"While the war [with the Dutch] continued without any decisive
success on either side, a calamity happened in London which
threw the people into great consternation. Fire, breaking out
[September 2, 1666] in a baker's house near the bridge, spread
itself on all sides with such rapidity that no efforts could
extinguish it, till it laid in ashes a considerable part of
the city. The inhabitants, without being able to provide
effectually for their relief, were reduced to be spectators of
their own ruin; and were pursued from street to street by the
flames which unexpectedly gathered round them. Three days and
nights did the fire advance; and it was only by the blowing up
of houses that it was at last extinguished. … About 400
streets and 13,000 houses were reduced to ashes. The causes of
the calamity were evident. The narrow streets of London, the
houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and a violent
east wind which blew; these were so many concurring
circumstances which rendered it easy to assign the reason of
the destruction that ensued. But the people were not satisfied
with this obvious account. Prompted by blind rage, some
ascribed the guilt to the republicans, others to the
Catholics. … The fire of London, though at that time a great
calamity, has proved in the issue beneficial both to the city
and the kingdom. The city was rebuilt in a very little time,
and care was taken to make the streets wider and more regular
than before. … London became much more healthy after the
fire."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 64.
"I went this morning [September 7] on foot from Whitehall as
far as London Bridge, thro' the late Fleete-street, Ludgate
hill, by St. Paules, Cheapeside, Exchange, Bishopsgate,
Aldersgate, and out to Moorefields, thence through Cornehill,
&c., with extraordinary difficulty, clambering over heaps of
yet smoking rubbish, and frequently mistaking where I was. The
ground under my feete so hot, that it even burnt the soles of
my shoes. … At my returne I was infinitely concerned to find
that goodly Church St. Paules now a sad ruine. … Thus lay in
ashes that most venerable church, one of the most ancient
pieces of early piety in ye Christian world, besides neere 100
more. … In five or six miles traversing about I did not see
one loade of timber unconsum'd, nor many stones but what were
calcin'd white as snow. … I then went towards Islington and
Highgate, where one might have seen 200,000 people of all
ranks and degrees dispers'd and lying along by their heaps of
what they could save from the fire, deploring their losse, and
tho' ready to perish for hunger and destitution, yet not
asking one penny for reliefe, which to me appear'd a stranger
sight than any I had yet beheld."
J. Evelyn,
Diary,
September 7, 1666 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
S. Pepys,
Diary, September 2-15, 1666
(volume 4).
L. Phillimore,
Sir Christopher Wren,
chapters 6-7.
LONDON: A. D. 1685.
The most populous capital in Europe.
The first lighting of the streets.
"There is reason to believe that, in 1685, London had been,
during about half a century, the most populous capital in
Europe. The inhabitants, who are now [1848] at least
1,900,000, were then probably little more than half a million.
London had in the world only one commercial rival, now long
ago outstripped, the mighty and opulent Amsterdam. … There
is, indeed, no doubt that the trade of the metropolis then
bore a far greater proportion than at present to the whole
trade of the country; yet to our generation the honest
vaunting of our ancestors must appear almost ludicrous. The
shipping which they thought incredibly great appears not to
have exceeded 70,000 tons. This was, indeed, then more than a
third of the whole tonnage of the kingdom. … It ought to be
noticed that, in the last year of the reign of Charles II.
[1685], began a great change in the police of London, a change
which has perhaps added as much to the happiness of the body
of the people as revolutions of much greater fame. An
ingenious projector, named Edward Heming, obtained letters
patent conveying to him, for a term of years, the exclusive
right of lighting up London. He undertook, for a moderate
consideration, to place a light before every tenth door, on
moonless nights, from Michaelmas to Lady Day, and from six to
twelve of the clock."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
LONDON: A. D. 1688.
The Irish Night.
The ignominious flight of James II. from his capital, on the
morning of December 11, 1688, was followed by a wild outbreak
of riot in London, which no effective authority existed to
promptly repress. To the cry of "No Popery," Roman Catholic
chapels and the residences of ambassadors of Roman Catholic
States, were sacked and burned. "The morning of the 12th of
December rose on a ghastly sight. The capital in many places
presented the aspect of a city taken by storm. The Lords met
at Whitehall, and exerted themselves to restore tranquillity.
… In spite, however, of the well-meant efforts of the
provisional government, the agitation grew hourly more
formidable. … Another day of agitation and terror closed,
and was followed by a night the strangest and most terrible
that England had ever seen." Just before his flight, King
James had sent an order for the disbanding of Ins army, which
had been composed for the most part of troops brought over
from Ireland. A terrifying rumor that this disbanded Irish
soldiery was marching on London, and massacring men, women and
children on the road, now spread through the city. "At one in
the morning the drums of the militia beat to arms. Everywhere
terrified women were weeping and wringing their hands, while
their fathers and husbands were equipping themselves for
fight. Before two the capital wore a face of stern
preparedness which might well have daunted a real enemy, if
such an enemy had been approaching. Candles were blazing at
all the windows. The public places were as bright as at
noonday. All the great avenues were barricaded. More than
20,000 pikes and muskets lined the streets. The late daybreak
of the winter solstice found the whole City still in arms.
During many years the Londoners retained a vivid recollection
of what they called the Irish Night. … The panic had not
been confined to London. The cry that disbanded Irish soldiers
were coming to murder the Protestants had, with malignant
ingenuity, been raised at once in many places widely distant
from each other."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 10.
{2039}
LONDON: A. D. 1780.
The Gordon No-Popery Riots.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.
LONDON: A. D. 1848.
The last Chartist demonstration.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.
LONDON: A. D. 1851.
The great Exhibition.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.
----------LONDON: End----------
LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA, A. D. 1606-1625.
Charter and undertakings in Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after.
LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA. D. 1619.
The unused patent granted to the Pilgrims at Leyden.
See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620;
and, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and 1621.
----------LONDONDERRY: Start--------
LONDONDERRY:
Origin and Name.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.
LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1688.
The shutting of the gates by the Prentice Boys.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.
LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1689.
The Siege.
James II. fled in December, 1688, to France, from the
Revolution in England which gave his throne to his daughter
Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. He received aid from
the French king and was landed in Ireland the following March,
to attempt the maintenance of his sovereignty in that kingdom,
if no more. Almost immediately upon his arrival he led his
forces against Londonderry, where a great part of the
Protestants of Ulster had taken refuge, and William and Mary
had been proclaimed. "The city in 1689 was contained within
the walls; and it rose by a gentle ascent from the base to the
summit of a hill. The whole city was thus exposed to the fire
of an enemy. There was no moat nor counterscarp. A ferry
crossed the river Foyle from the east gate, and the north gate
opened upon a quay. At the entrance of the Foyle was the
strong fort of Culmore, with a smaller fort on the opposite
bank. About two miles below the city were two forts—Charles
Fort and Grange Fort. The trumpeter sent by the king with a
summons to the obstinate city found the inhabitants 'in very
great disorder, having turned out their governor Lundy, upon
suspicion.' The cause of this unexpected reception was the
presence of 'one Walker, a minister.' He was opposed to Lundy,
who thought the place untenable, and counselled the townsmen
to make conditions; 'but the fierce minister of the Gospel,
being of the true Cromwellian or Cameronian stamp, inspired
them with bolder resolutions.' The reverend George Walker and
Major Baker were appointed governors during the siege. They
mustered 7,020 soldiers, dividing them into regiments under
eight colonels. In the town there were about 30,000 souls; but
they were reduced to a less burdensome number, by 10,000
accepting an offer of the besieging commander to restore them
to their dwellings. There were, according to Lundy's
estimation, only provisions for ten days. The number of cannon
possessed by the besieged was only twenty. On the 20th of
April the city was invested, and the bombardment was begun.
… No impression was made during nine days upon the
determination to hold out; and on the 29th King James retraced
his steps to Dublin, in considerable ill humour. The siege
went on for six weeks with little change. Hamilton was now the
commander of James's forces. The garrison of Londonderry and
the inhabitants were gradually perishing from fatigue and
insufficient food. But they bravely repelled an assault, in
which 400 of the assailants fell. … Across the narrow part
of the river, from Charles Fort to Grange Fort, the enemy
stretched a great boom of fir-timber, joined by iron chains,
and fastened on either shore by cables of a foot thick. On the
15th of June an English fleet of thirty sail was descried in
the Lough. Signals were given and answered; but the ships lay
at anchor for weeks. At the end of June, Baker, one of the
heroic governors, died. Hamilton had been superseded in his
command by Rosen, who issued a savage proclamation, declaring
that unless the place were surrendered by the 1st of July, he
would collect all the Protestants from the neighbouring
districts, and drive them under the walls of the city to
starve with those within the walls. A famished troop came thus
beneath the walls of Londonderry, where they lay starving for
three days. The besieged immediately threatened to hang all
the prisoners within the city. This threat had its effect, and
the famished crowd wended back their way to their solitary
villages. It is but justice to James to say that he expressed
his displeasure at this proceeding."
C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 34.
"The state of the city was, hour by hour, becoming more
frightful. The number of the inhabitants had been thinned more
by famine and disease than by the fire of the enemy. Yet that
fire was sharper and more constant than ever. … Every attack
was still repelled. But the fighting men of the garrison were
so much exhausted that they could scarcely keep their legs.
Several of them, in the act of striking at the enemy, fell
down from mere weakness. A very small quantity of grain
remained, and was doled out by mouthfuls. The stock of salted
hides was considerable, and by gnawing them the garrison
appeased the rage of hunger. Dogs, fattened on the blood of
the slain who lay unburied round the town, were luxuries which
few could afford to purchase. The price of a whelp's paw was
five shillings and sixpence. Nine horses were still alive, and
but barely alive. They were so lean that little meat was
likely to be found upon them. It was, however, determined to
slaughter them for food. … The whole city was poisoned by
the stench exhaled from the bodies of the dead and of the half
dead. … It was no slight aggravation of the sufferings of
the garrison that all this time the English ships were seen
far off in Lough Foyle." At length, positive orders from
England compelled Kirke, the commander of the relieving
expedition "to make an attempt which, as far as appears, he
might have made, with at least an equally fair prospect of
success, six weeks earlier." Two merchant ships, the Mountjoy
and the Phœnix, loaded with provisions, and the Dartmouth, a
frigate of thirty-six guns, made a bold dash up the river,
broke the great boom, ran the gauntlet of forts and batteries,
and reached the city at ten o'clock in the evening of the 28th
of July.
{2040}
The captain of the Mountjoy was killed in the heroic
undertaking, but Londonderry, his native town, was saved. The
enemy continued their bombardment for three days more. "But,
on the third night, flames were seen arising from the camp;
and, when the first of August dawned, a line of smoking ruins
marked the site lately occupied by the huts of the besiegers.
… So ended this great siege, the most memorable in the
annals of the British isles. It had lasted 105 days. The
garrison had been reduced from about 7,000 effective men to
about 3,000. The loss of the besiegers cannot be precisely
ascertained. Walker estimated it at 8,000 men."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 12.
ALSO in:
W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 21.
See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
----------LONDONDERRY: End--------
LONE JACK, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
LONE STAR, Order of the.
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
LONE STAR FLAG.
LONE STAR STATE.
On assuming independence, in 1836, the republic of Texas
adopted a flag bearing a single star, which was known as 'the
flag of the lone Star.' With reference to this emblem, Texas
is often called the Lone Star State.
----------LONG ISLAND: Start--------
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1614.
Explored by the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1624.
Settlement of Brooklyn.
See BROOKLYN.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1634.
Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.
See NEW ALBION.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1650.
Division between the Dutch of New Netherland and the English
of Connecticut.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1664.
Title acquired for the Duke of York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1673.
The Dutch reconquest.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1674.
Annexed to New York.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.
LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
The defeat of the American army by Lord Howe.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).
----------LONG ISLAND: End--------
LONG KNIVES, The.
See YANKEE.
LONG PARLIAMENT.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.
LONG WALLS OF ATHENS.
The walls which the Athenians built, B. C. 457, one, four
miles long, to the harbor of Phalerum, and others, four and
one half miles long, to the Piræus, to protect the
communication of their city with its port, were called the
Long Walls. The same name had been previously given to the
walls built by the Athenians to protect the communication of
Megara, then their ally, with its port of Nisæa; and Corinth
had, also, its Long Walls, uniting it with the port Lechæum.
The Long Walls of Athens were destroyed on the surrender of
the city, at the termination of the Peloponnesian War, B. C.
404, and rebuilt, B. C. 393, by Conon, with Persian help.
See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
LONGJUMEAU, Peace of (1568).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
LONGSTREET, General James.
Siege of Knoxville.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
LONGUEVILLE,
The Duchess de, and the Fronde.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.
LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN, its position, and the battle on it.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);
and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
LOOM, Cartwright's invention of the power.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
LOPEZ, The Tyranny of.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
LOPEZ FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITION (1851).
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
LORD.
"Every Teutonic King or other leader was surrounded by a band
of chosen warriors, personally attached to him of their own
free choice [see COMITATUS]. … The followers served their
chief in peace and in war; they fought for him to the death,
and rescued or avenged his life with their own. In return,
they shared whatever gifts or honours the chief could
distribute among them; and in our tongue at least it was his
character of dispenser of gifts which gave the chief his
official title. He was the 'Hlaford,' the 'Loaf-giver,' a name
which, through a series of softenings and contractions, and
with a complete forgetfulness of its primitive meaning, has
settled down into the modern form of Lord."
E. A. Freeman,
History Norman Conquests,
chapter 3, section 2 (volume 1).
On the Latin equivalent, 'Dominus,'
See IMPERATOR: FINAL SIGNIFICATION.
LORD CHANCELLOR, The.
See CHANCELLOR.
LORD DUNMORE'S WAR.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
LORDS, British House of.
"The ancient National Assembly [of England] gradually ceased
to be anything more than an assembly of the 'greater barons,'
and ultimately developed into a hereditary House of Lords, the
Upper House of the National Parliament. The hereditary
character of the House of Lords—now long regarded as fixed
and fundamental—accrued slowly and undesignedly, as a
consequence of the hereditary descent of the baronial fiefs,
practically inalienable, in right of which summonses to the
national council were issued."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 7.
"The English aristocracy is a typical example of the way in
which a close corporation dies out. Its members are almost
always wealthy in the first instance, and their estates have
been constantly added to by favour from the Crown, by
something like the monopoly of the best Government
appointments, and by marriages with wealthy heiresses. They
are able to command the field sports and open-air life that
conduce to health, and the medical advice that combats
disease. Nevertheless, they die out so rapidly that only five
families out of nearly six hundred go back without a break,
and in the male line, to the fifteenth century. … 155 peers
were summoned to the first Parliament of James II. In 1825,
only 140 years later, only forty-eight of these nobles were
represented by lineal descendants in the male line. The family
has in several instances been continued by collaterals begging
the peerage, which they could not have claimed at law, and in
this way the change may seem less than it has really been; but
the broad result appears to be that left to itself from 1688,
with new creations absolutely forbidden, the House of Lords
would by this time have been practically extinguished.
{2041}
Of Charles II. 's six bastards, who were made dukes, only
three have perpetuated the race. Three peerages have been lost
to the Howard family, three to the Greys, two to the
Mordaunts, two to the Hydes, two to the Gerards, and two to
the Lucases. … It is in the lower strata of society that we
have to seck for the springs of national life."
C. H. Pearson,
National Life and Character,
pages 70-73.
"The British peerage is something unique in the world. In
England there is, strictly speaking, no nobility. This saying
may indeed sound like a paradox. The English nobility, the
British aristocracy, are phrases which are in everybody's
mouth. Yet, in strictness, there is no such thing as an
aristocracy or a nobility in England. There is undoubtedly an
aristocratic element in the English constitution; the House of
Lords is that aristocratic element. And there have been times
in English history when there has been a strong tendency to
aristocracy, when the lords have been stronger than either the
king or the people. … But a real aristocracy, like that of
Venice, an aristocracy not only stronger than either king or
people, but which had driven out both king and people, an
aristocracy from whose ranks no man can come down and into
whose ranks no man can rise save by the act of the privileged
body itself,—such an aristocracy as this England has never
seen. Nor has England ever seen a nobility in the true sense,
the sense which the word bears in every continental land, a
body into which men may be raised by the king, but from which
no man may come down, a body which hands on to all its
members, to the latest generations, some kind of privilege or
distinction, whether its privileges consist in substantial
political power, or in bare titles and precedence. In England
there is no nobility. The so-called noble family is not noble
in the continental sense; privilege does not go on from
generation to generation; titles and precedence are lost in
the second or third generation; substantial privilege exists
in only one member of the family at a time. The powers and
privileges of the peer himself are many; but they belong to
himself only; his children are legally commoners; his
grandchildren are in most cases undistinguishable from other
commoners. … A certain great position in the state is
hereditary; but nobility in the strict sense there is none.
The actual holder of the peerage has, as it were, drawn to his
own person the whole nobility of the family."
E. A. Freeman,
Practical Bearings of European History
(Lectures to American Audiences),
pages 305-307.
"At the end of 1892 there were 545 members of the House of
Lords, made up thus:
Peers, 469;
Lords of Appeal and Ex-Lords of Appeal, 5;
Representative Peers of Scotland, 16;
Representative Peers of Ireland, 28;
Lords Spiritual, 27.
The Lords of Appeal are lawyers of great distinction who are
appointed by the Queen and hold office during good behavior.
Their number is always about the same. Their work is mainly
judicial; but these Law Lords, as they are called, also speak
and vote in the deliberative and legislative proceedings of
the Upper House. The position of a Lord of Appeal differs from
that of an ordinary peer in that his office is not hereditary.
As regards the representative peers, those from Ireland, who
number 28, are elected for life; those from Scotland, who
number 16, are elected at a meeting of Scotch peers, held in
Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, after each General Election, and
hold office during the lifetime of a Parliament. The Lords
Spiritual include (1) the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Durham, and
Winchester; and (2) twenty-two out of the other twenty-nine
bishops of the Church of England. The prelates whose titles
have been given take their seats in the House immediately on
appointment; the other bishops take their seats by order of
seniority of consecration. The prelates who are without seats
in the House of Lords are known as junior bishops. The Bishop
of Sodor and Man has a seat in the House of Lords, but no
vote."
E. Porritt,
The Englishman at Home,
chapter 6.
For an account of the transient abolition of the House of
Lords in 1649,
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;
and ESTATES, THE THREE.
LORDS OF ARTICLES.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603; and 1688-1690.
LORDS OF THE CONGREGATION.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557; and 1558-1560.
LORDS OF THE ISLES.
See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504;
and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.
LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL, The.
See ESTATES, THE THREE.
LORENZO DE' MEDICI (called The Magnificent),
The rule of.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.
----------LORRAINE: Start--------
LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
Formation and dissolution of the kingdom.
In the division of the empire of Charlemagne among his three
grandsons, made by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, the elder,
Lothaire, bearing the title of Emperor, received the kingdom
of Italy, and, with it, another kingdom, named, after himself,
Lotharingia—afterwards called Lorraine. This latter was so
formed as to be an extension northwestwardly of his Italian
kingdom, and to stretch in a long belt between the Germanic
dominion of his brother Ludwig and the Francia Nova, or
France, of his brother Charles. It extended "from the mouth of
the Rhine to Provence, bounded by that river on one frontier,
by France on the other."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 1, note.
"Between these two states [of the Eastern and Western, or
Germanic and Gallic Franks] the policy of the ninth century
instinctively put a barrier, The Emperor Lothar, besides
Italy, kept a long narrow strip of territory between the
dominions of his Eastern and Western brothers. … This land,
having … been the dominion of two Lothars, took the name of
Lotharingia, Lothringen, or Lorraine, a name which part of it
has kept to this day. This land, sometimes attached to the
Eastern kingdom, sometimes to the Western, sometimes divided
between the two, sometimes separated from both, always kept
its character of a border-land. … Lotharingia took in the
two duchies of the Ripuarian Lotharingia and Lotharingia on
the Mosel. The former contains a large part of the modern
Belgium and the neighboring lands on the Rhine, including the
royal city of Aachen. Lotharingia on the Mosel answers roughly
to the later duchy of that name, though its extent to the East
is considerably larger."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 6, section 1.
{2042}
"Upon the death of the Emperor Lothair [A. D. 855] his share
of the Carlovingian inheritance, the Kingdom acquired by
disobedience, violence, deceit and fraud, sustained further
partitions: Lothair's piece of the rent garment was clutched
and tattered again and again by his nearest of kin, his three
sons, and their two uncles, and the sons and the sons' sons of
his sons and uncles, till the lineage ended. … The Emperor
Lothair had directed and confirmed the partition of his third
of the Carlovingian Empire, appointed to him by the treaty of
Verdun." His namesake, his second son, Lothair II., received
the kingdom called "Lotharingia, Lothierregne, or Lorraine,"
and which is defined in the terms of modern geography as
follows: "The thirteen Cantons of Switzerland with their
allies and tributaries, East or Free Friesland, Oldenburgh,
the whole of the United Netherlands, all other territories
included in the Archbishopric of Utrecht, the Trois Evéchés,
Metz, Toul and Verdun, the electorates of Trèves and of
Cologne, the Palatine Bishopric of Liège, Alsace and
Franche-Comté, Hainault and the Cambresis, Brabant (known in
intermediate stages as Basse-Lorraine, or the Duchy of
Lohier), Namur, Juliers and Cleves, Luxemburgh and Limburg,
the Duchy of Bar and the Duchy which retained the name of
Lorraine, the only memorial of the antient and dissolved
kingdom. … After King Lothair's death [A. D. 869] nine
family competitors successively came into the field for that
much-coveted Lotharingia." Charles the Bald, one of the uncles
of the deceased king,—he who held the Neustrian or French
dominion,—took possession and got himself crowned king of
Lotharingia. But the rival uncle, Louis the German, soon
forced him (A. D. 870) to a division of the spoils. "The lot
of Charles consisted of Burgundy and Provence, and most of
those Lotharingian dominions where the French or Walloon
tongue was and yet is spoken; … he also took some purely
Belgic territories, especially that very important district
successively known as Basse-Lorraine, the Duchy of Lohier, and
Brabant. Modern history is dawning fast upon us.
Louis-le-Germanique received Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Treves,
Utrecht, Strasburgh, Metz,—indeed nearly all the territories
of the Belgic and German tongues."
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 1, pages 361-370.
See, also, VERDUN, TREATY OF.
LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.
The dukedom established.
The definite separation of the East Franks, who ultimately
constituted the Germany of modern history, from the West or
Neustrian Franks, out of whose political organization sprang
the kingdom of France, took place in 911, when the Franconian
duke Conrad was elected king by the Germanic nations, and the
rule of the Carolingian princes was ended for them. In this
proceeding Lotharingia, or Lorraine, refused to concur.
"Nobles and people held to the old imperial dynasty. …
Opinions, customs, traditions, still rendered the
Lotharingians mainly members of Romanized Gaul. They severed
themselves from the Germans beyond the Rhine, separated by
influences more powerful than the stream." The Lotharingians,
accordingly, repudiated the sovereignty of Conrad and placed
themselves under the rule of Charles the Simple, the
Carolingian king then struggling to maintain his slender
throne at Laon. "Twice did King Conrad attempt to win
Lotharingia and reunite the Rhine-kingdom to the German realm:
he succeeded in obtaining Alsace, but the remainder was
resolutely retained by Charles." In 916 this remainder was
constituted a duchy, by Charles, and conferred upon Gilbert,
son of Rainier, Count of Hainault, who had been the leader of
the movement against Conrad and the Germanic nations. A little
later, when the Carolingian dynasty was near its end, Henry
the Fowler and his son Otho, the great German king who revived
the empire, recovered the suzerainty of Lorraine, and Otho
gave it to his brother Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne. Under
Bruno it was divided into two parts, Upper and Lower Lorraine.
Lower Lorraine was subsequently conferred by Otho II. upon his
cousin Charles, brother to Lothaire, the last of the French
Carolingian kings. "The nature and extent of this same grant
has been the subject of elaborate critical enquiry; but, for
our purposes, it is sufficient to know, that Charles is
accepted by all the historical disputants as first amongst the
hereditary Dukes of the 'Basse-Lorraine'; and, having received
investiture, he became a vassal of the Emperor." In 980, this
disposition of Lower Lorraine was ratified by Lothaire, the
French king, who, "abandoning all his rights and pretensions
over Lorraine, openly and solemnly renounced the dominions,
and granted the same to be held without let or interference
from the French, and be subjected for ever to the German
Empire."
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, part 2, chapter 1
and chapter 4, part 2.
"Lotharingia retained its Carolingian princes, but it retained
them only by definitively becoming a fief of the Teutonic
Kingdom. Charles died in prison, but his children continued to
reign in Lotharingia as vassals of the Empire. Lotharingia was
thus wholly lost to France; that portion of it which was
retained by the descendants of Charles in the female line
still preserves its freedom as part of the independent Kingdom
of Belgium."
E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 4, section 4 (volume 1).
LORRAINE: A. D. 1430.
Acquisition of the duchy by René, Duke of Anjou
and Count of Provence, afterwards King of Naples.
Union with Bar.
See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1476.
Short-lived conquest by Charles the Bold.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1505-1559.
Rise of the Guises, a branch of the ducal house.
Cession to France of Les Trois Evéchés.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.
Quarrels and war of Duke Charles IV. with Richelieu and France.
Ruin and depopulation of the duchy.
Its possession by the French.
Early in Richelieu's administration of the French government,
the first steps were taken towards the union of Lorraine with
France. "Its situation, as well as its wealth and fertility,
made it an acquisition specially valuable to that kingdom. …
Lorraine had long been ruled by the present family of dukes,
and in its government more had remained of feudal usages than
in the monarchy that had grown up beside it. The character and
career of the members of the house of Guise had brought
Lorraine into very intimate connection with France, and the
closeness of its relations added danger to its position as an
independent state. Charles IV. became Duke of Lorraine in 1624
by virtue of the rights of his cousin and wife, the daughter of
the last duke. …
{2043}
He soon began to take part in the intrigues of the French
Court, and he enrolled himself among the lovers of Mme. de
Chevreuse and the enemies of Richelieu. … Richelieu had long
sought occasion for offence against the Duke Charles. The Duke
of Lorraine was bound to do honor to the French king for the
Duchy of Bar [which was a fief of the French crown, while
Lorraine was an imperial fief], a duty which was often
omitted, and the agents of Richelieu discovered that France
had ancient and valid claims to other parts of his territory.
His relations with France were rendered still more uncertain
by his own untrustworthy character. To tell the truth or to
keep his agreement were equally impossible for Duke Charles,
and he was dealing with a man with whom it was dangerous to
trifle. Gustavus Adolphus had invaded Germany, and the Duke of
Lorraine was eager in defending the cause of the Emperor. In
January, 1632, he was forced to make a peace with France, by
which he agreed to make no treaty with any other prince or
state without the knowledge and permission of the French king.
Charles paid no attention to this treaty, and for all these
causes in June, 1632, Louis [XIII.] invaded his dominions.
They lay open to the French army, and no efficient opposition
could be made. On June 26th Charles was forced to sign a
second treaty, by which he surrendered the city and county of
Clermont, and also yielded the possession for four years of
the citadels of Stenay and Jametz. … This treaty made little
change in the condition of affairs. Charles continued to act
in hostility to the Swedes, to assist Gaston [Duke of Orleans,
the rebellious and troublesome brother of Louis XIII., who had
married Margaret of Lorraine, the Duke's sister], and in every
way to violate the conditions of the treaty he had made. He
seethed resolved to complete his own ruin, and he did not have
to wait long for its accomplishment. In 1633 Louis a second
time invaded Lorraine, and the Swedes, in return for the
duke's hostility to them, also entered the province. Charles'
forces were scattered and he was helpless, but he was as false
as he was weak. He promised to surrender his sister Margaret,
and he allowed her to escape. He sent his brother to make a
treaty and then refused to ratify it. At last, he made the
most disadvantageous treaty that was possible, and surrendered
his capital, Nancy, the most strongly-fortified city of
Lorraine, into Louis' possession until all difficulties should
be settled between the king and the duke, which, as Richelieu
said, might take till eternity. In January, 1634, Charles
pursued his eccentric career by granting all his rights in the
duchy to his brother, the Cardinal of Lorraine. The new duke
also married a cousin in order to unite the rights of the two
branches. … Charles adopted the life of a wandering soldier
of fortune, which was most to his taste, and commanded the
imperial forces at the battle of Nordlingen. He soon assumed
again the rights which he had ceded, but his conduct rendered
them constantly less valuable. The following years were filled
with struggles with France, which resulted in her taking
possession of still more of Lorraine, until its duke was
entirely a fugitive. Such struggles brought upon its
inhabitants a condition of constantly increasing want and
misery. … It was ravaged by the hordes of the Duke of Weimar
and the Swedes [see GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639], and on every
side were pillage and burning and murders. Famine followed,
and the horrors perpetrated from it were said to be more than
could be described. Richelieu himself wrote that the
inhabitants of Lorraine were mostly dead, villages burned,
cities deserted, and a century would not entirely restore the
country. Vincent de Paul did much of his charitable work in
that unhappy province. … The duke at last, in 1641, came as
a suppliant to Richelieu to ask for his duchy, and it was
granted him, but on the condition that Stenay, Dun, Jametz,
and Clermont should be united to France, that Nancy should
remain in the king's possession until the peace, and that the
duke should assist France with his troops against all enemies
whenever required. … Charles was hardly back in his
dominions before he chose to regard the treaty he had made as
of no validity, and in July he violated it openly, and shortly
took refuge with the Spanish army. … Thereupon the French
again invaded Lorraine, and by October, 1641, practically the
whole province was in their hands. It so continued until
1663."
J. B. Perkins,
France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
chapter 5 (volume 1).
"The faithfulness with which he [the Duke of Lorraine] adhered
to his alliance with Austria, in spite of threatened losses,
formed in the end a strong bond of reciprocal attachment and
sympathy between the Hapsburgs and the Princes of Lorraine,
which, at a later day, became even firmer, and finally
culminated in the marriage of Stephen of Lorraine and Maria
Theresa."
A. Gindely,
History of the Thirty Years' War,
volume 2, chapter 6, section 3.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1648.
Desertion of the cause of the duke in the
Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1659.
Restored to the duke with some shearing of territory.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1679.
Restoration refused by the duke.
See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1680.
Entire absorption of Les Trois Evêchés in France with
boundaries extended by the Chamber of Reannexation.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1697.
Restored to the duke by the Treaty of Ryswick.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
LORRAINE: A. D. 1735.
Ceded to France.
Reversion of Tuscany secured to the former duke.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
LORRAINE: A. D, 1871.
One fifth ceded to the German empire by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
LORRAINE: A. D. 1871-1879.
Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as a German
imperial province.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.
----------LORRAINE: End----------
LOSANTIVILLE.
See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.
LOSE-COAT FIELD, Battle of.
In 1470 an insurrection against the government of King Edward
IV. broke out in Lincolnshire, England under the lead of Sir
Robert Welles, who raised the Lancastrian standard of King
Henry. The insurgents were vigorously attacked by Edward, at a
place near Stamford, when the greater part of them "flung away
their coats and took to flight, leaving their leader a
prisoner in the hands of his enemies. The manner in which the
rebels were dispersed caused the action to be spoken of as the
battle of Lose-coat Field."
J. Gairdner,
Houses of Lancaster and York,
chapter 8.
The engagement is sometimes called the Battle of Stamford.
{2044}
LOST TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL.
See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH;
also, SAMARIA.
LOTHAIRE,
King of France, A. D. 954-986.
Lothaire I., King of Italy and Rhineland, 817-855;
King of Lotharingia, and titular Emperor, 843-855.
Lothaire II.,
Emperor, 1133-1137;
King of Germany, 1125-1137.
LOTHARINGIA.
See LORRAINE.
LOTHIAN.
See SCOTLAND: 10-11TH CENTURIES.
LOUIS,
King of Portugal, A. D. 1861-1889.
Louis of Nassau, and the struggle in the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, to 1573-1574.
Louis I. (called The Pious),
Emperor of the West, A. D. 814-840;
King of Aquitaine, 781-814;
King of the Franks, 814-840.
Louis I. (called The Great),
King of Hungary, 1342-1382;
King of Poland, 1370-1382.
Louis I.,
King of Naples, 1382-1384;
Count of Provence and Duke of Anjou, 1339-1384.
Louis I., King of Sicily, 1342-1355.
Louis II. (called The Stammerer),
King of France, 877-879.
Louis II. (called The German),
King of the East Franks (Germany), 843-875.
Louis II.,
King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1516-1526.
Louis II.,
King of Naples, 1389-1399;
Duke of Anjou and Count of Provence, 1384-1417.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.
Louis III.,
King of the Franks (Northern France), 879-882;
East Franks (Germany—in association with Carloman), 876-881.
Louis III. (called The Child),
King of the East Franks (Germany), 899-910.
Louis III., King of Provence, 1417-1434.
Louis III.,
Duke of Anjou, Count of Provence,
and titular King of Naples, 1417-1434.
Louis IV., King of France, 936-954.
Louis V. (of Bavaria),
Emperor, 1327-1347;
King of Germany (in rivalry with Frederick III.), 1313-1347;
King of Italy, 1327-1347.
Louis V., King of France, 986-987.
Louis VI. (called The Fat), King of France, 1108-1137.
Louis VII., King of France, 1137-1180.
Louis VIII., King of France, 1223-1226.
Louis IX. (called Saint Louis), King of France, 1226-1270.
Louis X. (called Le Hutin, or The Brawler),
King of France, 1314-1316;
King of Navarre, 1305-1316.
Louis XI., King of France, 1461-1483.
Louis XII., King of France, 1498-1515.
Louis XIII., King of France, 1610-1643… .
Louis XIV. (called "The Grand Monarch "),
King of France, 1643-1715.
Louis XV., King of France, 1715-1774.
Louis XVI., King of France, 1774-1793.
Louis XVII., nominal King of France, 1793-1796,
during the Revolution; died in prison, aged twelve years.
Louis XVIII., King of France; 1814-1824.
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.
See NAPOLEON III.
Louis Philippe,
King of France (of the House of Orleans), 1830-1848.
LOUIS, Saint, Establishments of.
See WAGER OF BATTLE.
----------LOUISBOURG: Start--------
LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1720-1745.
The fortification of the Harbor.
See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.
LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1745.
Surrender to the New Englanders.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.
LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1748.
Restoration to France.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1757.
English designs against, postponed.
See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1758-1760.
Final capture and destruction of the place by the English.
See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
----------LOUISBOURG: End--------
LOUISIANA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1629.
Mostly embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath, by
Charles I. of England.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1682.
Named and possession taken for the king of France, by La
Salle.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
Iberville's colonization.
Separation in government from New France.
Crozat's monopoly.
The French territorial claim.
"The court of France had been engaged in wars and political
intrigues, and nothing toward colonizing Louisiana had been
effected since the disastrous expedition of La Salle. Twelve
years had elapsed, but his discoveries and his unfortunate
fate had not been forgotten. At length, in 1698, an expedition
for colonizing the region of the Lower Mississippi was set on
foot by the French king. It was placed under the command of M.
D'Iberville, who had been an experienced and distinguished
naval commander in the French wars of Canada, and a successful
agent in establishing colonies in Canada, Acadie and Cape
Breton. … With his little fleet of two frigates, rating 30
guns each, and two smaller vessels, bearing a company of
marines and 200 colonists, including a few women and children,
he prepared to set sail from France for the mouth of the
Mississippi. The colonists were mostly soldiers who had served
in the armies of France and had received an honorable
discharge. They were well supplied with provisions and
implements requisite for opening settlements in the
wilderness. It was on the 24th day of September, 1698, that
this colony sailed from Rochelle." On the 2d of the following
March, after considerable exploration of the coast, west from
the Spanish settlement at Pensacola, Iberville found the mouth
of the Mississippi, being confirmed in the identification of
it by discovery of a letter, in the hands of the Indians,
which Tonti had written to La Salle thirteen years before.
"Soon afterward, Iberville selected a site and began to erect
a fort upon the northeast shore of the Bay of Biloxi, about
fifteen miles north of Ship Island. Here, upon a sandy shore,
and under a burning sun, upon a pine barren, he settled his
colony, about 80 miles northeast from the present city of New
Orleans. … Having thus located his colony, and protected
them [by a fort] from the danger of Indian treachery and
hostility, he made other provision for their comfort and
security, and then set sail for France, leaving his two
brothers, Sauvolle and Bienville, as his lieutenants." The
following September an English corvette appeared in the river,
intending to explore it, but was warned off by the French, and
retired. During the summer of 1699 the colonists suffered
terribly from the maladies of the region, and M. Sauvolle,
with many others, died.
{2045}
"Early in December following D'Iberville returned with an
additional colony and a detachment of troops, in company with
several vessels of war. Up to this time, the principal
settlements had been at Ship Island and on the Bay of Biloxi;
others had been begun at the Bay of St. Louis and on the Bay
of Mobile. These were made as a matter of convenience, to hold
and occupy the country; for his principal object was to
colonize the banks of the Mississippi itself." Iberville now
built a fort and located a small colony at a point about 54
miles above the mouth of the river, and about 38 miles below
the present city of New Orleans. The next year, having been
joined by the veteran De Tonti with a party of French
Canadians from the Illinois, Iberville ascended the river
nearly 400 miles, formed a friendly alliance with the Natchez
tribe of Indians, and selected for a future settlement the
site of the present city of Natchez. "In the spring of 1702
war had been declared by England against France and Spain, and
by order of the King of France the headquarters of the
commandant were removed to the western bank of the Mobile
River. This was the first European settlement within the
present State of Alabama. The Spanish settlement at Pensacola
was not remote; but as England was now the common enemy, the
French and Spanish commandants arranged their boundary between
Mobile and Pensacola Bays to be the Perdido River. … The
whole colony of Southern Louisiana as yet did not number 30
families besides soldiers. Bilious fevers had cut off many of
the first emigrants, and famine and Indian hostility now
threatened the remainder." Two years later, Iberville was
broken in health by an attack of yellow fever and retired to
France. After six further years of hardship and suffering, the
colony, in 1710, still "presented a population of only 380
souls, distributed into five settlements, remote from each
other. These were on Ship Island, Cat Island, at Biloxi,
Mobile, and on the Mississippi. … Heretofore the settlements
of Louisiana had been a dependence on New France, or Canada,
although separated by a wilderness of 2,000 miles in extent.
Now it was to be made an independent government, responsible
only to the crown, and comprising also the Illinois country