feint. ... After this demonstration, Alaric marched into
       Thrace and Macedonia, and extended his ravages into Thessaly.
       ... When the Goth found the northern provinces exhausted, he
       resolved to invade Greece and Peloponnesus, which had long
       enjoyed profound tranquillity. ... Thermopylæ was left
       unguarded, and Alaric entered Greece without encountering any
       resistance. The ravages committed by Alaric's army have been
       described in fearful terms; villages and towns were burnt, the
       men were murdered, and the women and children carried away to
       be sold as slaves by the Goths. ... The walls of Thebes had
       been rebuilt, and it was in such a state of defence that
       Alaric could not venture to besiege it, but hurried forward to
       Athens. He concluded a treaty with the civil and military
       authorities, which enabled him to enter that city without
       opposition. ... Athens evidently owed its good treatment to
       the condition of its population, and perhaps to the strength
       of its walls, which imposed some respect on the Goths; for the
       rest of Attica did not escape the usual fate of the districts
       through which the barbarians marched. The town of Eleusis, and
       the great temple of Ceres, were plundered and then destroyed.
       ... Alaric marched unopposed into the Peloponnesus, and, in a
       short time, captured almost every city in it without meeting
       with any resistance. Corinth, Argos, and Sparta were all
       plundered by the Goths." Alaric wintered in the Peloponnesus;
       in the following spring he was attacked, not only by the
       forces of the Eastern Empire, whose subjects he had outraged,
       but by Stilicho, the energetic minister of the Roman West.
       Stilicho, in a vigorous campaign, drove the Goths into the
       mountains on the borders of Elis and Arcadia; but they escaped
       and reached Epirus, with their plunder (see ROME: A. D.
       396-398). "The truth appears to be that Alaric availed himself
       so ably of the jealousy with which the court of Constantinople
       viewed the proceedings of Stilicho, as to negotiate a treaty,
       by which he was received into the Roman service, and that he
       really entered Epirus as a general of Arcadius. ... He
       obtained the appointment of Commander-in-chief of the imperial
       forces in Eastern' Illyricum, which be held for four years.
       During this time he prepared his troops to seek his fortune in
       the Western Empire."

          G. Finlay,
          Greece under the Romans,
          chapter 2, section 8.

    {1559}

       "The birth of Alaric, the glory of his past exploits, and the
       confidence in his future designs, insensibly united the body
       of the nation under his victorious standard; and, with the
       unanimous consent of the barbarian chieftains, the
       Master-general of Illyricum was elevated, according to ancient
       custom, on a shield, and solemnly proclaimed king of the
       Visigoths."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 30.

    GOTHS: A. D. 400.
       Failure of Gainas at Constantinople.
       His defeat and death.

          See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

    GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 400-403.
       Alaric's first invasion of Italy.

       After Alaric had become a commissioned general of the Eastern
       Empire and had been placed in command of the great præfecture
       of Eastern Illyricum, he "remained quiet for three years,
       arming and drilling his followers, and waiting for the
       opportunity to make a bold stroke for a wider and more secure
       dominion. In the autumn of the year 400, knowing that Stilicho
       was absent on a campaign in Gaul, Alaric entered Italy. For
       about a year and a half the Goths ranged almost unresisted
       over the northern part of the peninsula. The emperor, whose
       court was then at Milan, made preparations for taking refuge
       in Gaul; and the walls of Rome were hurriedly repaired in
       expectation of an attack. On the Easter Sunday of the year 402
       (March 19), the camp of Alaric, near Pollentia, was surprised
       by Stilicho, who rightly guessed that the Goths would be
       engaged in worship, and would not imagine their Roman
       fellow-Christians less observant of the sacred day than
       themselves. Though unprepared for battle, the barbarians made
       a desperate stand, but at last they were beaten. ... Alaric
       was able to retreat in good order, and he soon after crossed
       the Po with the intention of marching against Rome. However,
       his troops began to desert in large numbers, and he had to
       change his purpose. In the first place he thought of invading
       Gaul, but Stilicho overtook him and defeated him heavily at
       Verona [A. D. 403]. Alaric himself narrowly escaped capture by
       the swiftness of his horse. Stilicho, however, was not very
       anxious for the destruction of Alaric, as he thought he might
       some day find him a convenient tool in his quarrels with the
       ministers of Arcadius [the Emperor of the East]. So he offered
       Alaric a handsome bribe to go away from Italy"--[back to
       Illyria].

          H. Bradley,
          Story of the Goths,
          chapter 10.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 1, chapter 5.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 30.

    GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 408-410.
       Alaric's three sieges and sack of Rome.
       His death.

          See ROME: A. D. 408-410.

    GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 410-419.
       Founding of the kingdom of Toulouse.

       On the death of Alaric (A. D. 410), his brother-in-law,
       Ataulphus, or Atawulfs, was chosen king by the wandering
       Visigothic nation, and the new king succeeded in negotiating a
       treaty of peace with the court at Ravenna. As the result of
       it, the Goths moved northwards and, at the beginning of the
       year 412, they passed out of Italy into Gaul. A number of
       usurpers had risen in the western provinces, during the five
       years since 407, encouraged by the disorders of the time, and
       Ataulphus accepted a commission from Honorius to put them down
       and to restore the imperial authority in southern Gaul. The
       commission was faithfully executed in one of its parts; but
       the authority which the Gothic king established was, rather,
       his own, than that of the imperial puppet at Ravenna. Before
       the end of 413, he was master of most of the Gallic region on
       the Mediterranean (though Marseilles resisted him), and
       westward to the Atlantic. Then, at Narbonne, he married Galla
       Placidia, sister of Honorius, who had been a prisoner in the
       camp of the Goths for four years, but who was gallantly wooed,
       it would seem, and gently and truly won, by her Gothic lover.
       Apparently still commissioned by the Roman emperor, though
       half at war with him, and though his marriage with Placidia
       was haughtily forbidden and unrecognized, Ataulphus next
       carried his arms into Spain, already ravaged by Vandals, Alans
       and Suevic bands. But there he was cut off in the midst of his
       conquests, by assassination, in August, 415. The Goths,
       however, pursued their career under another valiant king,
       Wallia, who conquered the whole of Spain and meditated the
       invasion of Africa; but was persuaded to give up both
       conquests and prospects to Honorius, in exchange for a
       dominion which embraced the fairest portions of Gaul. "His
       victorious Goths, forty-three years after they had passed the
       Danube, were established, according to the faith of treaties,
       in the possession of the second Aquitaine, a maritime province
       between the Garonne and the Loire, under the civil and
       ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Bordeaux. ... The Gothic limits
       were enlarged by the additional gift of some neighboring
       dioceses; and the successors of Alaric fixed their royal
       residence at Toulouse, which included five populous quarters,
       or cities, within the spacious circuit of its walls. ... The
       Gothic limits contained the territories of seven
       cities--namely, those of Bordeaux, Périgueux, Angoulême, Agen,
       Saintes, Poitiers, and Toulouse. Hence the district obtained
       the name of Septimania."

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 31 (with note by Dr. Wm. Smith).

       It was at the end of the year 418, that the Goths settled
       themselves in their new kingdom, of Toulouse. The next year,
       Wallia died, and was succeeded by Theodoric, a valorous
       soldier of the race of the Balthings, who played a
       considerable part in the history of the next thirty years.

          H. Bradley,
          Story of the Goths,
          chapter 11-12.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 1, chapter 8 (volume 1).

    GOTHS: (The Visigoths): A. D.419-451.
       The Kingdom of Toulouse.

       "By the peace which their king Wallia concluded with Honorius
       (416) after the restoration of Placidia, they [the Visigoths]
       had obtained legal possession of the district called Aquitania
       Secunda, together with the territory round Toulouse, all of
       which allotment went by the name of Septimania or Gothia. For
       ten years (419-429) there had been firm peace between
       Visigoths and Romans; then, for ten years more (429-439),
       fierce and almost continued war, Theodoric, king of the
       Visigoths, endeavouring to take Arles and Narbonne; Aetius and
       his subordinate Litorius striving to take the Gothic capital
       of Toulouse, and all but succeeding. And in these wars Aetius
       had availed himself of his long-standing friendship with the
       Huns to enlist them as auxiliaries against the warriors of
       Theodoric, dangerous allies who plundered friends and enemies.
       ... For the last twelve years (439-451) there had been peace,
       but scarcely friendship, between the Courts of Ravenna and
       Toulouse."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

    {1560}

       As the successor of Wallia, who died in 419, the Visigoths
       chose Theoderic, "who seems to have been a Balthing, though
       not related either to Wallia or to Atawulf. You must be
       careful not to confound this Visigoth Theoderic, or his son of
       the same name, with the great Theoderic the Amaling, who began
       to reign over the Ostrogoths about the year 475. Theoderic the
       Visigoth was not such a great man as his namesake, but he must
       have been both a brave soldier and an able ruler, or he could
       not have kept the affection and obedience of his people for
       thirty-two years. His great object was to extend his kingdom,
       which was hemmed in on the north by the Franks, ... and on the
       west by another people of German invaders, the Burgunds; while
       the Roman Empire still kept possession of some rich cities,
       such as Arles and Narbonne [the first named of which Theoderic
       besieged unsuccessfully in 425, the last named in 437], which
       were temptingly close to the Gothic boundary on the south. ...
       In the year 450 the Visigoths and the Romans were drawn more
       closely together by the approach of a great common danger. ...
       The Huns ... had, under their famous king, Attila, moved
       westward, and were threatening to over-run both Gaul and
       Italy."

          H. Bradley,
          Story of the Goths,
          chapter 12.

          See HUNS: A. D. 451.

    GOTHS: (Ostrogoths and Visigoths): A. D. 451.
       At the battle of Chalons.

          See HUNS: A. D. 451.

    GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 453.
       Breaking the yoke of the Huns.

          See HUNS: A. D. 453.

    GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 453-484.
       Extension of the kingdom of Toulouse.

       "The Visigoths were governed from 453 to 466 by Theodoric the
       Second, son of Theodoric the First, and grandson of Alaric.
       ... The reign of Theodoric was distinguished by conquests. On
       the one hand he drove the Suevians as far as the extremity of
       Gallicia. ... On the other hand, in 462, he rendered himself
       master of the town of Narbon, which was delivered up to him by
       its count; he also carried his arms towards the Loire; but his
       brother Frederic, whom he had charged with the conquest of the
       Armorici, and who had taken possession of Chinon, was killed
       in 463 near Orleans, in a battle which he gave to Count
       Ægidius. Theodoric finally extended the dominion of the
       Visigoths to the Rhone; he even attacked Arles and Marseille,
       but he could not subjugate them. After a glorious reign of
       thirteen years, he was killed in the month of August, 466, by
       his brother Euric, by whom he was succeeded. ... Euric ...
       attacked, in 473, the province of Auvergne. ... He conquered
       it in 475 and caused his possession of it to be confirmed by
       the emperor Nepos. He had at that period acquired the Loire
       and the Rhone as frontiers; in Spain he subjected the whole of
       the province of Taragon. ... He afterwards conquered Provence,
       and was acknowledged a sovereign in Arles and at Marseille,
       towards the year 480. No prince, whether civilized or
       barbarian, was at that period so much feared as Euric; and,
       had he lived longer, it would undoubtedly have been to the
       Visigoths, and not to the Franks, that the honor would have
       belonged of reconstituting the Gallic provinces; but he died
       at Arles towards the end of the year 484, leaving an only son
       of tender age, who was crowned under the name of Alaric the
       Second."

          J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
          The French under the Merovingians;
          translated by Bellingham, chapter 4.

    GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 473-474.
       Invasions of Italy and Gaul.

       "The Ostrogothic brother-kings, who served under Attila at the
       battle in Champagne, on the overthrow of the Hunnish Empire
       obtained for themselves a goodly settlement in Pannonia, on
       the western bank of the Danube. For near twenty years they had
       been engaged in desultory hostilities with their barbarian
       neighbours, with Sueves and Rugians on the north, with Huns
       and Sarmatians on the south. Now, as their countryman,
       Jornandes, tells us with admirable frankness, 'the spoils of
       these neighbouring nations were dwindling, and food and
       clothing began to fail the Goths.' ... They clustered round
       their kings, and clamoured to be led forth to war--whither
       they cared not, but war must be. Theodemir, the elder king,
       took counsel with his brother Widemir, and they resolved to
       commence a campaign against the Roman Empire. Theodemir, as
       the more powerful chieftain, was to attack the stronger Empire
       of the East; Widemir, with his weaker forces, was to enter
       Italy. He did so, but, like so many of the northern
       conquerors, he soon found a grave in the beautiful but deathly
       land. His son, the younger Widemir, succeeded to his designs
       of conquest, but Glycerius [Roman emperor, for the moment]
       approached him with presents and smooth words, and was not
       ashamed to suggest that he should transfer his arms to Gaul,
       which was still in theory, and partially in fact, a province
       of the Empire. The sturdy bands of Widemir's Ostrogoths
       descended accordingly into the valleys of the Rhone and the
       Loire; they speedily renewed the ancient alliance with the
       Visigothic members of their scattered nationality, and helped
       to ruin yet more utterly the already desperate cause of
       Gallo-Roman freedom."

          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2).

    GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 473-488.
       Rise of Theodoric.

       The greater mass of the Ostrogoth nation who followed
       Theodemir (or Theudemer) the elder of the royal brothers, into
       the territories of the Eastern Empire, were rapidly successful
       in their adventures. The Court at Constantinople made little
       attempt to oppose them with arms, but bribed them to peace by
       gifts of money and a large cession of territory in Macedonia.
       "Amongst the cities which were abandoned to them was Pella,
       famous as the birthplace of Alexander the Great. Just after
       the conclusion of this treaty (in the year 474) Theudemer
       died, and his son Theoderic, at the age of twenty years, began
       his long and glorious reign as king of the Ostrogoths."
       Theodoric had been reared in the imperial court at
       Constantinople, from his eighth to his eighteenth year, his
       father having pledged him to the emperor as a hostage for the
       fulfilment of a treaty of peace. He understood, therefore, the
       corrupt politics of the empire and its weakness, and he made the
       most of his knowledge.
    {1561}
       Sometimes at peace with the reigning powers and sometimes at
       war; sometimes ravaging the country to the very gates of the
       impregnable capital, and sometimes settled quietly on lands
       along the southern bank of the Danube which he had taken in
       exchange for the Maeedonian tract; sometimes in league and
       sometimes in furious rivalry with another Gothic chieftain and
       adventurer, called Theodoric Strabo, whose origin and whose
       power are somewhat of a mystery--the seriousness to the
       Eastern Empire of the position and the strength of Theodoric
       and his Ostrogoths went on developing until the year 488. That
       year, the statesmen at Constantinople were illuminated by an
       idea. They proposed to Theodoric to migrate with his nation
       into Italy and to conquer a kingdom there. The Emperor Zeno,
       to whom the Roman senate had surrendered the sovereignty of
       the Western Roman Empire, and into whose hands the barbarian
       who extinguished it, Odoacer, or Odovacar, had delivered the
       purple robes--the Emperor Zeno, in the exercise of his
       imperial function, authorized the conquest to be made.
       Theodoric did not hesitate to accept a commission so
       scrupulously legal.

          H. Bradley,
          Story of the Goths,
          chapters 14-15.

    GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 488-526.
       The kingdom of Theodoric in Italy.

          See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

    GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 493-525.
       Theodoric in German legend.

          See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.

    GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 507-509.
       The kingdom of Toulouse overthrown by the Franks.

       "If the successors of Euric had been endowed with genius and
       energy equal to his, it is possible that the Visigoths might
       have made themselves masters of the whole Western world. But
       there was in the kingdom one fatal element of weakness, which
       perhaps not even a succession of rulers like Euric could have
       long prevented from working the destruction of the State. The
       Visigoth kings were Arians; the great mass of their subjects
       in Gaul were Catholics, and the hatred between religious
       parties was so great that it was almost impossible for a
       sovereign to win the attachment of subjects who regarded him
       as a heretic." After 496, when Clovis, the king of the Franks,
       renounced his heathenism, professed Christianity, and was
       baptized by a Catholic bishop, the Catholics of Southern Gaul
       began almost openly to invite him to the conquest of their
       country. In the year 507 he responded to the invitation, and
       declared war against the Visigoth, giving simply as his ground
       of war that it grieved him to see the fairest part of Gaul in
       the hands of the Arians. "The rapidity of Clovis's advance was
       something quite unexpected by the Visigoths. Alaric still
       clung to the hope of being able to avoid a battle until the
       arrival of Theodoric's Ostrogoths [from his great kinsman in
       Italy] and wished to retreat," but the opinion of his officers
       forced him to make a stand. "He drew up his army on 'the field
       of Voclad' (the name still survives as Vouillé or Vouglé), on
       the banks of the Clain, a few miles south of Poitiers, and
       prepared to receive the attack of the Franks. The battle which
       followed decided the fate of Gaul. The Visigoths were totally
       defeated, and their king was killed. Alaric's son, Amalaric, a
       child five years of age, was carried across the Pyrenees into
       Spain. During the next two years Clovis conquered, with very
       little resistance, almost all the Gaulish dominions of the
       Visigoths, and added them to his own. The 'Kingdom of
       Toulouse' was no more. ... But Clovis was not allowed to
       fulfil his intention of thoroughly destroying their [the
       Visigothic] power, for the great Theoderic of Italy took up
       the cause of his grandson Amalaric. The final result of many
       struggles between Theoderic and the Franks was that the
       Visigoths were allowed to remain masters of Spain, and of a
       strip of sea-coast bordering on the Gulf of Lyons. ... This
       diminished kingdom ... lasted just 200 years."

          H. Bradley,
          The Story of the Goths,
          chapter 12.

          ALSO IN:
          T. Hodgkin,
          Italy and Her Invaders,
          book 4, chapter 9.

          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 2.

          E. Gibbon,
          Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
          chapter 38.

          See, also, ARLES: A. D. 508-510.

    GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 507-711.
       The kingdom in Spain.

       The conquests of Clovis, king of the Franks, reduced the
       dominion of the Visigoths on the northern side of the Pyrenees
       to a small strip of Roman Narbonensis, along the gulf of
       Lyons; but most of Spain had come under their rule at that
       time and remained so. Amalaric, son of Alaric II. (and
       grandson, on the maternal side, of the great Ostrogothic king,
       Theodoric, who ruled both Gothic kingdoms during the minority
       of Amalaric), reigned after the death of Theodoric until 531,
       when he was murdered. He had made Narbonne his capital, until
       he was driven from it, in a war with one of the sons of
       Clovis. It was recovered; but the seat of government became
       fixed at Toledo. During the reign of his successor, the Franks
       invaded Spain (A.D. 543), but were beaten back from the walls
       of Cæsaraugusta (modern Saragossa), and retreated with
       difficulty and disaster. The Visigoths were now able to hold
       their ground against the conquerors of Gaul, and the limits of
       their kingdom underwent little subsequent change, until the
       coming of the Moors. "The Gothic kings, in spite of bloody
       changes and fierce opposition from their nobility, succeeded
       in identifying themselves with the land and the people whom
       they had conquered. They guided the fortunes of the country
       with a distinct purpose and vigorous hand. By Leovigild
       (572-586) the power of the rebellious nobility was broken, and
       the independence and name of the Sueves of Gallicia
       extinguished. The still more dangerous religious conflict
       between the Catholic population and the inherited Arianism of
       the Goths was put down, but at the cost of the life of his
       son, Herminigild, who had married a Frank and Catholic
       princess, and who placed himself at the head of the Catholics.
       But Leovigild was the last Arian king. This cause of
       dissension was taken away by his son Reccared (568-601), who
       solemnly abandoned Arianism, and embraced with zeal the
       popular Catholic creed. He was followed by the greater part of
       his Arian subjects, but the change throughout the land was not
       accomplished without some fierce resistance. It led among
       other things to the disappearance of the Gothic language, and
       of all that recalled the Arian days, and to the destruction in
       Spain of what there was of Gothic literature, such as the
       translation of the Bible, supposed to be tainted with
       Arianism. But it determined the complete fusion of the Gothic
       and Latin population. After Reccared, two marked features of
       the later Spanish character began to show themselves. One was
       the great prominence in the state of the ecclesiastical
       element. The Spanish kings sought in the clergy a counterpoise
       to their turbulent nobility. The great church councils of
       Toledo became the legislative assemblies of the nation; the
       bishops in them took precedence of the nobles; laws were made
       there as well as canons; and seventeen of these councils are
       recorded between the end of the fourth century and the end of
       the seventh.
    {1562}
       The other feature was that stern and systematic intolerance
       which became characteristic of Spain. Under Sisebut (612-620),
       took place the first expulsion of the Jews. ... The Gothic
       realm of Spain was the most flourishing and the most advanced
       of the new Teutonic kingdoms. ... But however the Goths in
       Spain might have worked out their political career, their
       course was rudely arrested. ... While the Goths had been
       settling their laws, while their kings had been marshalling
       their court after the order of Byzantium, the Saracens had
       been drawing nearer and nearer."

          R. W. Church,
          The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
          chapter 5.

          ALSO IN:
          H. Bradley,
          Story of the Goths,
          chapters 29-35.

          S. A. Dunham,
          History of Spain and Portugal,
          book 2.

          H. Coppée,
          Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
          book 2.

    GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 535-553.
       Fall of the kingdom of Theodoric.
       Recovery of Italy by Justinian.

          See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

    GOTHS: (Ostrogoths): A. D. 553.
       Their disappearance from History.

       "Totila and Teia, last of the race of Ostrogoth kings, fell as
       became their heroic blood, sword in hand, upon the field of
       battle. Then occurred a singular phenomenon,--the
       annihilation and disappearance of a great and powerful people
       from the world's history. ... A great people, which had
       organized an enlightened government, and sent 200,000 fighting
       men into the field of battle, is annihilated and forgotten. A
       wretched remnant, transported by Narses to Constantinople,
       were soon absorbed in the miserable proletariat of a
       metropolitan city. The rest fell by the sword, or were
       gradually amalgamated with the mixed population of the
       peninsula. The Visigoth kingdom in Gaul and Spain, which had
       been overshadowed by the glories of the great Theodoric,
       emerges into independent renown, and takes up the traditions
       of the Gothic name. In the annals of Europe, the Ostrogoth is
       heard of no more."

          J. G. Sheppard,
          The Fall of Rome,
          lecture 6.

    GOTHS: (Visigoths): A. D. 711-713.
       Fall of the kingdom in Spain.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

    ----------GOTHS: End----------

    GOURGUES, Dominic de, The vengeance of.

          See FLORIDA: A. D. 1567-1568.

    GOWRIE PLOT, The.

          See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1600.

    GRACCHI, The.

          See ROME: B. C. 133-121.

    GRACES OF CHARLES I. TO THE IRISH.

          See IRELAND: A. D. 1625.

    GRAF.-GRAFIO.

       "The highest official dignitary of which the Salic law [law of
       the Sulian Franks] makes mention is the Grafio (Graf, Count),
       who was appointed by the king, and therefore protected by a
       triple ... leodis [weregild]. His authority and jurisdiction
       extended over a district answering to the gau (canton) of
       later times, in which he acted as the representative of the
       king, and was civil and military governor of the people."

          W. C. Perry,
          The Franks,
          chapter 10.

          See, also, MARGRAVE.

    GRAFTON-CHATHAM MINISTRY, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D.1765-1768, and 1770.

    GRAHAM'S DIKE.

          See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

    GRAMPIANS, OR MONS GRANPIUS.

       Victoriously fought by the Romans under Agricola with the
       tribes of Caledonia, A. D. 86. Mr. Skene fixes the battle
       ground at the junction of the Isla with the Tay.

          See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

    GRAN CHACO, The.

       "This tract of flat country, lying between the tropic and 29°
       South, extends eastward to the Parana and Paraguay, and
       westward to the province of Santiago del Estero. Its area is
       180,000 square miles. About one-third belongs to Paraguay, and
       a small part to Bolivia, but the bulk is in the Argentine
       Republic. ... The Gran Chaco is no desert, but a rich alluvial
       lowland, fitted for colonization, which is hindered by the
       want of knowledge of the rivers and their shiftings."

          The American Naturalist,
          volume 23, page 799.

       "In the Quitchoane language, which is the original language of
       Peru, they call 'chacu,' those great flocks of deer, goats,
       and such other wild animals, which the inhabitants of this
       part of America drive together when they hunt them; and this
       name was given to the country we speak of, because at the time
       Francis Pizarro made himself master of a great part of the
       Peruvian empire, a great number of its inhabitants took refuge
       there. Of 'Chacu', which the Spaniards pronounce 'Chacou"
       custom has made 'Chaco.' It appears that, at first, they
       comprehended nothing under this name but the country lying
       between the mountains of the Cordilliere, the Pilco Mayo, and
       the Red River; and that they extended it, in process of time,
       in proportion as other nations joined the Peruvians, who had
       taken refuge there to defend their liberties against the
       Spaniards."

          Father Charlevoix,
          History of Paraguay,
          book 3 (volume l).

       For an account of the tribes of the Gran Chaco,

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

    GRANADA:
       The rise of the city.

       Granada "was small and unimportant until the year 1012. Before
       that time, it was considered a dependency of Elvira [the
       neighboring ancient Roman city of Illiberis]; but, little by
       little, the people of Elvira migrated to it, and as it grew
       Elvira dwindled into insignificance."

          H. Coppée,
          Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
          book 6, chapter 5, note (volume 2).

    GRANADA: A. D. 711.
       Taken by the Arab-Moors.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

    GRANADA: A. D. 1238.
       The founding of the Moorish kingdom.
       Its vassalage to the King of Castile.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

    GRANADA: A. D. 1238-1273.
       The kingdom under its founder.
       The building of the Alhambra.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

    GRANADA: A. D. 1273-1460.
       Slow decay and crumbling of the Moorish kingdom.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

    GRANADA: A. D. 1476-1492.
       The fall of the Moorish kingdom.

          See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

    ----------GRANADA: End----------

    GRANADA, Treaty of.

       See ITALY: A. D: 1501-1504.

    GRANADINE CONFEDERATION, The.

          See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.

    GRAND ALLIANCES against Louis XIV.

          See
          FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696;
          SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
          and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

    {1563}

    GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC.

       "The Grand Army of the Republic was organized April 6, 1866,
       in Decatur, the county seat of Macon County, Illinois. Its
       originator was Dr. Benjamin F. Stephenson, a physician of
       Springfield, Illinois, who had served during the war as
       surgeon of the 14th Illinois Infantry. He had spent many weeks
       in study and plans so that the Order might be one that would
       meet with the general approval of the surviving comrades of
       the war, and thus insure their hearty co-operation. He made a
       draft of a ritual, and sent it by Captain John S. Phelps to
       Decatur, where two veterans, Messrs. Coltrin and Prior, had a
       printing-office. These gentlemen, with their employees, who
       had been in the service, were first obligated to secrecy, and
       the ritual was then placed in type in their office. Captain
       Phelps returned to Springfield with proofs of the ritual, but
       the comrades in Decatur were so interested in the project,
       that, with the active assistance of Captain M. F. Kanan and
       Dr. J. W. Routh, a sufficient number of names were at once
       secured to an application for charter, and these gentlemen
       went to Springfield to request Dr. Stephenson to return with
       them and organize a post at Decatur. The formation of a post
       was under way in Springfield, but not being ready for muster,
       Dr. Stephenson, accompanied by several comrades, proceeded to
       Decatur, and, as stated, on April 6, 1866, mustered post No.1,
       with General Isaac C. Pugh as post commander, and Captain
       Kanan as adjutant. The latter gave material aid to Dr.
       Stephenson in the work of organizing other posts, and Dr.
       Routh served as chairman of a committee to revise the ritual.
       The title, 'The Grand Army of the Republic, U. S.,' was
       formally adopted that night. Soon after this, post No.2 was
       organized at Springfield with General Jules C. Webber as
       commander. ... Nothing was done in the Eastern States about
       establishing posts until the opportunity was given for
       consultation on this subject at a national soldiers' and
       sailors' convention, held in Pittsburg in September, 1866,
       when prominent representatives from Eastern States were
       obligated and authorized to organize posts. The first posts so
       established were posts Nos. 1 in Philadelphia, and 3 in
       Pittsburg, by charters direct from the acting
       commander-in-chief, Dr. Stephenson; and post 2, Philadelphia,
       by charter received from General J. K. Proudfit, department
       commander of Wisconsin. A department convention was held at
       Springfield, Illinois, July 12, 1866, and adopted resolutions
       declaring the objects of the G. A. R. General John W. Palmer
       was elected the first Department Commander. ... The first
       national convention was held at Indianapolis, Ind., November
       20, 1866. ... General Stephen A. Hurlbut, of Illinois, was
       elected Commander-in-Chief. General Thomas B. McKean, of New
       York, Senior Vice-Commander-in-Chief; General Nathan Kimball,
       of Indiana, Junior Vice-Commander-in-Chief; and Dr.
       Stephenson, Adjutant-General. The objects of the Order cannot
       be more briefly stated than from the articles and regulations.

       1. To preserve and strengthen those kind and fraternal
       feelings which bind together the Soldiers, Sailors, and
       Marines who united to suppress the late Rebellion, and to
       perpetuate the memory and history of the dead.

       2. To assist such former comrades in arms as need help and
       protection, and to extend needful aid to the widows and
       orphans of those who have fallen.

       3. To maintain true allegiance to the United States of
       America, based upon a paramount respect for, and fidelity to,
       its Constitution and laws, to discountenance whatever tends to
       weaken loyalty, incites to insurrection, treason, or
       rebellion, or in any manner impairs the efficiency and
       permanency of our free institutions; and to encourage the
       spread of universal liberty, equal rights, and justice to all
       men.

       Article IV. defines the qualifications of members in the
       following terms: Soldiers and Sailors of the United States
       Army, Navy, or Marine Corps who served between April 12, 1861,
       and April 29, 1865, in the war for the suppression of the
       Rebellion, and those having been honorably discharged
       therefrom after such service, and of such State regiments as
       were called into active service and subject to the orders of
       United States general officers, between the dates mentioned,
       shall be eligible to membership in the Grand Army of the
       Republic. No person shall be eligible who has at any time
       borne arms against the United States. ... The second national
       encampment was held in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pa.,
       January 15, 1868. ... General John A. Logan, of Illinois, was
       elected Commander-in-Chief. ... That which tended most to
       attract public attention to the organization was the issuance
       of the order of General Logan early in his administration, in
       1868, directing the observance of May 30th as Memorial Day.
       ... At the national encampment, held May 11, 1870, at
       Washington, D. C., the following article was adopted as a part
       of the rules and regulations: 'The national encampment hereby
       establishes a Memorial Day, to be observed by the members of
       the Grand Army of the Republic, on the 30th day of May
       annually, in commemoration of the deeds of our fallen
       comrades. When such day occurs on Sunday, the preceding day
       shall be observed, except where, by legal enactment, the
       succeeding day is made a legal holiday, when such day shall be
       observed.' Memorial Day has been observed as such every year
       since throughout the country wherever a post of the Grand Army
       of the Republic has been established. In most of the States
       the day has been designated as a holiday."

          W. H. Ward, editor,
          Records of Members of the
          Grand Army of the Republic,
          pages 6-9.

          ALSO IN:
          G. S. Merrill,
          The Grand Army of the Republic
          (New England Magazine, August, 1890).

    GRAND ARMY REMONSTRANCE, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

    GRAND COUNCIL, The.

          See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

    GRAND MODEL, The.

       The "fundamental constitutions" framed by the philosopher,
       John Locke, for the Carolinas, were so called in their day.

          See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

    GRAND PENSIONARY, The.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

    GRAND REMONSTRANCE, The.

          See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (NOVEMBER).

    GRAND SERJEANTY.

          See FEUDAL TENURES.

    GRAND SHUPANES.

          See SHUPANES.

    GRANDELLA, OR BENEVENTO, Battle of (1266).

          See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

    GRANDI OF FLORENCE, The.

          See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

    GRANGE, The.
       Grangers.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

    GRANICUS, Battle of the (B. C. 334).

          See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

    {1564}

    GRANSON, Battle of (1476).

       See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

    GRANT, General Ulysses S.
       First Battle at Belmont.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
          (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

       Capture of Forts Henry and Donelson.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
          (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

       Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
          (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

       Under Halleck at Corinth.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
          (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

       Command of the Armies of the Mississippi and Tennessee.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
          (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

       Iuka and Corinth.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
          (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

       Campaign against Vicksburg.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
          (JANUARY-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI),
          and (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

       The Chattanooga campaign.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
          (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

       In chief command of the whole army.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
          (MARCH-APRIL).

       Last campaign.
          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
          (MAY: VIRGINIA) to 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

       Presidential election, re-election and Administration.

          See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868
          (NOVEMBER), to 1876-1877.

    GRANVELLE'S MINISTRY IN THE NETHERLANDS.

       See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559, to 1562-1566.

    GRASSHOPPER WAR, The.

          See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.

    GRATIAN, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 367-383.

    GRAUBUNDEN: Achievement of independence.

          See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

       The Valtelline revolt and war.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

       Dismemberment by Bonaparte.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

    GRAVE: A. D. 1586.
       Siege and capture by the Prince of Parma.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

    GRAVE: A. D. 1593.
       Capture by Prince Maurice.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

    ----------GRAVE: End----------

    GRAVELINES: A. D. 1383.
       Capture and destruction by the English.

          See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

    GRAVELINES: A. D. 1652.
        Taken by the Spaniards.

           See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

    GRAVELINES: A. D. 1658.
       Siege and capture by the French.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

    GRAVELINES: A. D. 1659.
       Ceded to France.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

    ----------GRAVELINES: End----------

    GRAVELOTTE, OR ST. PRIVAT, Battle of.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

    GRAYBACKS, BOYS IN GRAY.

          See BOYS IN BLUE.

    GREAT BELL ROLAND, The.

          See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

    GREAT BRIDGE, Battle at (1775).

          See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.

    GREAT BRITAIN: Adoption of the name for the United Kingdoms of
    England and Scotland.

       See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

    GREAT CAPTAIN, The.

       This was the title commonly given to the Spanish general,
       Gonsalvo de Cordova, after his campaign against the French in
       Italy.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

    GREAT COMPANY, The.

          See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

    GREAT CONDÉ, The.

          See CONDÉ.

    GREAT DAYS OF AUVERGNE, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1665.

    GREAT ELECTOR, The.

          See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

    GREAT INTERREGNUM, The.

          See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

    GREAT KANAWHA, Battle of the.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

    GREAT KING, The.

       A title often applied to the kings of the ancient Persian
       monarchy.

    GREAT MEADOWS, Washington's first battle and capitulation at.

          See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

    GREAT MOGULS.
       The Mongol sovereigns of India.

          See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

    GREAT PEACE, The.

          See BRETIGNY, TREATY OF.

    GREAT POWERS, The.

       The six larger and stronger nations of Europe,--England,
       Germany, France, Austria, Russia and Italy,--are often
       referred to as "the great powers." Until the rise of united
       Italy, the "great powers" of Europe were five in number.

    GREAT PRIVILEGE, or Great Charter of Holland, The.

          See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1477, and after.

    GREAT RUSSIA.

          See RUSSIA, GREAT.

    GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, The founding of.

          See MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.

    GREAT SCHISM, The.

          See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417;
          and ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1378.

    GREAT TREK, The.

          See SOUTH AFRICA. A. D. 1806-1881.

    GREAT WALL OF CHINA.

          See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.

    GREAT WEEK, The.

          See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.

    GREAT YAHNI, Battle of (1877).

          See TURKS: A.D. 1877-1878.

    GREAVES.

       The greaves which formed part of the armour of the ancient
       Greeks were "leggings formed of a pewter-like metal, which
       covered the lower limbs down to the instep; and they were
       fastened by clasps. ... Homer designates them as 'flexible';
       and he frequently speaks of the Greek soldiery as being
       well-equipped with this important defence--not only, that is,
       well provided with greaves, but also having them so well
       formed and adjusted that they would protect the limbs of the
       warrior without in any degree affecting his freedom of
       movement and action. These greaves, as has been stated, appear
       to have been formed of a metal resembling the alloy that we
       know as pewter."

          C. Boutell,
          Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages,
          chapter 2, section 3.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 2, EL DORADO TO GREAVES ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.