[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.]

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

Spine

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.

Europe at the close of the 10th century.

Europe at the close of the 10th century.

{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.

Europe 1768 A. D.

Europe 1768 A. D.

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.

Maps of France.

Maps of France.

   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 ----------

Maps of Central Europe.

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).

Germany at the peace of Westphalia.

Germany at the peace of Westphalia.

{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 after the congress of Vienna.

Germany after the congress of Vienna.

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.