Nimeguen, by the bridge of the Rhine. The French troops,
finding themselves thus threatened on all sides, withdrew
altogether from Holland: the fleet at the Texel hoisted the
orange flag, with the exception of Admiral Verhuel, who, with
a body of marines that still proved faithful to Napoleon,
threw himself with honourable fidelity into the fort of the
Texel. Amsterdam, amidst transports of enthusiasm, received
the beloved representative of the House of Orange. Before the
close of the year, the tricolour flag floated only on
Bergen-op-zoom and a few of the southern frontier fortresses;
and Europe beheld the prodigy of the seat of war having been
transferred in a single year from the banks of the Niemen to
those of the Scheldt."
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 82 (volume 17).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1814 (May-June).
Belgium, or the former Austrian provinces and Liege, annexed
to Holland, and the kingdom of the Netherlands created.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1815.
The Waterloo campaign.
Defeat and overthrow of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1816.
Accession to the Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
Belgian revolt and acquisition of independence.
Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
Siege of Antwerp citadel.
"In one sense the union" of Belgium with Holland, in the
kingdom of the Netherlands created by the Congress of Vienna,
"was defensible. Holland enjoyed more real freedom than any
other Continental monarchy; and the Belgians had a voice in
the government of the united territory. But, in another sense,
the union was singularly unhappy. The phlegmatic Dutch
Protestant was as indisposed to unite with the light-hearted
Roman Catholic Belgian as the languid waters of the Saone with
the impetuous torrent of the Rhone. Different as were the
rivers, they met at last; and diplomatists probably hoped that
Dutch and Belgians would similarly combine.
{2301}
These hopes were disappointed, and the two people, incapable
of union, endeavoured to find independent courses for
themselves in separate channels. The grounds of Belgian
dislike to the union were intelligible. Belgium had a
population of 3,400,000 souls; Holland of only 2,000,000
persons. Yet both countries had an equal representation in the
States-General. Belgium was taxed more heavily than Holland,
and the produce of taxation went almost entirely into Dutch
pockets. The Court, which was Dutch, resided in Holland. The
public offices were in Holland. Four persons out of every five
in the public service at home were Dutchmen. The army was
almost exclusively commanded by Dutchmen. Dutch professors
were appointed to educate the Belgian youths in Belgian
schools, and a Dutch director was placed over the Bank of
Brussels. The Court even endeavoured to change the language of
the Belgian race, and to substitute Dutch for French in all
judicial proceedings. The Belgians were naturally irritated.
… On the 2nd of June, the States-General were dissolved; the
elections were peacefully concluded; and the closest observers
failed to detect any symptoms of the coming storm on the
political horizon. The storm which was to overwhelm the union
was, in fact, gathering in another country. The events of July
[at Paris] were to shake Europe to the centre. 'On all sides
crowns were falling into the gutter,' and the shock of
revolution in Paris was felt perceptibly in Brussels. Nine
years before the States-General had imposed a mouture, or tax
upon flour. The tax had been carried by a very small majority;
and the majority had been almost entirely composed of Dutch
members. On the 25th of August, 1830, the lower orders in
Brussels engaged in a serious riot, ostensibly directed
against this tax. The offices of a newspaper, conducted in the
interests of the Dutch, were attacked; the house of the
Minister of Justice was set on fire; the wine and spirit shops
were forced open; and the mob, maddened by liquor, proceeded
to other acts of pillage. On the morning of the 26th of August
the troops were called out and instructed to restore order.
Various conflicts took place between the soldiers and the
people; but the former gained no advantage over the rioters,
and were withdrawn into the Place Royale, the central square
of the town. Relieved from the interference of the military,
the mob continued the work of destruction. Respectable
citizens, dreading the destruction of their property,
organised a guard for the preservation of order. Order was
preserved; but the task of preserving it had converted
Brussels into an armed camp. It had placed the entire control
of the town in the hands of the inhabitants. Men who had
unexpectedly obtained a mastery over the situation could
hardly be expected to resign the power which events had given
to them. They had taken up their arms to repress a mob;
victors over the populace, they turned their arms against the
Government, and boldly despatched a deputation to the king
urging the concession of reforms and the immediate convocation
of the States-General. The king had received the news of the
events at Brussels with considerable alarm. Troops had been at
once ordered to march on the city; and, on the 28th of August,
an army of 6,000 men had encamped under its walls. The
citizens, however, represented that the entrance of the troops
would be a signal for the renewal of the disturbances; and the
officer in command in consequence agreed to remain passively
outside the walls. The king sent the Prince of Orange to make
terms with his insurgent subjects. The citizens declined to
admit the prince into the city unless he came without his
soldiers. The prince, unable to obtain any modification of
this stipulation, was obliged to trust himself to the people
alone. It was already evident that the chief town of Belgium
had shaken off the control of the Dutch Government. The king,
compelled to submit to the demands of the deputation, summoned
the States-General for the 13th of September. But this
concession only induced the Belgians to raise their demands.
They had hitherto only asked for reforms: they now demanded
independence, the dissolution of the union, and the
independent administration of Belgium. The revolution had
originally been confined to Brussels: it soon extended to
other towns. Civic guards were organised in Liege, Tournay,
Mons, Verviers, Bruges, and other places. Imitating the
example of Brussels, they demanded the dissolution of the
union between Holland and Belgium. The troops, consisting of a
mixed force of Dutch and Belgians, could not be depended on;
and the restoration of the royal authority was obviously
impossible. On the 13th of September the States-General met.
The question of separation was referred to them by the king;
and the Deputies leisurely applied themselves to its
consideration, in conformity with the tedious rules by which
their proceedings were regulated. Long before they had
completed the preliminary discussions which they thought
necessary the march of events had taken the question out of
their hands. On the 19th of September fresh disturbances broke
out in Brussels. The civic guard, attempting to quell the
riot, was overpowered; and the rioters, elated with their
success, announced their intention of attacking the troops,
who were encamped outside the city walls. Prince Frederick of
Orange, concluding that action was inevitable, at last made up
his mind to attack the town. Dividing the forces under his
command into six columns, he directed them, on the 23rd of
September, against the six gates of the city. … Three of the
columns succeeded, after a serious struggle, in obtaining
possession of the higher parts of the city; but they were
unable to accomplish any decisive victory. For four days the
contest was renewed. On the 27th of September, the troops,
unable to advance, were withdrawn from the positions which
they had won. On the following day the Lower Chamber of the
States-General decided in favour of a dissolution of the
union. The crown of Belgium was evidently dropping into the
gutter; but the king decided on making one more effort to
preserve it in his family. On the 4th of October he sent the
Prince of Orange to Antwerp, authorising him to form a
separate Administration for the southern provinces of the
kingdom, and to place himself at the head of it. …
Arrangements of this character had, however, already become
impossible. On the very day on which the prince reached
Antwerp the Provisional Government at Brussels issued an
ordonnance declaring the independence of Belgium and the
immediate convocation of a National Congress. …
{2302}
On the 10th of October, the Provisional Government, following
up its former ordonnance, issued a second decree, regulating
the composition of the National Congress and the
qualifications of the electors. On the 12th the elections were
fixed for the 27th of October. On the 10th of November the
Congress was formally opened; and on the 18th the independence
of the Belgian people was formally proclaimed by its
authority. … On the 4th of November the Ministers of the
five great Continental powers, assembled in London at the
invitation of the King of Holland, declared that an armistice
should immediately be concluded, and that the Dutch troops
should be withdrawn from Belgium. The signature of this
protocol, on the eve of the meeting of the National Congress,
virtually led to the independence of the Belgian people, which
the Congress immediately proclaimed."
S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 11 (volume 2).
It still remained for the Powers to provide a king for
Belgium, and to gain the consent of the Dutch and Belgian
Governments to the territorial arrangements drawn up for them.
The first difficulty was overcome in June, 1831, by the choice
of Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg to be king of Belgium. The
second problem was complicated by strong claims on both sides
to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. The Conference solved it by
dividing the disputed territory between Belgium and Holland.
The Belgians accepted the arrangement; the King of Holland
rejected it, and was coerced by France and England, who
expelled his forces from Antwerp, which he still held. A
French army laid siege to the citadel, while an English fleet
blockaded the river Scheldt. After a bombardment of 24 days,
December, 1832, the citadel surrendered; but it was not until
April, 1839, the final Treaty of Peace between Belgium and
Holland was signed.
C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1815-1852,
chapters 24-25 and 29.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
Peaceful years of the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland.
Constitutional and material progress.
The contest of Catholics and Liberals in Belgium.
"After winning its independence (1830) Belgium has also been
free to work out its own career of prosperous development.
King Leopold I. during his long reign showed himself the model
of a constitutional sovereign in furthering its progress. The
first railway on the continent was opened in 1835 between
Brussels and Malines, and its railway system is now most
complete. Its population between 1830 and 1880 increased by
more than one-third, and now is the densest in all Europe,
numbering 5,900,000 on an area only twice as large as
Yorkshire. … When Napoleon III. seized on power in France
all Belgians feared that he would imitate his uncle by seizing
Belgium and all land up to the Rhine; but the close connection
of King Leopold [brother of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort]
with the English royal house and his skilful diplomacy averted
the danger from Belgium. The chief internal trouble has been
the strife between the liberal and clerical parties. In 1850
there were over 400 monasteries, with some 12,000 monks and
nuns, in the land, and the Liberals made strenuous efforts for
many years to abolish these and control education; but neither
party could command a firm and lasting majority. In the midst
of these eager disputes King Leopold I. died (1865), after
seeing his kingdom firmly established in spite of ministerial
crises every few months. His son Leopold II. has also been a
constitutional sovereign. In 1867 the Luxemburg question
seemed to threaten the Belgian territory, for Napoleon III.
had secretly proposed to Bismarck that France should take
Belgium and Luxemburg, as well as all land up to the Rhine, as
the price of his friendship to the new German Confederation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.
… Again in 1870 the Franco-German war threw a severe strain
on Belgium to guard its neutrality, but after Sedan this
danger vanished. The strife between the liberal and clerical
parties went on as fiercely in Belgium as in France itself,
and after the rise and fall of many ministries the Liberals
succeeded in closing the convents and gaining control over
State education. The constitution is that of a limited
monarchy with responsible ministers, Senate, and Chamber of
Deputies. The electorate up to 1884 was limited to citizens
paying 42 francs a year in direct taxes, but in 1884 it was
extended by the clerical party acting for once in connection
with the radicals." (On the revised constitution of 1893 see
below: 1892-1893.) In the kingdom of the Netherlands
(Holland), King William, after he had been forced to recognize
Belgian independence, "abdicated [1840] in favour of his son.
The latter soon restored a good understanding with Belgium,
and improved the finances of his kingdom; so the upheavals of
1848 caused no revolution in Holland, and only led to a
thorough reform of its constitution. The Upper House of the
States-General consists of members chosen for nine years by
the estates or councils of the provinces, those of the lower
house by electors having a property qualification. The king's
ministers are now responsible to the Parliament. Liberty of
the press and of public worship is recognised. The chief
questions in Holland have been the reduction of its heavy
debt, the increase of its army and navy, the improvement of
agriculture and commerce, and the management of large and
difficult colonial possessions." Holland "has to manage
28,000,000 subjects over the seas, mostly in Malaysia. She
there holds all Java, parts of Borneo, Sumatra, Timor, the
Moluccas, Celebes, and the western half of New Guinea; in
South America, Dutch Guiana and, the Isle of Curaçoa. It was
not till 1862 that the Dutch at a great cost freed the slaves
in their West Indian possessions [viz., the islands of
Curaçoa, Aruba, St. Martin, Bonaire, St. Eustache, and Saba];
but their rule in Malaysia is still conducted with the main
purpose of securing revenue by means of an oppressive labour
system. The Dutch claims in Sumatra are contested by the
people of Acheen in the northern part of that great island."
J. H. Rose,
A Century of Continental History,
chapter 43.
"The politico-religious contest between Catholics and Liberals
exists to a greater or less degree in all Catholic countries,
and even in Protestant ones possessing, like Prussia, Catholic
provinces: but nowhere is political life more completely
absorbed by this antagonism than in Belgium, nowhere are the
lines of the contest more clearly traced. … In order
thoroughly to grasp the meaning of our politico-religious
strife, we must cast a glance at its origin. We find this in
the constitution adopted by the Congress after the Revolution
of 1830.
{2303}
This constitution enjoins and sanctions all the freedom and
liberty which has long been the privilege of England, and of
the States she has founded in America and Australia. A free
press, liberty as regards education, freedom to form
associations or societies, provincial and communal autonomy,
representative administration—all exactly as in England. How
was it that the Congress of 1830, the majority of whose
members belonged to the Catholic party, came to vote in favour
of principles opposed, not only to the traditions, but also
the dogmas of the Catholic Church? This singular fact is
explained by the writings of the celebrated priest and author,
La Mennais, whose opinions at that time exercised the greatest
influence. La Mennais's first book, 'L'Essai sur
l'indifference en Matière de Religion,' lowered all human
reasoning, and delivered up society to the omnipotent guidance
of the Pope. This work, enthusiastically perused by bishops,
seminarists, and priests, established the author as an
unprecedented authority. When, after the year 1828, he
pretended that the Church would regain her former power by
separating herself from the State, retaining only her liberty,
most of his admirers professed themselves of his opinion. …
Nearly all Belgian priests were at that time La Mennaisiens.
They accepted the separation of Church and State, and, in
their enthusiastic intoxication, craved but liberty to
reconquer the world. It was thus that Catholics and Liberals
united to vote for Belgium the constitution still in existence
after a half-century. In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI., as Veuillot
tells us, 'hurled a thunderbolt at the Belgian constitution in
its cradle.' In a famous Encyclical, since incessantly quoted,
the Pope declared, ex cathedrâ, that modern liberties were a
plague, 'a delirium,' from whence incalculable evils would
inevitably flow. Shortly afterwards, the true author of the
Belgian constitution, La Mennais, having been to Rome in the
vain hope of converting the Pope to his views, was repulsed,
and, a little later, cast out from the bosom of the Church.
The separation was effected. There was an end to that 'union'
of Catholics and Liberals which had overthrown King William
and founded a new political order in Belgium. It was not,
however, till after 1838 that the two parties distinctly
announced their antagonism. … The Liberal party is composed
of all who, having faith in human reason and in liberty, fear
a return to the past, and desire reforms of all sorts. …
When Catholics are mentioned as opposed to Liberals, it is as
regards their political, not their religious opinions. The
Liberals are all, or nearly all, Catholics also; at all events
by baptism. … The Catholic party is guided officially by the
bishops. It is composed, in the first place, of all the
clergy, of the convents and monasteries, and of those who from
a sentiment of religious obedience do as they are directed by
the bishop of the diocese and the Pope, and also of genuine
Conservatives, otherwise called reactionists—that is to say,
of those who consider that liberty leads to anarchy, and
progress to communism. This section comprises the great mass
of the proprietors and cultivators of the soil and the country
populations. … We see that in Belgium parties are divided,
and fight seriously for an idea; they are separated by no
material, but by spiritual interests. The Liberals defend
liberty, which they consider menaced by the aims of the
Church. The Catholics defend religion, which they look upon as
threatened by their adversaries' doctrines. Both desire to
fortify themselves against a danger, non-existent yet, but
which they foresee. … The educational question, which has
been the centre of the political life of the country during
the last two years, deserves expounding in detail. Important
in itself, and more important still in its consequences, it is
everywhere discussed with passion. Primary education was
organized here in 1842, by a law of compromise adopted by the
two parties, thanks to M. J. B. Nothomb, one of the founders
of the Belgian Constitution, who died recently in Berlin,
where he had been Belgian Minister for a space of upwards of
forty years. This law enacted that every parish should possess
schools sufficient for the number of children needing
instruction; but it allowed the 'commune' to adopt private
schools. The inspection of the public schools and the control
of the religious teaching given by the masters and mistresses,
was reserved to the clergy. Advanced Liberals began to clamour
for the suppression of this latter clause as soon as they
perceived the preponderating influence it gave the priests
over the lay teachers. The reform of the law of 1842 became
the watchword of the Liberal party, and this was ultimately
effected in July, 1879; now each parish or village must
provide the schools necessary for the children of its
inhabitants, and must not give support to any private school.
Ecclesiastical inspection is suppressed. Religious instruction
may be given by the ministers of the various denominations, in
the school buildings, but out of the regular hours. This
system has been in force in Holland since the commencement of
the present century. Lay instruction only is given by the
communal masters and mistresses; no dogmas are taught, but the
school is open to the clergy of all denominations who choose
to enter, as it is evidently their duty to do. This system,
now introduced in Belgium, has been accepted, without giving
rise to any difficulties, by both Protestants and Jews, but it
is most vehemently condemned by the Catholic priesthood. …
In less than a year they have succeeded in opening a private
school in every commune and village not formerly possessing
one. In this instance the Catholic party has shown a
devotedness really remarkable. … At the same time in all the
Churches, and nearly every Sunday, the Government schools have
been attacked, stigmatized as 'écoles sans Dieu' (schools
without God), to be avoided as the plague, and where parents
were forbidden to place their children, under pain of
committing the greatest sin. Those who disobeyed, and allowed
their children still to frequent the communal schools, were
deprived of the Sacraments of the Church. They were refused
absolution at confession, and the Eucharist, even at Easter.
All the schoolmasters and mistresses were placed under the ban
of the Church, and the priests often even refused to pronounce
a blessing on their marriage. It is only lately that, contrary
instructions having been received from Rome, this extreme step
is now very rarely resorted to. The Liberal majority in the
House has ordered a Parliamentary inquiry—which is still in
progress, and the results of which in this last six months,
fill the columns of our newspapers—in order to ascertain by
what means the clergy succeed in filling their schools. … As
a natural consequence of the excessive heat of the conflict, the
two parties end by justifying the accusations of their
adversaries.
{2304}
The Liberals become anti-religionists, because religion
is—and is daily becoming more and more—anti-liberal; and the
Catholics are afraid of liberty, because it is used against
their faith, which is, in their opinion, the only true and the
necessary foundation of civilization. … The existence in
Belgium of two parties so distinctly and clearly separated,
offers, however, some compensation: it favours the good
working of Parliamentary government."
E. de Laveleye,
The Political Condition of Belgium
(Contemporary Review, April, 1882),
pages 715-724, with foot-note.
NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1876-1890.
The founding of the Congo Free State.
See CONGO FREE STATE.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands):
A. D. 1887.
Revision of the Constitution.
The constitution of 1848 (see above), in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, was revised in 1887, but in a very conservative
spirit. Attempts to make the suffrage universal, and to effect
a separation of church and state, were defeated. The suffrage
qualification by tax-payment was reduced to ten guilders, and
certain classes of lodgers were also admitted to the
franchise, more than doubling the total number of voters,
which is now estimated to be about 290,000. All private
soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the regular army are
excluded from the franchise. The upper chamber of the States
General is elected as before by the Provincial States, but its
membership is raised to fifty. The second chamber, consisting
of one hundred members, is chosen directly by the voters. In
the new constitution, the succession to the throne is
definitely prescribed, in the event of a failure of direct
heirs. Three collateral lines of descent are designated, to be
accepted in their order as follows: 1. Princess Sophia of
Saxony and her issue; 2. the descendants of the late Princess
Marian of Prussia; 3. the descendants of the late Princess
Mary of Wied. The late king of the Netherlands, William III.,
died in 1890, leaving only a daughter, ten years old, to
succeed him. The young queen, Wilhelmina, is reigning under
the regency of her mother.
The Statesman's Year-book, 1894.
ALSO IN:
The Annual Register, 1887.
Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887.
NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1892-1893.
The revised Belgian Constitution.
Introduction of plural Suffrage.
A great agitation among the Belgian workingmen, ending in a
formidable strike, in 1890, was only quieted by the promise
from the government of a revision of the constitution and the
introduction of universal suffrage. The Constituent Chambers,
elected to perform the task of revision, were opened on the
11th of July, 1892. The amended constitution was promulgated
on the 7th of September, 1893. It confers the suffrage on
every citizen twenty-five years of age or over, domiciled in
the same commune for not less than one year, and not under
legal disqualification. The new constitution is made
especially interesting by its introduction of a system of
cumulative or plural voting. One supplementary vote is
conferred on every married citizen (or widower), thirty-five
years or more of age, having legitimate issue, and paying at
least five francs per annum house tax; also on every citizen
not less than twenty-five years old who owns real property to
the value of 2,000 francs, or who derives an income of not
less than 100 francs a year from an investment in the public
debt, or from the savings bank. Two supplementary votes are
given to each citizen twenty-five years of age who has
received certain diplomas or discharged certain functions
which imply the possession of a superior education. The same
citizen may accumulate votes on more than one of these
qualifications, but none is allowed to cast more than three.
On the adoption of the new constitution, the Brussels
correspondent of the "London Times" wrote to that journal;
"This article, which adds to manhood suffrage as it exists in
France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and
the Australian colonies, the safeguard of a double and triple
suffrage accorded to age, marriage, and paternity, as well as
to the possession of money saved or inherited, or of a
profession, will constitute one of the distinguishing marks of
the new Belgian Constitution. As it reposes upon the just
principle that votes must be considered in reference to their
weight rather than to their numbers, it has had the effect of
putting an immediate end to the violent political crisis which
disturbed the country. It has been accepted without much
enthusiasm, indeed, but as a reasonable compromise. The
moderates of all classes, who do not go to war for abstract
theories, think that it has a prospect of enduring." An
attempt to introduce proportional representation along with
the plural suffrage was defeated. The constitution of the
Senate raised questions hardly less important than those
connected with the elective franchise. Says the correspondent
quoted above: "The advanced Radical and Socialist parties had
proposed to supplement the Chamber, the political
representation of the territorial interests of the country, by
a Senate representing its economic interests. The great social
forces—capital, labour, and science—in their application to
agriculture, industry, and commerce, were each to send their
representatives. It may be that this formula, which would have
made of the Belgian Senate an Assembly sui generis in Europe,
may become the formula of the future. The Belgian legislators
hesitated before the novelty of the idea and the difficulty of
its application. This combination rejected, there remained for
the Senate only the alternative between two systems—namely,
to separate that Assembly from the Chamber by its origin or
else by its composition. The Senate and the Government
preferred the first of these solutions, that is to say direct
elections for the Chamber, an election by two degrees for the
Senate, either by the members of the provincial councils or by
specially elected delegates of the Communes. But these
proposals encountered from all the benches in the Chamber a
general resistance." The result was a compromise. The Senate
consists of 76 members elected directly by the people, and 26
elected by the provincial councils. The term of each is eight
years. The Senators chosen by the councils are exempted from a
property qualification; those popularly elected are required
to be owners of real property yielding not less than 12,000
francs of income, or to pay not less than 1,200 francs in
direct taxes. The legislature is empowered to restrict the
voting for Senators to citizens thirty years of age or more.
{2305}
The members of the Chamber of Representatives are apportioned
according to population and elected for four years, one half
retiring every two years. The Senate and Chamber meet annually
in November, and are required to be in session for at least
forty days; but the King may convoke extraordinary sessions,
and may dissolve the Chambers either separately or together.
In case of a dissolution, the constitution requires an
election to be held within forty days, and a meeting of the
Chambers within two months. Only the Chamber of
Representatives can originate money bills or bills relating to
the contingent for the army. The executive consists of seven
ministries, namely of Finance, of Justice, of Interior and
Instruction, of War, of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, of
Foreign Affairs, of Agriculture, Industry and Public Works.
The King's Privy Council is a distinct body.
----------NETHERLANDS: End----------
NEUCHATÊL: Separation from Prussia.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
NEUENBERG: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
NEUSTRIA.
See AUSTRASIA.
NEUTRAL GROUND, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
NEUTRAL NATION, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.
NEUTRAL RIGHTS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
----------NEVADA: Start--------
NEVADA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.
Acquisition from Mexico.
Silver discoveries.
Territorial and State organization.
"Ceded to the United States at the same time, and, indeed, as
one with California [see MEXICO: A. D. 1848], this region of
the Spanish domain had not, like that west of the Sierra
Nevada, a distinctive name, but was described by local names,
and divided into valleys. In March following the treaty with
Mexico and the discovery of gold, the inhabitants of Salt Lake
valley met and organized the state of Deseret, the boundaries
of which included the whole of the recently acquired Mexican
territory outside of California, and something more." But
Congress, failing to recognize the state of Deseret, created
instead, by an act passed on the 9th of September, 1850, the
Territory of Utah, with boundaries which embraced Nevada
likewise. This association was continued until 1861, when the
Territory of Nevada was organized by act of Congress out of
western Utah. Meantime the discovery in 1859 of the
extraordinary deposit of silver which became famous as the
Comstock Lode, and other mining successes of importance, had
rapidly attracted to the region a large population of
adventurers. It was this which had brought about the separate
territorial organization. Three years later the young
territory was permitted to frame a state constitution and was
admitted into the Union in October, 1864.
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 20: Nevada, page 66.
----------NEVADA: End--------
NEVELLE, Battle of (1381).
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
NEVILLE'S CROSS, OR DURHAM, Battle of.
A crushing defeat suffered by an army of the Scots, invading
England under their young king, David Bruce, who was taken
prisoner. The battle was fought near Durham, October 17, 1346.
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 25 (volume 3).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.
NEW ALBION, The County Palatine of.
By a royal charter, witnessed by the Deputy-General of
Ireland, at Dublin, June 21, 1634, King Charles I. granted to
Sir Edmund Plowden and eight other petitioners, the whole of
Long Island ("Manitie, or Long Isle"), together with forty
leagues square of the adjoining continent, constituting the
said domain a county palatine and calling it New Albion, while
the island received the name of Isle Plowden. "In this
document the boundaries of New Albion are so defined as to
include all of New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and
Pennsylvania embraced in a square, the eastern side of which,
forty leagues in length, extended (along the coast) from Sandy
Hook to Cape May, together with Long Island, and all other
'isles and islands in the sea within ten leagues of the shores
of the said region.' The province is expressly erected into a
county palatine, under the jurisdiction of Sir Edmund Plowden
as earl, depending upon his Majesty's' royal person and
imperial crown, as King of Ireland.'" Subsequently, within the
year 1634, the whole of the grant was acquired by and became
vested in Plowden and his three sons. Sir Edmund, who died in
1659, spent the remainder of his life in futile attempts to
make good his claim against the Swedes on the Delaware and the
Dutch, and in exploiting his magnificent title as Earl
Palatine of New Albion. The claim and the title seem to have
reappeared occasionally among his descendants until some time
near the close of the 18th century.
G. B. Keen,
Note on New Albion.
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
J. Winsor, editor, volume 3, pages 457-468).
ALSO IN:
S. Hazard,
Annals of Pennsylvania,
pages 36-38 and 108-112.
NEW AMSTERDAM.
The name originally given by the Dutch to the city of New
York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1634; and 1653.
Also the name first given to the village out of which grew the
city of Buffalo, N. Y.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
----------NEW BRUNSWICK: Start--------
NEW BRUNSWICK:
Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.
See NORUMBEGA;
also, CANADA: NAMES.
NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1621-1668.
Included in Nova Scotia.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1713.
Uncertain disposition by the Treaty of Utrecht.
See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1820-1837.
The Family Compact.
See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.
NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1854-1866.
The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
A. D. 1854-1866.
NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1867.
Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
----------NEW BRUNSWICK: End--------
NEW CÆSAREA, OR NEW JERSEY.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
NEW CARTHAGE.
The founding of.
See CARTHAGENA, THE FOUNDING OF.
NEW CASTILE.
See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.
{2306}
----------NEW ENGLAND: Start--------
NEW ENGLAND.
[Footnote: The greater part of New England history is given
elsewhere, as the history of the several New England states,
and is only indexed in this place, instead of being repeated.]
NEW ENGLAND:
The Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
NEW ENGLAND:
The Norumbega of early geographers.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.
First coasted by Sebastian Cabot.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1524.
Coasted by Verrazano.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1602-1607.
The voyages of Gosnold, Pring and Weymouth.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
Embraced in the region claimed as Acadia by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.
Coast explored by Champlain.
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
Embraced in the grant to the North Virginia Company
of Plymouth.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1607-1608.
The Popham Colony on the Kennebec.
The fruitless venture of the Plymouth Company.
See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1614.
Named, mapped and described by Captain John Smith.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The voyage of the Mayflower and the planting of Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
Incorporation of the Council for New England,
successor to the Plymouth Company.
Its great domain and its monopoly of the Fisheries.
"While the king was engaged in the overthrow of the London
company [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624], its more loyal rival
in the West of England [the Plymouth company, or North
Virginia branch of the Virginia company] sought new
letters-patent, with a great enlargement of their domain. The
remonstrances of the Virginia corporation and the rights of
English commerce could delay for two years, but not defeat,
the measure that was pressed by the friends of the monarch. On
the 3d of November, 1620, King James incorporated 40 of his
subjects—some of them members of his household and his
government, the most wealthy and powerful of the English
nobility—as 'The Council established at Plymouth, in the
county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and
governing New England in America.' The territory, which was
conferred on them in absolute property, with unlimited powers
of legislation and government, extended from the 40th to the
48th degree of north latitude, and from the Atlantic to the
Pacific. The grant included the fisheries; and a revenue was
considered certain from a duty to be imposed on all tonnage
employed in them. The patent placed emigrants to New England
under the absolute authority of the corporation, and it was
through grants from that plenary power, confirmed by the
crown, that institutions the most favorable to colonial
independence and the rights of mankind came into being. The
French derided the action of the British monarch in bestowing
lands and privileges which their own sovereign, seventeen
years before, had appropriated. The English nation was
incensed at the largess of immense monopolies by the royal
prerogative; and in April, 1621, Sir Edwin Sandys brought the
grievance before the house of commons. … But the parliament
was dissolved before a bill could be perfected. In 1622, five
and thirty sail of vessels went to fish on the coasts of New
England, and made good voyages. The monopolists appealed to
King James, and he issued a proclamation, which forbade any to
approach the northern coast of America, except with the leave
of their company or of the privy council, In June, 1623,
Francis West was despatched as admiral of New England, to
exclude such fishermen as came without a license. But they
refused to pay the tax which he imposed, and his ineffectual
authority was soon resigned."
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 1, chapter 13 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
C. Deane,
New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 9).
Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
Brief Narration
(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2).
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
The grants made by the Council for New England.
Settlements planted.
Nova Scotia, Maine and New Hampshire conferred.
Captain John Mason, a native of King's Lynn, in Norfolk,
became governor of Newfoundland in 1615. "While there he wrote
a tract entitled 'A Brief Discourse of the Newfoundland,' and
sent it to his friend Sir John Scot of Edinburgh, to peruse,
and to print if he thought it worthy. It was printed in the
year 1620. … In the spring or summer of 1621, Mason returned
into England, and immediately found proof of the effect of his
little tract. … Sir William Alexander, afterwards Earl of
Stirling, immediately sought him out. He had been appointed
Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Prince Henry, honored with
Knighthood, and was Master of Requests for Scotland. He
invited Mason to his house, where he discussed with him a
scheme of Scotch colonization, and he resolved to undertake
settling a colony in what is now Nova Scotia. He begged Mason
to aid him in procuring a grant of this territory from the
Council for New England, it being within their limits. Mason
referred him to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, one of the Council and
their Treasurer. The king readily recommended Alexander to
Gorges, and Gorges heartily approved the plan. In September,
1621, Alexander obtained a Royal Patent for a tract of land
which he called New Scotland, a name attractive to his
countrymen. This must have been gratifying to Mason, who had
urged Scotch emigration in his tract printed only a year
before. The Council for New England, established in November,
1620, was now granting and ready to grant to associations or
to individuals parcels of its vast domain in America. … The
second patent for land granted by the Council was to Captain
John Mason, bearing date March 9, 1621-2. It was all the land
lying between the Naumkeag and the Merrimac rivers, extending
back from the sea-coast to the heads of both of these rivers,
with all the islands within three miles of the shore. Mason
called this Mariana. This tract of territory lies wholly
within the present bounds of Massachusetts. We now arrive at a
period when Mason and Gorges have a joint interest in New
England.
{2307}
On the 10th of August, 1622, the Council made a third grant.
This was to Gorges and Mason jointly of land lying upon the
sea-coast between the Merrimac and the Kennebec rivers,
extending three-score miles into the country, with all islands
within five leagues of the premises to be, or intended to be,
called the Province of Maine. Thus was the territory destined
seven years later to bear the name of New Hampshire, first
carved from the vast domain of New England, whose boundaries
were fixed by the great circles of the heavens. Thus was Capt.
Mason joint proprietor of his territory afterwards known as
New Hampshire, before a single settler had built a cabin on
the Pascataqua. Captain Robert Gorges, son of Sir Ferdinando,
was authorized to give the grantees possession of this new
Province. Great enthusiasm on the subject of colonization now
prevailed in England, extending from the king, through all
ranks. … Before the year 1622 closed, the Council issued
many patents for land, in small divisions, to persons
intending to make plantations. Among the grants, is one to
David Thomson and two associates, of land on the Pascataqua.
The bounds and extent of this patent are unknown. Only the
fact that such a patent was granted is preserved. … The
Council for New England, in view of the many intended
settlements, as well as the few already made, now proposed to
set up a general government in New England. Captain Robert
Gorges, recently returned from the Venetian wars, was
appointed Governor, with Captain Francis West, Captain
Christopher Levett, and the governor of New Plymouth as his
Council. Captain Gorges arrived here the middle of September,
1623, having been preceded some months by Captain West, who
was Vice-Admiral of New England as well as Councillor. Captain
Levett came as late as November. … The next year, 1624, war
between England and Spain broke out, and drew off for a while
Gorges and Mason from their interests in colonization. Gorges
was Captain of the Castle and Island of St. Nicholas, at
Plymouth, a post that he had held for thirty years; and he was
now wholly taken up with the duties of his office. Mason's
services were required as a naval officer of experience. …
In 1626 England plunged into a war with France, without having
ended the war with Spain. Captain Mason was advanced to be
Treasurer and Paymaster of the English armies employed in the
wars. There was no time now to think of American colonization.
His duties were arduous. … In 1629 peace was made with
France, and the war with Spain was coming to an end. No sooner
were Gorges and Mason a little relieved from their public
duties than they sprang at once to their old New England
enterprise. They resolved to push forward their interests.
They came to some understanding about a division of their
Province of Maine. On the 7th of November, 1629, a day
memorable in the history of New Hampshire, the Council granted
to Mason a patent of all that part of the Province of Maine
lying between the Merrimac and Pascataqua rivers; and Mason
called it New Hampshire, out of regard to the favor in which
he held Hampshire in England, where he had resided many years.
… This grant had hardly been made when Champlain was brought
to London, a prisoner, from Canada, by Kirke. The French had
been driven from that region. Gorges and Mason procured
immediately a grant from the Council of a vast tract of land
in the region of Lake Champlain, supposed to be not only a
fine country for peltry, but to contain vast mineral wealth.
The Province was called Laconia on account of the numerous
lakes supposed or known to be there, and was the most northern
grant hitherto made by the Council. The patent bears date
November 17, 1629, only ten days later than Mason's New
Hampshire grant. … For the purpose of advancing the
interests of Gorges and Mason in Laconia as well as on the
Pascataqua, they joined with them six merchants in London, and
received from the Council a grant dated November 3, 1631, of a
tract of land lying on both sides of the Pascataqua river, on
the sea-coast and within territory already owned by Gorges and
Mason in severalty. This patent, called the Pascataqua Patent,
covered, on the west side of the river, the present towns of
Portsmouth, New Castle, Rye and part of Greenland; on the east
side, Kittery, Eliot, the Berwicks, and the western part of
Lebanon."
C. W. Tuttle,
Captain John Mason
(Prince Society Publications, 1887),
pages 12-24.
ALSO IN:
S. F. Haven,
Grants under the Great Council for New England
(Lowell Institute. Lecture: Early History of Massachusetts,
pages 127-162).
J. P. Baxter, editor,
Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine
(Prince Society Publications 1890).
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, page 397, foot-note.
See, also,
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629;
and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1629.
The Dorchester Company and the royal charter to
the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The new patent to Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS:
A. D. 1623-1629 PLYMOUTH COLONY.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629-1630.
The immigration of the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay with their charter.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
The pioneer settlements in Connecticut.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.
Dissolution of the Council for New England and partitioning
of its territorial claims by lot.
"The Council for New England, having struggled through nearly
fifteen years of maladministration and ill-luck, had yielded
to the discouragements which beset it. By the royal favor, it
had triumphed over the rival Virginia Company, to be
overwhelmed in its turn by the just jealousy of Parliament,
and by dissensions among its members. The Council, having, by
profuse and inconsistent grants of its lands, exhausted its
common property, as well as its credit with purchasers for
keeping its engagements, had no motive to continue its
organization. Under these circumstances, it determined on a
resignation of its charter to the king, and a surrender of the
administration of its domain to a General Governor of his
appointment, on the condition that all the territory, a large
portion of which by its corporate action had already been
alienated to other parties [see above: A. D. 1621-1631],
should be granted in severalty by the king to the members of
the Council. Twelve associates accordingly proceeded to a
distribution of New England among themselves by lot; and
nothing was wanting to render the transaction complete, and to
transfer to them the ownership of that region, except to oust the
previous patentees, of whom the most powerful body were
colonists in Massachusetts Bay. To effect this, Sir John
Banks, Attorney-General, brought a writ of 'quo warranto' in
Westminster Hall against the Massachusetts Company. …
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.
{2308}
It seemed that, when a few more forms should be gone through,
all would be over with the presumptuous Colony. … But …
everything went on as if Westminster Hall had not spoken. 'The
Lord frustrated their design.' The disorders of the mother
country were a safeguard of the infant liberty of New
England."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 10.
In the parcelling of New England by lot among the members of
the Council, the divisions were:
(1) Between the St. Croix and Pemaquid, to William Alexander.
(2) From Pemaquid to Sagadahoc,
in part to the Marquis of Hamilton.
(3) Between the Kennebec and Androscoggin; and
(4) from Sagadahoc to Piscataqua, to Sir F. Gorges.
(5) From Piscataqua to the Naumkeag, to Mason.
(6) From the Naumkeag round the sea-coast,
by Cape Cod to Narragansett, to the Marquis of Hamilton.
(7) From Narragansett to the half-way bound, between that and
the Connecticut River, and 50 miles up into the country,
to Lord Edward Gorges.
(8) From this midway point to the Connecticut River, to the
Earl of Carlisle.
(9 and 10) From the Connecticut to the Hudson,
to the Duke of Lennox.
(11 and 12) From the Hudson to the limits of the
Plymouth Company's territory, to Lord Mulgrave.
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
History of the United States,
volume 1, page 337, foot-note.
ALSO IN:
T. Hutchinson,
History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 1, pages 48-50.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636.
Providence Plantation and Roger Williams.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636;
and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1639.
The first American constitution.
The genesis of a state.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1641.
Public Registry laws.
See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
The Pequot War.
"The region extending from the bounds of Rhode Island to the
banks of the Hudson was at the time of the colonization held