History for ready reference, Volume 2, El Dorado to Greaves (part 3 of 10)

History for ready reference, Volume 2, El Dorado to Greaves (part 3 of 10)

"The incompetency of the ministry was ... becoming obvious. In the first place it was divided within itself. The Prime Minister, with the Chancellor and some others, were remnants of the Chatham ministry and admirers of Chatham's policy. The rest of the Cabinet were either men who represented Bedford's party, or members of that class whose views are sufficiently explained by their name, 'the King's friends.' Grafton, fonder of hunting and the turf than of politics, had by his indolence suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named party, and unconstitutional action had been the result which had brought discontent in England to the verge of open outbreak. Hillsborough, under the same influence, was hurrying along the road which led to the loss of America. On this point the Prime Minister had found himself in a minority in his own Cabinet. {934} France too, under Choiseul, in alliance with Spain, was beginning to think of revenge for the losses of the Seven Years' War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the Opposition began to close their ranks. Chatham, yielding again to the necessities of party, made a public profession of friendship with Temple and George Grenville; and though there was no cordial connection, there was external alliance between the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of public affairs, the chief topic of the King's speech was the murrain among 'horned beasts,'--a speech not of a king, but, said Junius, of 'a ruined grazier.' Chatham at once moved an amendment when the address in answer to this speech was proposed. He deplored the want of all European alliances, the fruit of our desertion of our allies at the Peace of Paris; he blamed the conduct of the ministry with regard to America, which, he thought, needed much gentle handling, inveighed strongly against the action of the Lower House in the case of Wilkes, and ended by moving that that action should at once be taken into consideration. At the sound of their old leader's voice his followers in the Cabinet could no longer be silent. Camden declared he had been a most unwilling party to the persecution of Wilkes, and though retaining the Seals attacked and voted against the ministry. In the Lower House, Granby, one of the most popular men in England, followed the same course. James Grenville and Dunning, the Solicitor-General, also resigned. Chatham's motion was lost but was followed up by Rockingham, who asked for a night to consider the state of the nation. ... Grafton thus found himself in no state to meet the Opposition, and in his heart still admiring Chatham, and much disliking business, he suddenly and unexpectedly gave in his resignation the very day fixed for Rockingham's motion. The Opposition seemed to have everything in their own hands, but there was no real cordiality between the two sections. ... The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain his friends in office, and to avoid a new Parliament elected in the present excited state of the nation. There was only one of the late ministry capable of assuming the position of Prime Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so that while the different sections of the Opposition were still unable to decide on any united action they were astonished to find the old ministry reconstituted and their opportunity gone. The new Prime Minister ... had great capacity for business and administration, and much sound sense; he was a first-rate debater, and gifted with a wonderful sweetness of temper, which enabled him to listen unmoved, or even to sleep, during the most violent attacks upon himself, and to turn aside the bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the Government ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more than an instrument of the King's will, and thus commanding the support of all royal influence from whatever source derived, North was able to bid defiance to all enemies, till the ill effects of such a system of government, and of the King's policy, became so evident that the clamour for a really responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of the reign--the struggle of the King, supported by the unrepresented masses, and the more liberal and independent of those who were represented, against the domination of the House of Commons. It was an attempt to break those trammels which, under the guise of liberty, the upper classes, the great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded after the Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that struggle the King had been victorious. But he did not recognize the alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He did not understand that the people had other objects much beyond his own."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 3, pages 1057-1060.

ALSO IN: Correspondence of George III. with Lord North, volume 1.

W. Massey, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 10-13 (volume 1).

J. Adolphus, History of England: Reign of George III., chapter 17 (volume 1).

_E. Burke, Thoughts on the Present Discontents (Works, volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773. Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on tea. The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1771. Last contention of Parliament against the Press. Freedom of reporting secured.

"The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the exclusion of strangers, which had long existed (and which still exists), was seldom enforced, except when it was thought desirable that a question should be debated with closed doors. It was now attempted, by means of this order, to prevent the publication of the debates and proceedings of the House. It had long been the practice of the newspapers, and other periodical journals, to publish the debates of Parliament, under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness and accuracy, from speeches furnished at length by the speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less authenticity. One of the most attractive features of the 'Gentleman's Magazine,' a monthly publication of respectability, which has survived to the present day, was an article which purported to be a report of the debates in Parliament. This report was, for nearly three years, prepared by Dr. Johnson, who never attended the galleries himself, and derived his information from persons who could seldom give him more than the names of the speakers, and the side which each of them took in the debate. The speeches were, therefore, the composition of Johnson himself; and some of the most admired oratory of the period was avowedly the product of his genius. Attempts were made from time to time, both within and without the walls of Parliament, to abolish, or at least to modify, the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, by means of which the license of reporting had been restricted; for there was no order of either House specifically prohibiting the publication of its debates. But such proposals had always been resisted by the leaders of parties, who thought that the privilege was one which might be evaded, but could not safely be formally relinquished. The practice of reporting, therefore, was tolerated on the understanding, that a decent disguise should be observed; and that no publication of the proceedings of Parliament should take place during the session. {935} There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals would have gone on, with the tacit connivance of the parliamentary chiefs, until they had practically established a right of reporting regularly the proceedings of both Houses, had not the presumptuous folly of inferior members provoked a conflict with the press upon this ground of privilege, and, in the result, driven Parliament reluctantly to yield what they would otherwise have quietly conceded. It was Colonel Onslow, member for Guildford, who rudely agitated a question which wiser men had been content to leave unvexed; and by his rash meddling, precipitated the very result which he thought he could prevent. He complained that the proceedings of the House had been inaccurately reported; and that the newspapers had even presumed to reflect on the public conduct of honourable members."

William Massey, History of England, volume 2, chapter 15.

"Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend the bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker. Others evaded compliance; and one of them, John Miller, who failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger into custody for an assault and false imprisonment. They were both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr. Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John Wilkes, who had recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from custody, and committed the messenger to prison for an unlawful arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had been offered by a Government proclamation, were collusively apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as 'not being accused of having committed any crime.' These proceedings at once brought the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower. Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was one long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards, the publication of debates has been pursued without any interference or restraint. Though still in theory a breach of privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of the main sources of its influence--its censure being reserved for wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the power of a single member of either House to require the exclusion of strangers was frequently and capriciously employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons [until 1875] any one member by merely 'spying' strangers present could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 17.

ALSO IN:

R. F. D. Palgrave, The House of Commons, lecture 2.

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1772. The ending of Negro slavery in the British Islands.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1773. Reconstitution of the Government of British India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774. The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act. The First Continental Congress in America.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774. Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made efficient by James Watt.

See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775. The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. The colonies in arms and Boston beleaguered. Ticonderoga. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1776. Successful defence of Canada against American invasion.

See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776. War measures against the colonies. The drift toward American independence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776-1778. The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their relations to the American War.

"The undoubted popularity of the war [in America] in its first stage had for some time continued to increase, and in the latter part of 1776 and 1777 it had probably attained its maximum. ... The Whigs at this time very fully admitted that the genuine opinion of the country was with the Government and with the King. ... The Declaration of Independence, and the known overtures of the Americans to France, were deemed the climax of insolence and ingratitude. The damage done to English commerce, not only in the West Indies but even around the English and Irish coast, excited a widespread bitterness. ... In every stage of the contest the influence of the Opposition was employed to trammel the Government. ... The statement of Wraxall that the Whig colours of buff and blue were first adopted by Fox in imitation of the uniform of Washington's troops, is, I believe, corroborated by no other writer; but there is no reason to question his assertion that the members of the Whig party in society and in both Houses of Parliament during the whole course of the war wished success to the American cause and rejoiced in the American triumphs. ... While the Opposition needlessly and heedlessly intensified the national feeling against them, the King, on his side, did the utmost in his power to embitter the contest. It is only by examining his correspondence with Lord North that we fully realise how completely at this time he assumed the position not only of a prime minister but of a Cabinet, superintending, directing, and prescribing, in all its parts, the policy of the Government. ... 'Every means of distressing America,' wrote the King, 'must meet with my concurrence.' He strongly supported the employment of Indians. ... It was the King's friends who were most active in promoting all measures of violence. ... The war was commonly called the 'King's war,' and its opponents were looked upon as opponents of the King. The person, however, who in the eye of history appears most culpable in this matter, was Lord North. ... {936} The publication of the correspondence of George III. ... supplies one of the most striking and melancholy examples of the relation of the King to his Tory ministers. It appears from this correspondence that for the space of about five years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody, costly, and disastrous war in direct opposition to his own judgment and to his own wishes. ... Again and again he entreated that his resignation might be accepted, but again and again he yielded to the request of the King, who threatened, if his minister resigned, to abdicate the throne. ... The King was determined, under no circumstances, to treat with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their independence; but he acknowledged, after the surrender of Burgoyne, and as soon as the French war had become inevitable, that unconditional submission could no longer be hoped for. ... He consented, too, though apparently with extreme reluctance, and in consequence of the unanimous vote of the Cabinet, that new propositions should be made to the Americans." These overtures, conveyed to America by three Commissioners, were rejected, and the colonies concluded, in the spring of 1778, their alliance with France. "The moment was one of the most terrible in English history. England had not an ally in the world. ... England, already exhausted by a war which its distance made peculiarly terrible, had to confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. ... There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and consternation, the eyes of all patriotic Englishmen were turned. . . . If any statesman could, at the last moment, conciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alliance, and kindle into a flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a moment be compared to him in the management of a war. Lord North implored the King to accept his resignation, and to send for Chatham. Bute, the old Tory favourite, breaking his long silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord Mansfield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said, with tears in his eyes, that unless the King sent for Chatham the ship would assuredly go down. ... The King was unmoved. He consented indeed--and he actually authorised Lord North to make the astounding proposition--to receive Chatham as a subordinate minister to North. ... This episode appears to me the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led Charles I. to the scaffold."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 14 (volume 4).

"George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins which were not exclusively their own. The minister, indeed, was only the vizier, who hated his work, but still did not shrink from it, out of a sentiment that is sometimes admired under the name of loyalty, but which in such a case it is difficult to distinguish from base servility. The impenetrable mind of the King was, in the case of the American war, the natural organ and representative of all the lurking ignorance and arbitrary humours of the entire community. It is totally unjust and inadequate to lay upon him the entire burden."

J. Morley, Edmund Burke: a Historical Study, page 135.

"No sane person in Great Britain now approves of the attempt to tax the colonies. No sane person does otherwise than rejoice that the colonies became free and independent. But let us in common fairness say a word for King George. In all that he did he was backed by the great mass of the British nation. And let us even say a word for the British nation also. Had the King and the nation been really wise, they would have let the colonies go without striking a blow. But then no king and no nation ever was really wise after that fashion. King George and the British nation were simply not wiser than other people. I believe that you may turn the pages of history from the earliest to the latest times, without finding a time when any king or any commonwealth, freely and willingly, without compulsion or equivalent, gave up power or dominion, or even mere extent of territory on the map, when there was no real power or dominion. Remember that seventeen years after the acknowledgment of American independence, King George still called himself King of France. Remember that, when the title was given up, some people thought it unwise to give it up. Remember that some people in our own day regretted the separation between the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover. If they lived to see the year 1866, perhaps they grew wiser."

E. A. Freeman, The English People in its Three Homes (Lectures to American Audiences), pages 183-184.

ALSO IN: Correspondence of George III. with Lord North.

Lord Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen in the Reign of George III.

T. Macknight, History of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke, chapters 22-26 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1778. War with France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

ENGLAND: A.D. 1778-1780. Repeal of Catholic penal laws. The Gordon No-Popery Riots.

"The Quebec Act of 1774 [see CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774], establishing Catholicism in Canada, would a generation earlier have been impossible, and it was justly considered a remarkable sign of the altered condition of opinion that such a law should be enacted by a British Parliament, and should have created no serious disturbances in the country. ... The success of the Quebec Act led Parliament, a few years later, to undertake the relief of the Catholics at home from some part of the atrocious penal laws to which they were still subject. ... The Act still subsisted which gave a reward of £100 to any informer who procured the conviction of a Catholic priest performing his functions in England, and there were occasional prosecutions, though the judges strained the law to the utmost in order to defeat them. ... The worst part of the persecution of Catholics was based upon a law of William III., and in 1778 Sir George Savile introduced a bill to repeal those portions of this Act which related to the apprehending of Popish bishops, priests, and Jesuits, which subjected these and also Papists keeping a school to perpetual imprisonment, and which disabled all Papists from inheriting or purchasing land. ... It is an honourable fact that this Relief Bill was carried without a division in either House, without any serious opposition from the bench of bishops, and with the concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to England only, but the Lord Advocate promised, in the ensuing session, to introduce a similar measure for Scotland. {937} It was hoped that a measure which was so manifestly moderate and equitable, and which was carried with such unanimity through Parliament, would have passed almost unnoticed in the country; but fiercer elements of fanaticism than politicians perceived were still smouldering in the nation. The first signs of the coming storm were seen among the Presbyterians of Scotland. The General Assembly of the Scotch Established Church was sitting when the English Relief Bill was pending, and it rejected by a large majority a motion for a remonstrance to Parliament against it. But in a few months an agitation of the most dangerous description spread swiftly through the Lowlands. It was stimulated by many incendiary resolutions of provincial synods, by pamphlets, hand-bills, newspapers, and sermons, and a 'Committee for the Protestant Interests' was formed at Edinburgh to direct it. ... Furious riots broke out in January, 1779, both in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Several houses in which Catholics lived, or the Catholic worship was celebrated, were burnt to the ground. The shops of Catholic tradesmen were wrecked, and their goods scattered, plundered, or destroyed. Catholic ladies were compelled to take refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The houses of many Protestants who were believed to sympathise with the Relief Bill were attacked, and among the number was that of Robertson the historian. The troops were called out to suppress the riot, but they were resisted and pelted, and not suffered to fire in their defence. ... The flame soon spread southwards. For some years letters on the increase of Popery had been frequently appearing in the London newspapers. Many murmurs had been heard at the enactment of the Quebec Act, and many striking instances in the last ten years had shown how easily the spirit of riot could be aroused, and how impotent the ordinary watchmen were to cope with it. ... The fanatical party had unfortunately acquired an unscrupulous leader in the person of Lord George Gordon, whose name now attained a melancholy celebrity. He was a young man of thirty, of very ordinary talents, and with nothing to recommend him but his connection with the ducal house of Gordon. ... A 'Protestant Association,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanatics, was formed, and at a great meeting held on May 29, 1780, and presided over by Lord George Gordon, it was determined that 20,000 men should march to the Parliament House to present a petition for the repeal of the Relief Act. It was about half-past two on the afternoon of Friday, June 2, that three great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing blue cockades, and carrying a petition which was said to have been signed by near 120,000 persons, arrived by different roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to have been only to intimidate, but they very soon proceeded to actual violence. The two Houses were just meeting, and the scene that ensued resembled on a large scale and in an aggravated form the great riot which had taken place around the Parliament House in Dublin during the administration of the Duke of Bedford. The members were seized, insulted, compelled to put blue cockades in their hats, to shout 'No Popery!' and to swear that they would vote for the repeal; and many of them, but especially the members of the House of Lords, were exposed to the grossest indignities. ... In the Commons Lord George Gordon presented the petition, and demanded its instant consideration. The House behaved with much courage, and after a hurried debate it was decided by 192 to 7 to adjourn its consideration till the 6th. Lord George Gordon several times appeared on the stairs of the gallery, and addressed the crowd, denouncing by name those who opposed him, and especially Burke and North; but Conway rebuked him in the sight and hearing of the mob, and Colonel Gordon, one of his own relatives, declared that the moment the first man of the mob entered the House he would plunge his sword into the body of Lord George. The doors were locked. The strangers' gallery was empty, but only a few doorkeepers and a few other ordinary officials protected the House, while the mob is said at first to have numbered not less than 60,000 men. Lord North succeeded in sending a messenger for the guards, but many anxious hours passed before they arrived. Twice attempts were made to force the doors. ... At last about nine o'clock the troops appeared, and the crowd, without resisting, agreed to disperse. A great part of them, however, were bent on further outrages. They attacked the Sardinian Minister's chapel in Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. They broke it open, carried away the silver lamps and other furniture, burnt the benches in the street, and flung the burning brands into the chapel. The Bavarian Minister's chapel in Warwick Street Golden Square was next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some slight scuffling ensued, and thirteen of the rioters were captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force, for Saturday and the greater part of Sunday passed with little disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in Moorfields, where a considerable Catholic population resided. Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels utterly ruined."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of English in the 18th Century, chapter 13 (volume 3).

"On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. ... Notwithstanding, however, that the town might now be said to have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three days, it does not appear that any more decided measures were adopted to put them down. Their audacity and violence, as might have been expected, increased under this treatment. On Tuesday afternoon and evening the most terrible excesses were perpetrated. Notwithstanding that a considerable military force was stationed around and on the way to the Houses of Parliament, several of the members were again insulted and maltreated in the grossest manner. Indeed, the mob by this time seem to have got over all apprehensions of the interference of the soldiers." The principal event of the day was the attack on Newgate prison, which was destroyed and the prisoners released. "The New Prison, Clerkenwell, was also broken open ... and all the prisoners set at large. Attacks were likewise made upon several ... private houses. ... But the most lamentable of all the acts of destruction yet perpetrated by these infuriated ruffians was that with which they closed the day of madness and crime--the entire demolition of the residence of Lord Mansfield, the venerable Lord Chief Justice, in Bloomsbury Square. ... {938} The scenes that took place on Wednesday were still more dreadful than those by which Tuesday had been marked. The town indeed was now in a state of complete insurrection: and it was felt by all that the mob must be put down at any cost, if it was intended to save the metropolis of the kingdom from utter destruction. This day, accordingly, the military were out in all quarters, and were everywhere employed against the infuriated multitudes who braved their power. ... The King's Bench Prison, the New Gaol, the Borough Clink, the Surrey Bridewell, were all burned today. ... The Mansion House, the Museum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is understood, marked for destruction. Lists of these and the other buildings which it was intended to attack were circulated among the mob. The bank was actually twice assaulted; but a powerful body of soldiers by whom it was guarded on both occasions drove off the crowd, though not without great slaughter. At some places the rioters returned the fire of the military. ... Among other houses which were set on fire in Holborn were the extensive premises of Mr. Langdale, the distiller, who was a Catholic. ... The worst consequence of this outrage, however, was the additional excitement which the frenzy of the mob received from the quantities of spirits with which they were here supplied. Many indeed drank themselves literally dead; and many more, who had rendered themselves unable to move, perished in the midst of the flames. Six and thirty fires, it is stated, were this night to be seen, from one spot, blazing at the same time in different quarters of the town. ... By Thursday morning ... the exertions of Government, now thoroughly alarmed, had succeeded in bringing up from different parts so large a force of regular troops and of militia as to make it certain that the rioters would be speedily overpowered. ... The soldiers attacked the mob in various places, and everywhere with complete success. ... On Friday the courts of justice were again opened for business, and the House of Commons met in the evening. ... On this first day after the close of the riots, 'the metropolis,' says the Annual Register, 'presented in many places the image of a city recently stormed and sacked.' ... Of the persons apprehended and brought to trial, 59 were capitally convicted; and of these more than 20 were executed; the others were sent to expiate their offences by passing the remainder of their days in hard labour and bondage in a distant land. ... Lord George Gordon, in consequence of the part he had borne in the measures which led to these riots, was sent to the Tower, and some time afterwards brought to trial on a charge of high treason," but was acquitted.

Sketches of Popular Tumults, section 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III., chapter 34 (volume 2).

H. Walpole, Journal of the Reign of George III., volume 2, pages 403-424.

Annual Register, 1780, pages 254-287.

_C. Dickens, Barnaby Rudge._

W. J. Amherst, History of Catholic Emancipation, volume 1, chapters 1-5.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782. Declining strength of the government. Rodney's great naval victory. The siege of Gibraltar.

"The fall of Lord North's ministry, and with it the overthrow of the personal government of George III., was now close at hand. For a long time the government had been losing favour. In the summer of 1780, the British victories in South Carolina had done something to strengthen, yet when, in the autumn of that year, Parliament was dissolved, although the king complained that his expenses for purposes of corruption had been twice as great as ever before, the new Parliament was scarcely more favourable to the ministry than the old one. Misfortunes and perplexities crowded in the path of Lord North and his colleagues. The example of American resistance had told upon Ireland. ... For more than a year there had been war in India, where Hyder Ali, for the moment, was carrying everything before him. France, eager to regain her lost foothold upon Hindustan, sent a strong armament thither, and insisted that England must give up all her Indian conquests except Bengal. For a moment England's great Eastern empire tottered, and was saved only by the superhuman efforts of Warren Hastings, aided by the wonderful military genius of Sir Eyre Coote. In May, 1781, the Spaniards had taken Pensacola, thus driving the British from their last position in Florida. In February, 1782, the Spanish fleet captured Minorca, and the siege of Gibraltar, which had been kept up for nearly three years, was pressed with redoubled energy. During the winter the French recaptured St. Eustatius, and handed it over to Holland; and Grasse's great fleet swept away all the British possessions in the West Indies, except Jamaica, Barbadoes, and Antigua. All this time the Northern League kept up its jealous watch upon British cruisers in the narrow seas, and among all the powers of Europe the government of George could not find a single friend. The maritime supremacy of England was, however, impaired but for a moment. Rodney was sent back to the West Indies, and on the 12th of April, 1782, his fleet of 36 ships encountered the French near the island of Sainte-Marie-Galante. The battle of eleven hours which ensued, and in which 5,000 men were killed or wounded, was one of the most tremendous contests ever witnessed upon the ocean before the time of Nelson. The French were totally defeated, and Grasse was taken prisoner,--the first French commander-in-chief, by sea or land, who had fallen into an enemy's hands since Marshal Tallard gave up his sword to Marlborough, on the terrible day of Blenheim. France could do nothing to repair this crushing disaster. Her naval power was eliminated from the situation at a single blow; and in the course of the summer the English achieved another great success by overthrowing the Spaniards at Gibraltar, after a struggle which, for dogged tenacity, is scarcely paralleled in modern warfare. By the autumn of 1782, England, defeated in the United States, remained victorious and defiant as regarded the other parties to the war."

J. Fiske, American Revolution, chapter 15 (volume 2).

"Gibraltar ... had been closely invested for nearly three years. At first, the Spanish had endeavoured to starve the place; but their blockade having been on two occasions forced by the British fleet, they relinquished that plan, and commenced a regular siege. During the spring and summer of 1781, the fortress was bombarded, but with little success; in the month of November, the enemy were driven from their approaches, and the works themselves were almost destroyed by a sally from the garrison. Early in the year, however, the fall of Minorca enabled the Spanish to reform the siege of Gibraltar. {939} De Grillon himself, the hero of Minorca, superseding Alvarez, assumed the chief command. ... The garrison of Gibraltar comprised no more than 7,000 men; while the force of the allied monarchies amounted to 33,000 soldiers, with an immense train of artillery. De Grillon, however, who was well acquainted with the fortress, had little hope of taking it from the land side, but relied with confidence on the formidable preparations which he had made for bombarding it from the sea. Huge floating batteries, bomb-proof and shot-proof, were constructed; and it was calculated that the action of these tremendous engines alone would be sufficient to destroy the works. Besides the battering ships, of which ten were provided, a large armament of vessels of all rates was equipped; and a grand attack was to take place, both from sea and land, with 400 pieces of artillery. Six months were consumed in these formidable preparations; and it was not until September that they were completed. A partial cannonade took place on the 9th and three following days; but the great attack, which was to decide the fate of the beleaguered fortress, was commenced on the 13th of September. On that day, the combined fleets of France and Spain, consisting of 47 sail of the line, besides numerous ships of inferior rate, were drawn out in order of battle before Gibraltar. Numerous bomb ketches, gun and mortar boats, dropped their anchors within close range; while the ten floating batteries were moored with strong iron chains within half gun-shot of the walls. On the land 170 guns were prepared to open fire simultaneously with the ships; and 40,000 troops were held in readiness to rush in at the first practicable breach. ... The grand attack was commenced at ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the fire of 400 pieces of artillery. The great floating batteries, securely anchored within 600 yards of the walls, poured in an incessant storm, from 142 guns. Elliot had less than 100 guns to reply to the cannonade both from sea and land; and of these he made the most judicious use. Disregarding the attack from every other quarter, he concentrated the whole of his ordnance on the floating batteries in front of him; for unless these were silenced, their force would prove irresistible. But for a long time the thunder of 80 guns made no impression on the enormous masses of wood and iron. The largest shells glanced harmless from their sloping roofs; the heaviest shot could not penetrate their hulls seven feet in thickness. Nevertheless, the artillery of the garrison was still unceasingly directed against these terrible engines of destruction. A storm of red-hot balls was poured down upon them; and about midday it was observed that the combustion caused by these missiles, which had hitherto been promptly extinguished, was beginning to take effect. Soon after, the partial cessation of the guns from the battering ships, and the volumes of smoke which issued from their decks, made it manifest they were on fire, and that all the efforts of the crews were required to subdue the conflagration. Towards evening, their guns became silent; and before midnight, the flames burst forth from the principal floating battery, which carried the Admiral's flag. ... Eight of the 10 floating batteries were on fire during the night; and the only care of the besieged was to save from the flames and from the waters, the wretched survivors of that terrible flotilla, which had so recently menaced them with annihilation. . . . The loss of the enemy was computed at 2,000; that of the garrison, in killed and wounded, amounted to no more than 84. The labour of a few hours sufficed to repair the damage sustained by the works. The French and Spanish fleets remained in the Straits, expecting the appearance of the British squadron under Lord Howe; and relying on their superiority in ships and weight of metal, they still hoped that the result of an action at sea might enable them to resume the siege of Gibraltar. Howe, having been delayed by contrary winds, did not reach the Straits until the 9th of October; and, notwithstanding the superior array which the enemy presented, he was prepared to risk an engagement. But at this juncture, a storm having scattered the combined fleet, the British Admiral was enabled to land his stores and reinforcements without opposition. Having performed this duty, he set sail for England; nor did the Spanish Admiral, though still superior by eight sail of the line, venture to dispute his passage. Such was the close of the great siege of Gibraltar; an undertaking which had been regarded by Spain as the chief object of the war, which she had prosecuted for three years, and which, at the last, had been pressed by the whole force of the allied monarchies. After this event, the war itself was virtually at an end."

W. Massey, History of England, Reign of George III., chapter 27 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 62-66 (volume 7).

_J. Drinkwater, History of the Siege of Gibraltar._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1783. Second war with Hyder Ali, or Second Mysore War.

See INDIA: A. D. 1780--1783.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1781-1783. War with Holland.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1782. Legislative independence conceded to Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783. Fall of Lord North. The second Rockingham Ministry. Fox, Shelburne, and the American peace negotiations. The Shelburne Ministry. Coalition of Fox and North.

"There comes a point when even the most servile majority of an unrepresentative Parliament finds the strain of party allegiance too severe, and that point was reached when the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown became known in November, 1781. 'O God, it is all over!' cried Lord North, wringing his hands, when he heard of it. ... On February 7, a vote of censure, moved by Fox, upon Lord Sandwich, was negatived by a majority of only twenty-two. On the 22nd, General Conway lost a motion in favour of putting an end to the war by only one vote. On the 27th, the motion was renewed in the form of a resolution and carried by a majority of nineteen.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (FEBRUARY-MAY).

Still the King would not give his consent to Lord North's resignation. Rather than commit himself to the opposition, he seriously thought of abdicating his crown and retiring to Hanover. ... Indeed, if it had not been for his large family, and the character of the Prince of Wales, already too well known, it is far from improbable that he would have carried this idea into execution, and retired from a Government of which he was no longer master. {940} By the 20th [of March], however, even George III. saw that the game could not be kept up any longer. He gave permission to Lord North to announce his resignation, and parted with him with the characteristic words: 'Remember, my Lord, it is you who desert me, not I who desert you.' ... Even when the long-deferred blow fell, and Lord North's Ministry was no more, the King refused to send for Lord Rockingham. He still flattered himself that he might get together a Ministry from among the followers of Chatham and of Lord North, which would be able to restore peace without granting independence, and Shelburne was the politician whom he fixed upon to aid him in this scheme. ... Shelburne, however, was too clever to fall into the trap. A Ministry which had against it the influence of the Rockingham connection and the talents of Charles Fox, and would not receive the hearty support of Lord North's phalanx of placemen, was foredoomed to failure. The pear was not yet ripe. He saw clearly enough that his best chance of permanent success lay in becoming the successor, not the supplanter, of Rockingham. ... His game was to wait. He respectfully declined to act without Rockingham. ... Before Rockingham consented to take office, he procured a distinct pledge from the King that he would not put a veto upon American independence, if the Ministers recommended it; and on the 27th of March the triumph of the Opposition was completed by the formation of a Ministry, mainly representative of the old Whig families, pledged to a policy of economical reform, and of peace with America on the basis of the acknowledgment of independence. Fox received the reward of his services by being appointed Foreign Secretary, and Lord Shelburne took charge of the Home and Colonial Department. Rockingham himself went to the Treasury, Lord John Cavendish became Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Camden President of the Council. Burke was made Paymaster of the Forces, and Sheridan Under-Secretary to his friend Fox. At the King's special request, Thurlow was allowed to remain as Chancellor. ... The Cabinet no sooner met than it divided into the parties of Shelburne and of Fox, while Rockingham, Conway, and Cavendish tried to hold the balance between them, and Thurlow artfully fomented the dissensions. ... Few Administrations have done so much in a short time as did the Rockingham Ministry during the three months of its existence, and it so happened that the lion's share of the work fell to Fox. Upon his appointment to office his friends noticed a change in habits and manner of life, as complete as that ascribed to Henry V. on his accession to the throne. He is said never to have touched a card during either of his three short terms of office. ... By the division of work among the two Secretaries of State, all matters which related to the colonies were under the control of Shelburne, while those relating to foreign Governments belonged to the department of Fox. Consequently it became exceedingly important to these two Ministers whether independence was to be granted to the American colonies by the Crown of its own accord, or should be reserved in order to form part of the general treaty of peace. According to Fox's plan, independence was to be offered at once fully and freely to the Americans. They would thus gain at a blow all that they wanted. Their jealousy of French and Spanish interests in America would at once assert itself, and England would have no difficulty in bringing them over to her side in the negotiations with France. Such was Fox's scheme, but unfortunately, directly America became independent, she ceased to be in any way subject to Shelburne's management, and the negotiations for peace would pass wholly out of his control into the hands of Fox. ... Shelburne at once threw his whole weight into the opposite scale. He urged with great effect that to give independence at once was to throw away the trump card. It was the chief concession which England would be required to make, the only one which she was, prepared to make; and to make it at once, before she was even asked, was wilfully to deprive herself of her best weapon. The King and the Cabinet adopted Shelburne's view. Fox's scheme for the isolation of France failed, and a double negotiation for peace was set on foot. Shelburne and Franklin took charge of the treaty with America [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER)], Fox and M. de Vergennes that with France and Spain and Holland. An arrangement of this sort could hardly have succeeded had the two Secretaries been the firmest of friends; since they were rivals and enemies it was foredoomed to failure." Fox found occasion very soon to complain that important matters in Shelburne's negotiation with Franklin were kept from his knowledge, and once more he proposed to the Cabinet an immediate concession of independence to the Americans. Again he was outvoted, and, "defeated and despairing, only refrained from resigning there and then because he would not embitter Rockingham's last moments upon earth." This was on the 30th of June. "On the 1st of, July Rockingham died, and on the 2nd Shelburne accepted from the King the task of forming a Ministry." Fox, of course, declined to enter it, and suffered in influence because he could not make public the reasons for his inability to act with Lord Shelburne. "Only Lord Cavendish, Burke, and the Solicitor-General, Lee, left office with Portland and Fox, and the gap was more than supplied by the entrance of William Pitt [Lord Chatham's son, who had entered Parliament in 1780] into the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fortune seemed to smile on Shelburne. He ... might well look forward to a long and unclouded tenure of political power. His Administration lasted not quite seven months." It was weakened by distrust and dissatisfaction among its members, and overturned in February, 1783, by a vote of censure on the peace which it had concluded with France, Spain and the American States. It was succeeded in the Government by the famous Coalition Ministry formed under Fox and Lord North. "The Duke of Portland succeeded Shelburne at the Treasury. Lord North and Fox became the Secretaries of State. Lord John Cavendish returned to the Exchequer, Keppel to the Admiralty, and Burke to the Paymastership, the followers of Lord North ... were rewarded with the lower offices. Few combinations in the history of political parties have been received by historians and posterity with more unqualified condemnation than the coalition of 1783. ... There is no evidence to show that at the time it struck politicians in general as being specially heinous."

H. O. Wakeman, Life of Charles James Fox, chapters 3-5.

ALSO IN: Lord J. Russell, Life of Fox, chapters 16-17 (volume l).

W. F. Rae, Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox, pages 307-317.

Lord E. Fitzmaurice, Life of William, Earl of Shelburne, volume 3, chapters 3-6.

{941}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783. The definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States of America signed at Paris.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787. Fall of the Coalition. Ascendancy of the younger Pitt. His extraordinary grasp of power. His attempted measures of reform.

"Parliament met on the 11th of November; on the 18th Fox asked for leave to introduce a Bill for the Better Government of India. That day month[?] the Government had ceased to exist. Into the merits of the Bill it is not now necessary to enter. ... It was clear that it furnished an admirable weapon against an unpopular Coalition which had resisted economical reform, demanded a great income for a debauched prince, and now aimed at securing a monopoly of the vast patronage of India,--patronage which, genially exercised by Dundas, was soon to secure Scotland for Pitt. In the House of Commons the majority for the Bill was over 100; the loftiest eloquence of Burke was exerted in its favour; and Fox was, as ever, dauntless and crushing in debate. But outside Parliament the King schemed, and controversy raged. ... When the Bill arrived at the House of Lords, the undertakers were ready. The King had seen Temple, and empowered him to communicate to all whom it might concern his august disapprobation. The uneasy whisper circulated, and the joints of the lords became as water. The peers who yearned for lieutenancies or regiments, for stars or strawberry leaves; the prelates, who sought a larger sphere of usefulness; the minions of the bedchamber and the janissaries of the closet; all, temporal or spiritual, whose convictions were unequal to their appetite, rallied to the royal nod. ... The result was overwhelming. The triumphant Coalition was paralysed by the rejection of their Bill. They rightly refused to resign, but the King could not sleep until he had resumed the seals. Late at night he sent for them. The messenger found North and Fox gaily seated at supper with their followers. At first he was not believed. 'The King would not dare do it,' exclaimed Fox. But the under Secretary charged with the message soon convinced them of its authenticity, and the seals were delivered with a light heart. In such dramatic fashion, and the springtide of its youth, fell that famous government, unhonoured and unwept. 'England,' once said Mr. Disraeli, 'does not love coalitions.' She certainly did not love this one. On this occasion there was neither hesitation nor delay; the moment had come, and the man. Within 12 hours of the King's receiving the seals, Pitt had accepted the First Lordship of the Treasury and the Chancellorship of the Exchequer. That afternoon his writ was moved amid universal derision. And so commenced a supreme and unbroken Ministry of 17 years. Those who laughed were hardly blamable, for the difficulties were tremendous. ... The composition of the Government was ... the least of Pitt's embarrassments. The majority against him in the House of Commons was not less than 40 or 50, containing, with the exception of Pitt himself and Dundas, every debater of eminence; while he had, before the meeting of Parliament, to prepare and to obtain the approval of the East India Company to a scheme which should take the place of Burke's. The Coalition Ministers were only dismissed on the 18th of December, 1783; but, when the House of Commons met on the 12th of January, 1784, all this had been done. The narrative of the next three months is stirring to read, but would require too much detail for our limits. ... On the day of the meeting of Parliament, Pitt was defeated in two pitched divisions, the majorities against him being 39 and 54. His government seemed still-born. His colleagues were dismayed. The King came up from Windsor to support him. But in truth he needed no support. He had inherited from his father that confidence which made Chatham once say, 'I am sure that I can save this country, and that nobody else can'; which made himself say later, 'I place much dependence on my new colleagues; I place still more dependence on myself.' He had refused, in spite of the King's insistance, to dissolve; for he felt that the country required time. ... The Clerkship of the Pells, a sinecure office worth not less than £3,000 a year, fell vacant the very day that Parliament met. It was universally expected that Pitt would take it as of right, and so acquire an independence, which would enable him to devote his life to politics, without care for the morrow. He had not £300 a year; his position was to the last degree precarious. ... Pitt disappointed his friends and amazed his enemies. He gave the place to Barré. ... To a nation inured to jobs this came as a revelation. ... Above and beyond all was the fact that Pitt, young, unaided, and alone, held his own with the great leaders allied against him. ... In face of so resolute a resistance, the assailants began to melt away. Their divisions, though they always showed a superiority to the Government, betrayed notable diminution. ... On the 25th of March Parliament was dissolved, the announcement being retarded by the unexplained theft of the Great Seal. When the elections were over, the party of Fox, it was found, had shared the fate of the host of Sennacherib. The number of Fox's martyrs--of Fox's followers who had earned that nickname by losing their seats--was 160. ... The King and Pitt were supported on the tidal wave of one of those great convulsions of feeling, which in Great Britain relieve and express pent-up national sentiment, and which in other nations produce revolutions."

Lord Rosebery, Pitt, chapter 3.

"Three subjects then needed the attention of a great statesman, though none of them were so pressing as to force themselves on the attention of a little statesman. These were, our economical and financial legislation, the imperfection of our parliamentary representation, and the unhappy' condition of Ireland. Pitt dealt with all three. ... He brought in a series of resolutions consolidating our customs laws, of which the inevitable complexity may be estimated by their number. They amounted to 133, and the number of Acts of Parliament which they restrained or completed was much greater. He attempted, and successfully, to apply the principles of Free Trade, the principles which he was the first of English statesmen to learn from Adam Smith, to the actual commerce of the country. ... The financial reputation of Pitt has greatly suffered from the absurd praise which was once lavished on the worst part of it. {942} The dread of national ruin from the augmentation of the national debt was a sort of nightmare in that age. ... Mr. Pitt sympathised with the general apprehension and created the well-known 'Sinking Fund.' He proposed to apply annually a certain fixed sum to the payment of the debt, which was in itself excellent, but he omitted to provide real money to be so paid. ... He proposed to borrow the money to payoff the debt, and fancied that he thus diminished it. ... The exposure of this financial juggle, for though not intended to be so, such in fact it was, has reacted very unfavourably upon Mr. Pitt's deserved fame. ... The subject of parliamentary reform is the one with which, in Mr. Pitt's early days, the public most connected his name, and is also that with which we are now least apt to connect it. ... He proposed the abolition of the worst of the rotten boroughs fifty years before Lord Grey accomplished it. ... If the strong counteracting influence of the French Revolution had not changed the national opinion, he would unquestionably have amended our parliamentary representation. ... The state of Ireland was a more pressing difficulty than our financial confusion, our economical errors, or our parliamentary corruption. ... He proposed at once to remedy the national danger of having two Parliaments, and to remove the incredible corruption of the old Irish Parliament, by uniting the three kingdoms in a single representative system, of which the Parliament should sit in England. ... Of these great reforms he was only permitted to carry a few into execution. His power, as we have described it, was great when his reign commenced, and very great it continued to be for very many years; but the time became unfavourable for all forward-looking statesmanship."

_W. Bagehot, Biographical Studies: William Pitt._

ALSO IN: Earl Stanhope, Life of William Pitt, chapters 4-9 (volume 1).

G. Tomline, Life of William Pitt, chapters 3-9 (volume 1-2).

Lord Rosebery, Pitt, chapters 3-4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1788 (FEBRUARY). Opening of the Trial of Warren Hastings.

See INDIA: A. D.1785-1795.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1788-1789. The King's second derangement.

The king's second derangement, which began to show itself in the summer of 1788, was more serious and of longer duration than the first. "He was able ... to sign a warrant for the further prorogation of Parliament by commission, from the 25th September to the 20th November. But, in the interval, the king's malady increased: he was wholly deprived of reason, and placed under restraint; and for several days his life was in danger. As no authority could be obtained from him for a further prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th November. ... According to long established law, Parliament, without being opened by the Crown, had no authority to proceed to any business whatever: but the necessity of an occasion, for which the law had made no provision, was now superior to the law; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to deliberate upon the momentous questions to which the king's illness had given rise." By Mr. Fox it was maintained that "the Prince of Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of sovereignty during the king's incapacity as if the king were actually dead; and that it was merely for the two Houses of Parliament to pronounce at what time he should commence, the exercise of his right. ... Mr. Pitt, on the other hand, maintained that as no legal provision had been made for carrying on the government, it belonged to the Houses of Parliament to make such provision." The discussion to which these differences, and many obstructing circumstances in the situation of affairs, gave rise, was so prolonged, that the king recovered his faculties (February, 1789) before the Regency Bill, framed by Mr. Pitt, had been passed.

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, volume 1, chapter 3.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1789-1792. War with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1793. The Coalition against Revolutionary France. Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER), and (JULY-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1793-1796. Popular feeling towards the French Revolution. Small number of the English Jacobins. Pitt forced into war. Tory panic and reign of terror. Violence of government measures.

"That the war [of Revolutionary France] with Germany would widen into a vast European struggle, a struggle in which the peoples would rise against their oppressors, and the freedom which France had won diffuse itself over the world, no French revolutionist doubted for an hour. Nor did they doubt that in this struggle England would join them. It was from England that they had drawn those principles of political and social liberty which they believed themselves to be putting into practice. It was to England that they looked above all for approbation and sympathy. ... To the revolutionists at Paris the attitude of England remained unintelligible and irritating. Instead of the aid they had counted on, they found but a cold neutrality. ... But that this attitude was that of the English people as a whole was incredible to the French enthusiasts. ... Their first work therefore they held to be the bringing about a revolution in England. ... They strove, through a number of associations which had formed themselves under the name of Constitutional Clubs, to rouse the same spirit which they had roused in France; and the French envoy, Chauvelin, protested warmly against a proclamation which denounced this correspondence as seditious. ... Burke was still working hard in writings whose extravagance of style was forgotten in their intensity of feeling to spread alarm throughout Europe. He had from the first encouraged the emigrant princes to take arms, and sent his son to join them at Coblentz. 'Be alarmists,' he wrote to them; 'diffuse terror!' But the royalist terror which he sowed would have been of little moment had it not roused a revolutionary terror in France. ... In November the Convention decreed that France offered the aid of her soldiers to all nations who would strive for freedom. ... In the teeth of treaties signed only two years before, and of the stipulation made by England when it pledged itself to neutrality, the French Government resolved to attack Holland, and ordered its generals to enforce by arms the opening of the Scheldt [see FRANCE: A. D.1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY)]. To do this was to force England into war. Public opinion was already pressing every day harder upon Pitt. ... But even while withdrawing our Minister from Paris on the imprisonment of the King, to whose Court he had been commissioned, Pitt clung stubbornly to a policy of peace. ... {943} No hour of Pitt's life is so great as the hour when he stood lonely and passionless before the growth of national passion, and refused to bow to the gathering cry for war. ... But desperately as Pitt struggled for peace, his struggle was in vain. ... Both sides ceased from diplomatic communications, and in February 1793 France issued her Declaration of War. From that moment Pitt's power was at an end. His pride, his immovable firmness, and the general confidence of the nation, still kept him at the head of affairs; but he could do little save drift along with a tide of popular feeling which he never fully understood. Around him the country broke out in a fit of passion and panic which rivalled the passion and panic oversea. ... The partisans of Republicanism were in reality but a few handfuls of men. ... But in the mass of Englishmen the dread of these revolutionists passed for the hour into sheer panic. Even the bulk of the Whig party believed property and the constitution to be in peril, and forsook Fox when he still proclaimed his faith in France and the Revolution."

J. R. Green, History of the English People, book 9, chapter 4 (volume 4).

"Burke himself said that not one man in a hundred was a Revolutionist. Fox's revolutionary sentiments met with no response, but with general reprobation, and caused even his friends to shrink from his side. Of the so-called Jacobin Societies, the Society for Constitutional Information numbered only a few hundred members, who, though they held extreme opinions, were headed by men of character, and were quite incapable of treason or violence. The Corresponding Society was of a more sinister character; but its numbers were computed only at 6,000, and it was swallowed up in the loyal masses of the people. ... It is sad to say it, but when Pitt had once left the path of right, he fell headlong into evil. To gratify the ignoble fears and passions of his party, he commenced a series of attacks on English liberty of speaking and writing which Mr. Massey, a strong anti-revolutionist, characterizes as unparalleled since the time of Charles I. The country was filled with spies. A band of the most infamous informers was called into activity by the government. ... There was a Tory reign of terror, to which a slight increase of the panic among the upper classes would probably have lent a redder hue. Among other measures of repression the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended; and the liberties of all men were thus placed at the mercy of the party in power. ... In Scotland the Tory reign of terror was worse than in England."

Goldwin Smith, Three English Statesmen, pages 239-247.

"The gaols were filled with political delinquents, and no man who professed himself a reformer could say, that the morrow might not see him a prisoner upon a charge of high treason. ... But the rush towards despotism against which the Whigs could not stand, was arrested by the people. Although the Habeas Corpus had fallen, the Trial by Jury remained, and now, as it had done before, when the alarm of fictitious plots had disposed the nation to acquiesce in the surrender of its liberties, it opposed a barrier which Toryism could not pass." The trials which excited most interest were those of Hardy, who organized the Corresponding Society, and Horne Tooke. But no unlawful conduct or treasonable designs could be proved against them by creditable witnesses, and both were acquitted." The public joy was very general at these acquittals. ... The war lost its popularity; bread grew scarce; commerce was crippled; ... the easy success that had been anticipated was replaced by reverses. The people clamoured and threw stones at the king, and Pitt eagerly took advantage of their violence to tear away the few shreds of the constitution which yet covered them. He brought forward the Seditious Meetings bill, and the Treasonable Practices bill. Bills which, among other provisions, placed the conduct of every political meeting under the protection of a magistrate, and rendered disobedience to his command a felony."

G. W. Cooke, History of Party, volume 3, chapter 17.

ALSO IN: J. Adolphus, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 81-89 and 95 (volumes 5-6).

J. Gifford, History of the Political Life of William Pitt, chapters 23-24, and 28-29 (volumes 3-4).

W. Massey, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 32-36 (volumes 3-4).

_E. Smith, The Story of the English Jacobins._

A. Bisset, Short History of the English Parliament, chapter 8.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1794. Campaigns of the Coalition against France. French successes in the Netherlands and on the Rhine. Conquest of Corsica. Naval victory of Lord Howe.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1794. Angry relations with the United States. The Jay Treaty.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1794-1795. Withdrawal of troops from the Netherlands. French conquest of Holland. Establishment of the Batavian Republic. Crumbling of the European Coalition.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1795. Disastrous expedition to Quiberon Bay.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1795. Capture of the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER). Evacuation and abandonment of Corsica.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER). Unsuccessful peace negotiations with the French Directory.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1796-1798. Attempted French invasions of Ireland. Irish Insurrection.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1797. Monetary panic and suspension of specie payments. Defeat of the first Reform movement. Mutiny of the Fleet. Naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.

"The aspect of affairs in Britain had never been so clouded during the 18th century as at the beginning of the year 1797. The failure of Lord Malmesbury's mission to Paris had closed every hope of an honourable termination to the war, while of all her original allies, Austria alone remained; the national burdens were continually increasing, and the three-per-cents had fallen to fifty-one; while party spirit raged with uncommon violence, and Ireland was in a state of partial insurrection. A still greater disaster resulted from the panic arising from the dread of invasion, and which produced such a run on all the banks, that the Bank of England itself was reduced to payment in sixpences, and an Order in Council appeared (February 26) for the suspension of all cash payments. This measure, at first only temporary, was prolonged from time to time by parliamentary enactments, making bank-notes a legal-tender; and it was not till 1819, after the conclusion of peace, that the recurrence to metallic currency took place. {944} The Opposition deemed this a favourable opportunity to renew their cherished project of parliamentary reform; and on 26th May, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grey brought forward a plan chiefly remarkable for containing the outlines of that subsequently carried into effect in 1831. It was negatived, however, after violent debates, by a majority of 258 against 93. After a similar strife of parties, the motion for the continuance of the war was carried by a great majority in both houses; and the requisite supplies were voted. ... Unknown to the government, great discontent had for a long time prevailed in the navy. The exciting causes were principality the low rate of pay (which had not been raised since the time of Charles II.), the unequal distribution of prize-money, and undue severity in the maintenance of discipline. These grounds of complaint, with others not less well founded, gave rise to a general conspiracy, which broke out (April 15) in the Channel fleet under Lord Bridport. All the ships fell under the power of the insurgents; but they maintained perfect order, and memorialised the Admiralty and the Commons on their grievances: their demands being examined by government, and found to be reasonable, were granted; and on the 7th of May the fleet returned to its duty. But scarcely was the spirit of disaffection quelled in this quarter, when it broke out in a more alarming form (May 22) among the squadron at the Nore, which was soon after (June 6) joined by the force which had been cruising off the Texel under Lord Duncan. The mutineers appointed a seaman named Parker to the command; and, blockading the mouth of the Thames, announced their demands in such a tone of menacing audacity as insured their instant rejection by the government. This second mutiny caused dreadful consternation in London; but the firmness of the King remained unshaken, and he was nobly seconded by the parliament. A bill was passed, prohibiting all communication with the mutineers under pain of death. Sheerness and Tilbury Fort were armed and garrisoned for the defence of the Thames; and the sailors, finding the national feelings strongly arrayed against them, became gradually sensible that their enterprise was desperate. One by one the ships returned to their duty; and on 15th June all had submitted. Parker and several other ringleaders suffered death; but clemency was extended to the multitude. ... Notwithstanding all these dissensions, the British navy was never more terrible to its enemies than during this eventful year. On the 14th of February, the Spanish fleet of 27 sail of the line and 12 frigates, which had put to sea for the purpose of raising the blockade of the French harbours, was encountered off Cape St. Vincent by Sir John Jarvis, who had only 15 ships and 6 frigates. By the old manœuvre of breaking the line, 9 of the Spanish ships were cut off from the rest; and the admiral, while attempting to regain them by wearing round the rear of the British line, was boldly assailed by Nelson and Collingwood,--the former of whom, in the Captain, of 74 guns, engaged at once two of the enemy's gigantic vessels, the Santissima Trinidad of 136 guns, and the San Josef of 112; while the Salvador del Mundo, also of 112 guns, struck in a quarter of an hour to Collingwood. Nelson at length carried the San Josef by boarding, and received the Spanish admiral's sword on his own quarterdeck. The Santissima Trinidad--an enormous four-decker--though her colours were twice struck, escaped in the confusion; but the San Josef and the Salvador, with two 74-gun ships, remained in the hands of the British; and the Spanish armament, thus routed by little more than half its own force, retired in the deepest dejection to Cadiz, which was shortly after insulted by a bombardment from the gallant Nelson. A more important victory than that of Sir John Jarvis (created in consequence Earl St. Vincent) was never gained at sea, from the evident superiority of skill and seamanship which it demonstrated in the British navy. The battle of St. Vincent disconcerted the plans of Truguet for the naval campaign; but later in the season a second attempt to reach Brest was made by a Dutch fleet of 15 sail of the line and 11 frigates, under the command of De Winter, a man of tried courage and experience. The British blockading fleet, under Admiral Duncan, consisted of 16 ships and 3 frigates; and the battle was fought (October 16) off Camperdown, about nine miles from the shore of Holland. The manœuvres of the British Admiral were directed to cut off the enemy's retreat to his own shores; and this having been accomplished, the action commenced yard-arm to yard-arm, and continued with the utmost fury for more than three hours. The Dutch sailors fought with the most admirable skill and courage, and proved themselves worthy descendants of Van Tromp and De Ruyter; but the prowess of the British was irresistible. 12 sail of the line, including the flagship, two 56-gun ships, and 2 frigates, struck their colours; but the nearness of the shore enabled two of the prizes to escape, and one 74-gun ship foundered. The obstinacy of the conflict was evidenced by the nearly equal number of killed and wounded, which amounted to 1,040 English, and 1,160 Dutch. ... The only remaining operations of the year were the capture of Trinidad in February, by a force which soon after was repulsed from before Porto Rico; and an abortive attempt at a descent in Pembroke Bay by about 1,400 French."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe, sections 190-196 (chapter 22, volume 5--of complete work).

ALSO IN: J. Adolphus, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 100-103 (volume 6).

R. Southey, Life of Nelson, chapter 4.

E. J. De La Gravière, Sketches of the Last Naval War, volume 1, part 2.

Captain A. T. Mahan, Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution and Empire, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1798 (AUGUST). Nelson's victory in the Battle of the Nile.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1798. Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (APRIL). Final war with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-OCTOBER). Expedition against Holland. Seizure of the Dutch fleet. Ignominious ending of the enterprise. Capitulation of the Duke of York.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1800. Legislative union of Ireland with Great Britain. Creation of the "United Kingdom."

See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

{945}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1801. The first Factory Act.

See FACTORY LEGISLATION.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1802. Import of the Treaty of Luneville. Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with Great Britain alone. Retirement of Pitt. The Northern Maritime League and its summary annihilation at Copenhagen. Expulsion of the French from Egypt. The Peace of Amiens.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806. Pitt's promise to the Irish Catholics broken by the King. His resignation. The Addington Ministry. The Peace of Amiens. War resumed. Pitt at the helm again. His death. The Ministry of "All the Talents."

"The union with Ireland introduced a new topic of party discussion, which quickly became only second to that of parliamentary reform. In transplanting the parliament of College Green to St. Stephen's, Pitt had transplanted the questions which were there debated; and, of these, none had been more important than the demand of the Catholics to be admitted to the common rights of citizens. Pitt, whose Toryism was rather the imperiousness of a haughty master, than the cautious cowardice of the miser of power, thought their complaints were just. In his private negotiations with the Irish popular leaders he probably promised that emancipation should be the sequel to the union. In his place in parliament he certainly gave an intimation, which from the mouth of a minister could receive no second interpretation. Pitt was not a minister who governed by petty stratagems, by ambiguous professions, and by skilful shuffles: he was at least an honourable enemy. He prepared to fulfil the pledge he had given, and to admit the Catholics within the pale of the constitution. It had been better for the character of George III. had he imitated the candour of his minister; had he told him that he had made a promise he would not be suffered to fulfil, before he had obtained the advantage to gain which that promise had been made. When Pitt proposed Catholic emancipation as one of the topics of the king's speech, for the session of 1801, the royal negative was at once interposed, and when Dundas persisted in his attempt to overcome his master's objections, the king abruptly terminated the conference, saying, 'Scotch metaphysics cannot destroy religious obligations.' Pitt immediately tendered his resignation. ... All that was brilliant in Toryism passed from the cabinet with the late minister: When Pitt and Canning were withdrawn, with their satellites, nothing remained of the Tory party but the mere courtiers who lived upon the favour of the king, and the insipid lees of the party; men who voted upon every subject in accordance with their one ruling idea--the certain ruin, which must follow the first particle of innovation. Yet from these relicts the king was obliged to form a new cabinet, for application to the Whigs was out of the question. These were more strenuous for emancipation than Pitt. Henry Addington, Pitt's speaker of the house of commons, was the person upon whom the king's choice fell; and he succeeded, with the assistance of the late premier, in filling up the offices at his disposal. ... The peace of Amiens was the great work of this feeble administration [see FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802], and formed a severe commentary upon the boastings of the Tories. 'Unless the monarchy of France be restored,' Pitt had said, eight years before, 'the monarchy of England is lost forever.' Eight years of warfare had succeeded, yet the monarchy of France was not restored, and the crusade was stayed. England had surrendered her conquests, France retained hers; the landmarks of Europe had been in some degree restored; England, alone, remained burdened with the enduring consequences of the ruinous and useless strife. The peace was approved by the Whigs, who were glad of any respite from such a war, and by Pitt, who gave his support to the Addington administration. But he could not control his adherents. ... As the instability of the peace grew manifest, the incompetency of the administration became generally acknowledged: with Pitt sometimes chiding, Windham and Canning, and Lords Spencer and Grenville continually attacking, and Fox and the Whigs only refraining from violent opposition from a knowledge that if Addington went out Pitt would be his successor, the conduct of the government was by no means an easy or a grateful task to a man destitute of commanding talents. When to these parliamentary difficulties were added a recommencement of the war, and a popular panic at Bonaparte's threatened invasion, Addington's embarrassments became inextricable. He had performed the business which Pitt had assigned him; he had made an experimental peace, and had saved Pitt's honour with the Roman Catholics. The object of his appointment he had unconsciously completed, and no sooner did his predecessor manifest an intention of returning to office, than the ministerial majorities began to diminish, and Addington found himself without support. On the 12th of April it was announced that Mr. Addington had resigned, and Pitt appeared to resume his station as a matter of course. During his temporary retirement, Pitt had, however, lost one section of his supporters. The Grenville party and the Whigs had gradually approximated, and the former now refused to come into the new arrangements unless Fox was introduced into the cabinet. To this Pitt offered no objection, but the king was firm--or obstinate. ... In the following year, Addington himself, now created Viscount Sidmouth, returned to office with the subordinate appointment of president of the council. The conflagration had again spread through Europe. ... Pitt had the mortification to see his grand continental coalition, the produce of such immense expense and the object of such hope, shattered in one campaign. At home, Lord Melville, his most faithful political supporter, was attacked by a charge from which he could not defend him, and underwent the impeachment of the commons for malpractices in his office as treasurer of the navy. Lord Sidmouth and several others seceded from the cabinet, and Pitt, broken in health, and dispirited by reverses, had lost much of his wonted energy. Thus passed away the year 1805. On the 23d of January, 1806, Pitt expired. ... The death of Pitt was the dissolution of his administration. The Tory party was scattered in divisions and subdivisions innumerable. Canning now recognised no political leader, but retained his old contempt for Sidmouth and his friends, and his hostility to the Grenvilles for their breach with Pitt. Castlereagh, William Dundas, Hawkesbury, or Barham, although sufficiently effective when Pitt was present to direct and to defend, would have made a hopeless figure without him in face of such an opposition as the house of commons now afforded. {946} The administration, which was ironically designated by its opponents as 'All the Talents,' succeeded. Lord Grenville was first lord of the treasury. Fox chose the office of secretary for foreign affairs with the hope of putting an end to the war. Windham was colonial secretary. Earl Spencer had the seals of the home department. Erskine was lord chancellor. Mr. Grey was first lord of the admiralty. Sheridan, treasurer of the navy. Lord Sidmouth was privy seal. Lord Henry Petty, who, although now only in his 26th year, had already acquired considerable distinction as an eloquent Whig speaker, was advanced to the post of chancellor of the exchequer, the vacant chair of Pitt. Such were the men who now assumed the reins under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty."

G. W. Cooke, History of Party, volume 3, chapters 17-18.

ALSO IN: Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon), Life of Pitt, chapters 29-44 (volumes 3-4).

A. G. Stapleton, George Canning and His Times, chapters 6-8.

Earl Russell, Life and Times of Charles James Fox, chapters 58-69 (volume 3).

G. Pellew, Life and Correspondence of Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth, chapters 10-26 (volumes 1-2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1802 (OCTOBER). Protest against Bonaparte's interference in Switzerland. His extraordinary reply.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1802-1803. Bonaparte's complaints and demands. The Peltier trial. The First Consul's rage. Declaration of war. Napoleon's seizure of Hanover. Cruel detention of all English people in France, Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1804-1809. Difficulties with the United States. Questions of neutral rights. Right of Search and Impressment. The American Embargo.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL). Third Coalition against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1805. Napoleon's threatened invasion. Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleet. His victory and death at Trafalgar. The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806. Final seizure of Cape Colony from the Dutch.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806. Cession of Hanover to Prussia by Napoleon. War with Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806. Attempted reinstatement of the dethroned King of Naples. The Battle of Maida.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806. Death of Pitt. Peace negotiations with Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1807. Expedition against Buenos Ayres.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1810. Commercial warfare with Napoleon. Orders in Council. Berlin and Milan Decrees.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812. The ministry of "All the Talents." Abolition of the Slave Trade. The Portland and the Perceval ministries. Confirmed insanity of George III. Beginning of the regency of the Prince of Wales. Assassination of Mr. Perceval.

The "Ministry of All the Talents" is "remarkable solely for its mistakes, and is to be remembered chiefly for the death of Fox [September 13, 1806] and the abolition of the slave-trade. Fox was now destined at the close of his career to be disillusioned with regard to Napoleon. He at last thoroughly realized the insincerity of his hero. ... The second great object of Fox's life he succeeded in attaining before his death;--this was the abolition of the slave-trade. For more than thirty years the question had been before the country, and a vigorous agitation had been conducted by Clarkson, Wilberforce, and Fox. . Pitt was quite at one with them on this question, and had brought forward motions on the subject. The House of Lords, however, rejected all measures of this description during the Revolutionary War, under the influence of the Anti-Jacobin feeling. It was reserved for Fox to succeed in carrying a Bill inflicting heavy pecuniary punishments on the traffic in slaves. And yet this measure--the sole fruit of Fox's statesmanship--was wholly inadequate; nor was it till the slave-trade was made felony in 1811 that its final extinction was secured. The remaining acts of the Ministry were blunders. ... Their financial system was a failure. They carried on the war so as to alienate their allies and to cover themselves with humiliation. Finally, they insisted on bringing forward a measure for the relief of the Catholics, though there was not the slightest hope of carrying it, and it could only cause a disruption of the Government. ... The king and the Pittites were determined to oppose it, and so the Ministry agreed to drop the question under protest. George insisted on their withdrawing the protest, and as this was refused he dismissed them. ... This then was the final triumph of George III. He had successfully dismissed this Ministry; he had maintained the principle that every Ministry is bound to withdraw any project displeasing to the king. These principles were totally inconsistent with Constitutional Government, and they indirectly precipitated Reform by rendering it absolutely necessary in order to curb the royal influence. ... The Duke of Portland's sole claims to form a Ministry were his high rank, and the length of his previous services. His talents were never very great, and they were weakened by age and disease. The real leader was Mr. Perceval, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a dexterous debater and a patriotic statesman. This Government, being formed on the closest Tory basis and on the king's influence, was pledged to pursue a retrograde policy and to oppose all measures of Reform. The one really high-minded statesman in the Cabinet was Canning, the Foreign Minister. His advanced views, however, continually brought him into collision with Castlereagh, the War Minister, a man of much inferior talents and the narrowest Tory views. Quarrels inevitably arose between the two, and there was no real Prime Minister to hold them strongly under control. ... At last the ill-feeling ended in a duel, which was followed by a mutual resignation on the ground that neither could serve with the other. This was followed by the resignation of Portland, who felt himself wholly unequal to the arduous task of managing the Ministry any longer. {947} The leadership now devolved on Perceval, who found himself in an apparently hopeless condition. His only supporters were Lords Liverpool, Eldon, Palmerston, and Wellesley. Neither Canning, Castlereagh, nor Sidmouth (Addington) would join him. The miserable expedition to Walcheren had just ended in ignominy. The campaign in the Peninsula was regarded as a chimerical enterprise, got up mainly for the benefit of a Tory commander. Certainly the most capable man in the Cabinet was Lord Wellesley, the Foreign Minister, but he was continually thwarted by the incapable men he had to deal with. However, as long as he remained at the Foreign Office, he supported the Peninsular War with vigour, and enabled his brother to carry out more effectually his plans with regard to the defence of Portugal. In November, 1810, the king was again seized with insanity, nor did he ever recover the use of his faculties during the rest of his life. The Ministry determined to bring forward Pitt's old Bill of 1788 in a somewhat more modified form, February, 1811. The Prince of Wales requested Grey and Grenville to criticize this, but, regarding their reply as lukewarm, he began to entertain an ill-will for them. At this moment the judicious flattery of his family brought him over from the Whigs, and he decided to continue Perceval in office. Wellesley, however, took the opportunity to resign, and was succeeded by Castlereagh, February, 1812. In May Perceval was assassinated by Mr. Bellingham, a lunatic, and his Ministry at once fell to pieces."

B. C. Skottowe, Our Hanoverian Kings, book 10, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: F. H. Hill, George Canning, chapters 13-17.

S. Walpole, Life of Spencer Perceval, volume 2.

R. I. and S. Wilberforce, Life of William Wilberforce, chapter 20 (volume 3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807. Act for the Abolition of the Slave-Trade.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-SEPTEMBER). Operations in support of the Russians against the Turks and French. Bold naval attack on Constantinople and humiliating failure. Disastrous expedition to Egypt.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY). Alliance formed at Tilsit between Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER). Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Danish fleet. War with Russia and Denmark.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER). Submission of Portugal to Napoleon under English advice. Flight of the house of Braganza to Brazil.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (MAY). Ineffectual attempt to aid Sweden. Expedition of Sir John Moore.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (JULY). Peace and alliance with the Spanish people against the new Napoleonic monarchy. Opening of the Peninsular War.

See SPAIN: A. D.1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808. Expulsion of English forces from Capri.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D.1808-1809.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808-1809. Wellington's first campaign in the Peninsula. Convention of Cintra. Evacuation of Portugal by the French. Sir John Moore's advance into Spain and his retreat. His death at Corunna.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY). Wellington sent to the Peninsula. The passage of the Douro and the Battle of Talavera.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER). The Walcheren Expedition.

"Three times before, during the war, it had occurred to one or another, connected with the government, that it would be a good thing to hold Antwerp, and command the Scheldt, seize the French ships in the river, and get possession of their arsenals and dockyards. On each occasion, men of military science and experience had been consulted; and invariably they had pronounced against the scheme. Now, however, what Mr. Pitt had considered impracticable, Lord Castlereagh, with the rashness of incapacity, resolved should be done: and, in order not to be hindered, he avoided consulting with those who would have objected to the enterprise. Though the scene of action was to be the swamps at the mouths of the Scheldt, he consulted no physician. Having himself neither naval, military, nor medical knowledge, he assumed the responsibility--except such as the King and the Duke of York chose to share. ... It was May, 1809, before any stir was apparent which could lead men outside the Cabinet to infer that an expedition for the Scheldt was in contemplation; but so early as the beginning of April (it is now known), Mr. Canning signified that he could not share in the responsibility of an enterprise which must so involve his own office. ... The fleet that rode in the channel consisted of 39 ships of the line, and 36 frigates, and a due proportion of small vessels: in all, 245 vessels of war: and 400 transports carried 40,000 soldiers. Only one hospital ship was provided for the whole expedition, though the Surgeon General implored the grant of two more. He gave his reasons, but was refused. ... The naval commander was Sir Richard J. Strachan, whose title to the responsibility no one could perceive, while many who had more experience were unemployed. The military command was given (as the selection of the present Cabinet bad been) to Lord Chatham, for no better reason than that he was a favourite with the King and Queen, who liked his gentle and courtly manners, and his easy and amiable temper. ... The fatal mistake was made of not defining the respective authorities of the two commanders; and both being inexperienced or apathetic, each relied upon the other first, and cast the blame of failure upon him afterwards. In the autumn, an epigram of unknown origin was in every body's mouth, all over England:

'Lord Chatham, with his sword undrawn, Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan; Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em, Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham.'

The fleet set sail on the 28th of July, and was on the coast of Holland the next day. The first discovery was that there were not boats enough to land the troops and the ordnance. The next was that no plan had been formed about how to proceed. The most experienced officers were for pushing on to Antwerp, 45 miles off, and taking it before it could be prepared for defence; but the commanders determined to take Flushing first. They set about it so slowly that a fortnight was consumed in preparations. {948} In two days more, the 15th of August, Flushing was taken. After this, Lord Chatham paused to consider what he should do next; and it was the 21st before be began to propose to go on to Antwerp. Then came the next discovery, that, by this time two intermediate places had been so strengthened that there must be some fighting on the way. So he did nothing more but take possession of two small islands near Flushing. Not another blow was struck; not another league was traversed by this magnificent expedition. But the most important discovery of all now disclosed itself. The army had been brought into the swamps at the beginning of the sickly season. Fever sprang up under their feet, and 3,000 men were in hospital in a few days, just when it became necessary to reduce the rations, because provisions were falling short. On the 27th of August, Lord Chatham led a council of war to resolve that 'it was not advisable to pursue further operations.' But, if they could not proceed, neither could they remain where they were. The enemy had more spirit than their invaders. On the 30th and 31st, such a fire was opened from both banks of the river, that the ships were obliged to retire. Flushing was given up, and everything else except the island of Walcheren, which it was fatal to hold at this season. On the 4th of September, most of the ships were at home again; and Lord Chatham appeared on the 14th. Eleven thousand men were by that time in the fever, and he brought home as many as he could. Sir Eyre Coote, whom he left in command, was dismayed to see all the rest sinking down in disease at the rate of hundreds in a day. Though the men had been working in the swamps, up to the waist in marsh water, and the roofs of their sleeping places had been carried off by bombardment, so that they slept under a canopy of autumn fog, it was supposed that a supply of Thames water to drink would stop the sickness; and a supply of 500 tons per week was transmitted. At last, at the end of October, a hundred English bricklayers, with tools, bricks, and mortar, were sent over to mend the roofs; but they immediately dropped into the hospitals. Then the patients were to be accommodated in the towns; but to spare the inhabitants, the soldiers were laid down in damp churches; and their bedding had from the beginning been insufficient for their need. At last, government desired the chief officers of the army Medical Board to repair to Walcheren, and see what was the precise nature of the fever, and what could be done. The Surgeon-General and the Physician-General threw the duty upon each other. Government appointed it to the Physician-General, Sir Lucas Pepys; but he refused to go. Both officers were dismissed, and the medical department of the army was reorganized and greatly improved. The deaths were at this time from 200 to 300 a week. When Walcheren was evacuated, on the 23rd of December, nearly half the force sent out five months before were dead or missing; and of those who returned, 35,000 were admitted into the hospitals of England before the next 1st of June. Twenty millions sterling were spent on this expedition. It was the purchase money of tens of thousands of deaths, and of ineffaceable national disgrace."

H. Martineau, History of England, 1800-1815, book 2, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 7, chapter 20.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER). Difficulties of Wellington's campaign in the Peninsula. His retreat into Portugal.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1810. Capture of the Mauritius.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1810-1812. The War in the Peninsula. Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras. French recoil from them. English advance into Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1800-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER), and 1810-1812.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1811. Capture of Java from the Dutch.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1811-1812. Desertion of Napoleon's Continental System by Russia and Sweden. Reopening of their ports to British commerce.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JANUARY). Building of the first passenger Steam-boat.

See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST). The Peninsular War. Wellington's victory at Salamanca and advance to Madrid.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813. The Liverpool Ministry. Business depression and bad harvests. Distress and rioting. The Luddites.

"Again there was much negotiation, and an attempt to introduce Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning to the ministry. Of course they could not serve with Castlereagh; they were then asked to form a ministry with Grenville and Grey, but these Lords objected to the Peninsular War, to which Wellesley was pledged. Grenville and Grey then attempted a ministry of their own but quarrelled with Lord Moira on the appointments to the Household; and as an American war was threatening, and the ministry had already given up their Orders in Council (one of the chief causes of their unpopularity), the Regent rather than remain longer without a ministry, intrusted Lord Liverpool with the Premiership, with Castlereagh as his Foreign Secretary, and the old ministry remained in office. Before the day of triumph of this ministry arrived, while Napoleon was still at the height of his power, and the success of Wellington as yet uncertain, England had drifted into war with America. It is difficult to believe that this useless war might not have been avoided had the ministers been men of ability. It arose from the obstinate manner in which the Government clung to the execution of their retaliatory measures against France, regardless of the practical injury they were inflicting upon all neutrals. ... The same motive of class aggrandizement which detracts from the virtue of the foreign policy of this ministry underlay the whole administration of home affairs. There was an incapacity to look at public affairs from any but a class or aristocratic point of view. The natural consequence was a constantly increasing mass of discontent among the lower orders, only kept in restraint by an overmastering fear felt by all those higher in rank of the possible revolutionary tendencies of any attempt at change. Much of the discontent was of course the inevitable consequence of the circumstances in which England was placed, and for which the Government was only answerable in so far as it created those circumstances. At the same time it is impossible not to blame the complacent manner in which the misery was ignored and the occasional success of individual merchants and contractors regarded as evidences of national prosperity. ... {949} A plentiful harvest in 1813, and the opening of many continental ports, did much to revive both trade and manufactures; but it was accompanied by a fall in the price of corn from 171s. to 75s. The consequence was widespread distress among the agriculturists, which involved the country banks, so that in the two following years 240 of them stopped payment. So great a crash could not fail to affect the manufacturing interest also; apparently, for the instant, the very restoration of peace brought widespread ruin. ... Before the end of the year 1811, wages had sunk to 7s. 6d. a week. The manufacturing operatives were therefore in a state of absolute misery. Petitions signed by 40,000 or 50,000 men urged upon Parliament that they were starving; but there was another class which fared still worse. Machinery had by no means superseded hand-work. In thousands of hamlets and cottages handlooms still existed. The work was neither so good nor so rapid as work done by machinery; even at the best of times used chiefly as an auxiliary to agriculture, this hand labour could now scarcely find employment at all. Not unnaturally, without work and without food, these hand workers were very ready to believe that it was the machinery which caused their ruin, and so in fact it was; the change, though on the whole beneficial, had brought much individual misery. The people were not wise enough to see this. They rose in riots in many parts of England, chiefly about Nottingham, calling themselves Luddites (from the name of a certain idiot lad who some 30 years before, had broken stocking-frames), gathered round them many of the disbanded soldiery with whom the country was thronged, and with a very perfect secret organization, carried out their object of machine-breaking. The unexpected thronging of the village at nightfall, a crowd of men with blackened faces, armed sentinels holding every approach, silence on all sides, the village inhabitants cowering behind closed doors, an hour or two's work of smashing and burning, and the disappearance of the crowd as rapidly as it had arrived--such were the incidents of the night riots."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 3, pages 1325-1332.

ALSO IN: C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 7, chapter 30.

Pictorial History of England, volume 8, chapter 4 (Reign of George III., volume 4).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1815. War with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; 1808; and 1810-1812, to 1815 (JANUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1813 (JUNE). Joined with the new European Coalition against Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1814. Wellington's victorious and final campaigns in the Peninsular War.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1816. War with the Ghorkas of Nepal.

See INDIA: A. D..1805-1816.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814. The allies in France and in possession of Paris. Fall of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and (MARCH-APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (May-June). Treaty of Paris. Acquisition of Malta, the Isle of France and the Cape of Good Hope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER). The Treaty of Ghent, terminating war with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814-1815. The Congress of Vienna and its revision of the map of Europe.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (MARCH). The Corn Law.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

[Transcriber's Note:]

INDONESIA: A. D. 1815 (APRIL). Eruption of Mount Tambora precipitating the "Year without a Summer" and widespread famine.

"Low temperatures and heavy rains resulted in failed harvests in Britain and Ireland. ... With the cause of the problems unknown, hungry people demonstrated in front of grain markets and bakeries. Later riots, arson, and looting took place in many European cities. On some occasions, rioters carried flags reading "Bread or Blood". Though riots were common during times of hunger, the food riots of 1816 and 1817 were the highest levels of violence since the French Revolution. It was the worst famine of 19th-century mainland Europe.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer#Europe_

[End Transcriber's Note]

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JUNE). The Waterloo campaign. Defeat and final Overthrow of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-AUGUST). Surrender of Napoleon. His confinement on the Island of St. Helena.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER). Wellington's army in Paris. The Second Treaty.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (SEPTEMBER). The Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820. Agitation for Parliamentary Reform. Hampden Clubs. Spencean philanthropists. Trials of William Hone. The Spa-fields meeting and riot. March of the Blanketeers. Massacre of Peterloo. The Six Acts. Death of George III. Accession of George IV.

"From this time the name of Parliamentary Reform became, for the most part, a name of terror to the Government. ... It passed away from the patronage of a few aristocratic lovers of popularity, to be advocated by writers of 'two-penny trash,' and to be discussed and organized by 'Hampden Clubs' of hungering philanthropists and unemployed 'weaver-boys.' Samuel Bamford, who thought it no disgrace to call himself 'a Radical' ... says, 'at this time (1816) the writings of William Cobbett suddenly became of great authority; they were read on nearly every cottage hearth in the manufacturing districts of South Lancashire, in those of Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham; also in many of the Scottish manufacturing towns. Their influence was speedily visible.' Cobbett advocated Parliamentary Reform as the corrective of whatever miseries the lower classes suffered. A new order of politicians was called into action: 'The Sunday-schools of the preceding thirty years had produced many working men of sufficient talent to become readers, writers, and speakers in the village meetings for Parliamentary Reform; some also were found to possess a rude poetic talent, which rendered their effusions popular, and bestowed an additional charm on their assemblages; and by such various means, anxious listeners at first, and then zealous proselytes, were drawn from the cottages of quiet nooks and dingles to the weekly readings and discussions of the Hampden Clubs.' ... In a Report of the Secret Committee of the House of Commons, presented on the 19th of February, 1817, the Hampden Clubs are described as 'associated professedly for the purpose of Parliamentary Reform, upon the most extended principle of universal suffrage and annual parliaments'; but that 'in far the greater number of them ... nothing short of a Revolution is the object expected and avowed.' The testimony of Samuel Bamford shows that, in this early period of their history, the Hampden Clubs limited their object to the attainment of Parliamentary Reform. ... Bamford, at the beginning of 1817, came to London as a delegate from the Middleton Club, to attend a great meeting of delegates to be assembled in London. ... {950} The Middleton delegate was introduced, amidst the reeking tobacco-fog of a low tavern, to the leading members of a society called the 'Spencean Philanthropists.' They derived their name from that of a Mr. Spence, a school-master in Yorkshire, who had conceived a plan for making the nation happy, by causing all the lands of the country to become the property of the State, which State should divide all the produce for the support of the people. ... The Committee of the Spenceans openly meddled with sundry grave questions besides that of a community in land; and, amongst other notable projects, petitioned Parliament to do away with machinery. Amongst these fanatics some dangerous men had established themselves, such as Thistlewood, who subsequently paid the penalty of five years of maniacal plotting." A meeting held at Spa-fields on the 2d of December, 1816, in the interest of the Spencean Philanthropists, terminated in a senseless outbreak of riot, led by a young fanatic named Watson. The mob plundered some gunsmiths' shops, shot one gentleman who remonstrated, and set out to seize the Tower; but was dispersed by a few resolute magistrates and constables. "It is difficult to imagine a more degraded and dangerous position than that in which every political writer was placed during the year 1817. In the first place, he was subject, by a Secretary of State's warrant, to be imprisoned upon suspicion, under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Secondly, he was open to an ex-officio information, under which he would be compelled to find bail, or be imprisoned. The power of ex-officio information had been extended so as to compel bail, by an Act of 1808; but from 1808 to 1811, during which three years forty such informations were laid, only one person was held to bail. In 1817 numerous ex-officio informations were filed, and the almost invariable practice then was to hold the alleged offender to bail, or, in default, to commit to prison. Under this Act Mr. Hone and others were committed to prison during this year. ... The entire course of these proceedings was a signal failure. There was only one solitary instance of success--William Cobbett ran away. On the 28th of March he fled to America, suspending the publication of his 'Register' for four months. On the 12th of May earl Grey mentioned in the House of Lords that a Mr. Hone was proceeded against for publishing some blasphemous parody; but he had read one of the same nature, written, printed, and published, some years ago, by other people, without any notice having been officially taken of it. The parody to which earl Grey alluded, and a portion of which he recited, was Canning's famous parody, 'Praise Lepaux'; and he asked whether the authors, be they in the cabinet or in any other place, would also be found out and visited with the penalties of the law? This hint to the obscure publisher against whom these ex-officio informations had been filed for blasphemous and seditious parodies, was effectually worked out by him in the solitude of his prison, and in the poor dwelling where he had surrounded himself, as he had done from his earliest years, with a collection of odd and curious books. From these he had gathered an abundance of knowledge that was destined to perplex the technical acquirements of the Attorney-General, to whom the sword and buckler of his precedents would be wholly useless, and to change the determination of the boldest judge in the land [Lord Ellenborough] to convict at any rate, into the prostration of helpless despair. Altogether, the three trials of William Hone are amongst the most remarkable in our constitutional history. They produced more distinct effects upon the temper of the country than any public proceedings of that time. They taught the Government a lesson which has never been forgotten, and to which, as much as to any other cause, we owe the prodigious improvement as to the law of libel itself, and the use of the law, in our own day,--an improvement which leaves what is dangerous in the press to be corrected by the remedial power of the press itself; and which, instead of lamenting over the newly-acquired ability of the masses to read seditious and irreligious works, depends upon the general diffusion of this ability as the surest corrective of the evils that are incident even to the best gift of heaven,--that of knowledge."

C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 8, chapter 5.

In 1817 "there was widespread distress. There were riots in the counties of England arising out of the distress. There were riots in various parts of London. Secret Committees were appointed by both Houses of the Legislature to inquire into the alleged disaffection of part of the people. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended. The march of the Blanketeers from Manchester [March, 1817] caused panic and consternation through various circles in London. The march of the Blanketeers was a very simple and harmless project. A large number of the working-men in Manchester conceived the idea of walking to London to lay an account of their distress before the heads of the Government, and to ask that some remedy might be found, and also to appeal for the granting of Parliamentary reform. It was part of their arrangement that each man should carry a blanket with him, as they would, necessarily, have to sleep at many places along the way, and they were not exactly in funds to pay for first-class hotel accommodation. The nickname of Blanketeers was given to them because of their portable sleeping-arrangements. The whole project was simple, was touching in its simplicity. Even at this distance of time one cannot read about it without being moved by its pathetic childishness. These poor men thought they had nothing to do but to walk to London, and get to speech of Lord Liverpool, and justice would be done to them and their claims. The Government of Lord Liverpool dealt very roundly, and in a very different way, with the Blanketeers. If the poor men had been marching on London with pikes, muskets and swords, they could not have created a greater fury of panic and of passion in official circles. The Government, availing itself of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, had the leaders of the movement captured and sent to prison, stopped the march by military force, and dispersed those who were taking part in it. ... The 'Massacre of Peterloo,' as it is not inappropriately called, took place not long after. A great public meeting was held [August 16, 1819] at St. Peter's Field, then on the outskirts of Manchester, now the site of the Free Trade Hall, which many years later rang so often to the thrilling tones of John Bright. The meeting was called to petition for Parliamentary reform. It should be remembered that in those days Manchester, Birmingham, and other great cities were without any manner of representation in Parliament. {951} It was a vast meeting--some 80,000 men and women are stated to have been present. The yeomanry [a mounted militia force], for some reason impossible to understand, endeavoured to disperse the meeting, and actually dashed in upon the crowd, spurring their horses and flourishing their sabres. Eleven persons were killed, and several hundreds were wounded. The Government brought in, as their panacea for popular trouble and discontent, the famous Six Acts. These Acts were simply measures to render it more easy for the authorities to put down or disperse meetings which they considered objectionable, and to suppress any manner of publication which they chose to call seditious. But among them were some Bills to prevent training and drilling, and the collection and use of arms. These measures show what the panic of the Government was. It was the conviction of the ruling classes that the poor and the working-classes of England were preparing a revolution. ... During all this time, the few genuine Radicals in the House of Commons were bringing on motion after motion for Parliamentary reform, just as Grattan and his friends were bringing forward motion after motion for Catholic Emancipation. In 1818, a motion by Sir Francis Burdett for annual Parliaments and universal suffrage was lost by a majority of 106 to nobody. ... The motion had only two supporters--Burdett himself, and his colleague, Lord Cochrane. ... The forms of the House require two tellers on either side, and a compliance with this inevitable rule took up the whole strength of Burdett's party. ... On January 29, 1820, the long reign of George III. came to an end. The life of the King closed in darkness of eyes and mind. Stone-blind, stone-deaf, and, except for rare lucid intervals, wholly out of his senses, the poor old King wandered from room to room of his palace, a touching picture, with his long, white, flowing beard, now repeating to himself the awful words of Milton--the 'dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon--irrecoverably dark'--now, in a happier mood, announcing himself to be in the companionship of angels. George, the Prince Regent, succeeded, of course, to the throne; and George IV. at once announced his willingness to retain the services of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool. The Whigs had at one time expected much from the coming of George IV. to the throne, but their hopes had begun to be chilled of late."

J. McCarthy, Sir Robert Peel, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: J. Routledge, Chapters in the History of Popular Progress, chapters 12-19.

H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years' Peace, book 1, chapters 5-17 (volume 1).

E. Smith, William Cobbett, chapters 21-23 (volume 2).

See, also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1818. Convention with the United States relating to Fisheries, etc.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1820. Accession of King George IV.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1822. Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona. Projects of the Holy Alliance. English protests. Canning's policy towards Spain and the Spanish American colonies.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827. The Cato Street Conspiracy. Trial of Queen Caroline. Canning in the Foreign Office. Commercial Crisis of 1825. Canning as Premier. His death.

"Riot and social misery had, during the Regency, heralded the Reign. They did not cease to afflict the country. At once we are plunged into the wretched details of a conspiracy. Secret intelligence reached the Home Office to the effect that a man named Thistlewood, who had been a year in jail for challenging Lord Sidmouth, had with several accomplices laid a plot to murder the Ministers during a Cabinet dinner, which was to come off at Lord Harrowby's. The guests did not go, and the police pounced on the gang, arming themselves in a stable in Cato Street, off the Edgeware Road. Thistlewood blew out the candle, having first stabbed a policeman to the heart. For that night he got off; but, being taken next day, he was soon hanged, with his four leading associates. This is called the Cato Street Conspiracy. ... George IV., almost as soon as the crown became his own, began to stir in the matter of getting a divorce from his wife. He had married this poor Princess Caroline of Brunswick in 1795, merely for the purpose of getting his debts paid. Their first interview disappointed both. After some time of semi-banishment to Blackheath she had gone abroad to live chiefly in Italy, and had been made the subject of more than one 'delicate investigation' for the purpose of procuring evidence of infidelity against her. She now came to England (June 6, 1820), and passed from Dover to London through joyous and sympathizing crowds. The King sent a royal message to the Lords, asking for an inquiry into her conduct. Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh laid before the Lords and Commons a green bag, stuffed with indecent and disgusting accusations against the Queen. Happily for her she had two champions, whose names shall not readily lose the lustre gained in her defence--Henry Brougham and Thomas Denman, her Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. After the failure of a negotiation, in which the Queen demanded two things that the Ministers refused--the insertion of her name in the Liturgy, and a proper reception at some foreign court--Lord Liverpool brought into the Upper House a 'Bill of Pains and Penalties,' which aimed at her degradation from the throne and the dissolution of her marriage. Through the fever-heat of a scorching summer the case went on, counsel and witnesses playing their respective parts before the Lords. ... At length the Bill, carried on its third reading by a majority of only nine, was abandoned by the Ministry (November 10). And the country broke out into cheers and flaming windows. Had she rested content with the vindication of her fair fame, it would have been better for her own peace. But she went in public procession to St. Paul's to return thanks for her victory. And more rashly still in the following year she tried to force her way into Westminster Abbey during the Coronation of her husband (July 19, 1821). But mercy came a few days later from the King of kings. The people, true to her even in death, insisted that the hearse containing her remains should pass through the city; and in spite of bullets from the carbines of dragoons they gained their point, the Lord Mayor heading the procession till it had cleared the streets. ... George Canning had resigned his office rather than take any part with the Liverpool Cabinet in supporting the 'Bill of Pains and Penalties,' and had gone to the Continent for the summer of the trial year.

{952}

Early in 1822 Lord Sidmouth ... resigned the Home Office. He was succeeded by Robert Peel, a statesman destined to achieve eminence. Canning about the same time was offered the post of Governor-General of India," and accepted it; but this arrangement was suddenly changed by the death of Castlereagh, who committed suicide in August. Canning then became Foreign Secretary. "The spirit of Canning's foreign policy was diametrically opposed to that of Londonderry [Castlereagh]. ... Refusing to interfere in Spanish affairs, he yet acknowledged the new-won freedom of the South American States, which had lately shaken off the Spanish yoke. To preserve peace and yet cut England loose from the Holy Alliance were the conflicting aims, which the genius of Canning enabled him to reconcile [see VERONA, CONGRESS OF]. ... During the years 1824-25, the country, drunk with unusual prosperity, took that speculation fever which has afflicted her more than once during the last century and a half. ... A crop of fungus companies sprang up temptingly from the heated soil of the Stock Exchange. ... Shares were bought and gambled in. The winter passed; but spring shone on glutted markets. depreciated stock, no buyers, and no returns from the shadowy and distant investments in South America, which had absorbed so much capital. Then the crashing began--the weak broke first, the strong next, until banks went down by dozens, and commerce for the time was paralyzed. By causing the issue of one and two pound notes, by coining in great haste a new supply of sovereigns, and by inducing the Bank of England to lend money upon the security of goods--in fact to begin the pawnbroking business--the Government met the crisis, allayed the panic, and to some extent restored commercial credit. Apoplexy having struck down Lord Liverpool early in 1827, it became necessary to select a new Premier. Canning was the chosen man." He formed a Cabinet with difficulty in April, Wellington, Peel, Eldon, and others of his former colleagues refusing to take office with him. His administration was brought abruptly to an end in August by his sudden death.

W. F. Collier, History of England, pages 526-529.

ALSO IN: Lord Brougham, Life and Times, by Himself, chapters 12-18 (volume 2).

A. G. Stapleton, George Canning and His Times, chapters 18-34.

_A. G. Stapleton, Some Official Correspondence of George Canning, 2 volumes_

F. H. Hill, George Canning, chapters 19-22.

Sir T. Martin, Life of Lord Lyndhurst, chapter 7.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1826. The first Burmese War.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1825-1830. The beginning of railroads.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828. Removal of Disabilities from the Dissenters. Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.

"Early in 1827 a private member, of little influence, unexpectedly raised a dormant question. For the best part of a century the Dissenters had passively submitted to the anomalous position in which they had been placed by the Legislature [see above: A. D. 1662-1665; 1672-1673; 1711-1714]. Nominally unable to hold any office under the Crown, they were annually 'whitewashed' for their infringement of the law by the passage of an Indemnity Act. The Dissenters had hitherto been assenting parties to this policy. They fancied that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts would logically lead to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and they preferred remaining under a disability themselves to running the risk of conceding relief to others. The tacit understanding, which thus existed between the Church on one side and Dissent on the other, was maintained unbroken and almost unchallenged till 1827. It was challenged in that year by William Smith, the member for Norwich. Smith was a London banker; he was a Dissenter; and he felt keenly the hard, unjust, and unnecessary' law which disabled him from holding, any office, however insignificant, under the Crown,' and from sitting 'as a magistrate in any corporation without violating his conscience.' Smith took the opportunity which the annual Indemnity Act afforded him of stating these views in the House of Commons. As he spoke the scales fell from the eyes of the Liberal members. The moment he sat down Harvey, the member for Colchester, twitted the Opposition with disregarding 'the substantial claims of the Dissenters,' while those of the Catholics were urged year after year' with the vehemence of party,' and supported by 'the mightiest powers of energy and eloquence.' The taunt called up Lord John Russell, and elicited from him the declaration that he would bring forward a motion on the Test and Corporation Acts, 'if the Protestant Dissenters should think it to their interest that he should do so.' A year afterwards--on the 26th of February, 1828--Lord John Russell rose to redeem the promise which he thus gave." His motion "was carried by 237 votes to 193. The Ministry had sustained a crushing and unexpected reverse. For the moment it was doubtful whether it could continue in office. It was saved from the necessity of resigning by the moderation and dexterity of Peel. Peel considered that nothing could be more unfortunate for the Church than to involve the House of Commons in a conflict with the House of Lords on a religious question. ... On his advice the Bishops consented to substitute a formal declaration for the test hitherto in force. The declaration, which contained a promise that the maker of it would 'never exert any power or any influence to injure or subvert the Protestant' Established Church, was to be taken by the members of every corporation, and, at the pleasure of the Crown, by the holder of every office. Russell, though he disliked the declaration, assented to it for the sake of securing the success of his measure." The bill was modified accordingly and passed both Houses, though strenuously resisted by all the Tories of the old school.

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, chapter 10 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. Stoughton, Religion in England from 1800 to 1850, volume 1, chapter 2.

H. S. Skeats, History of the Free Churches of England, chapter 9.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828. The administration of Lord Goderich. Advent of the Wellington Ministry.

"The death of Mr. Canning placed Lord Goderich at the head of the government. The composition of the Cabinet was slightly altered. Mr. Huskisson became Colonial Secretary, Mr. Herries Chancellor of the Exchequer. The government was generally considered to be weak, and not calculated for a long endurance. ... The differences upon financial measures between Mr. Herries ... and Mr. Huskisson ... could not be reconciled by Lord Goderich, and he therefore tendered his resignation to the king on the 9th of January, 1828. {953} His majesty immediately sent to lord Lyndhurst to desire that he and the duke of Wellington should come to Windsor. The king told the duke that he wished him to form a government of which he should be the head. ... It was understood that lord Lyndhurst was to continue in office. The duke of Wellington immediately applied to Mr. Peel, who, returning to his post of Secretary of State for the Home Department, saw the impossibility of re-uniting in this administration those who had formed the Cabinet of lord Liverpool. He desired to strengthen the government of the duke of Wellington by the introduction of some of the more important of Mr. Canning's friends into the Cabinet and to fill some of the lesser offices. The earl of Dudley, Mr. Huskisson, lord Palmerston, and Mr. Charles Grant, became members of the new administration. Mr. William Lamb, afterwards lord Melbourne, was appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland. The ultra-Tories were greatly indignant at these arrangements. They groaned and reviled as if the world was unchanged."

C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 8, chapter 13.

ALSO IN: Sir T. Martin, Life of Lord Lyndhurst, chapter 9.

W. M. Torrens, Life of Viscount Melbourne, volume 1, chapter 15.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1829. Intervention on behalf of Greece. Battle of Navarino.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1828. Corn Law amendment. The Sliding Scale.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1829. Catholic Emancipation.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1830. The state of the Parliamentary representation before Reform. Death of George IV. Accession of William IV. Fall of the Wellington Ministry.

"Down to the year 1800, when the Union between Great Britain and Ireland was effected, the House consisted of 558 members; after 1800, it consisted of 658 members. In the earlier days of George III., it was elected by 160,000 voters, out of a population of a little more than eight millions; in the later days of that monarch, it was elected by about 440,000 voters, out of a population of twenty-two millions. ... But the inadequacy of the representation will be even more striking if we consider the manner in which the electors were broken up into constituencies. The constituencies consisted either of counties, or of cities or boroughs. Generally speaking, the counties of England and Wales (and of Ireland, after the Union) were represented by two members, and the counties of Scotland by one member; and the voters were the forty-shilling freeholders. The number of cities and boroughs which returned members varied; but, from the date of the Union, there were about 217 in England and Wales, 14 in Scotland, and 39 in Ireland,--all the English and Welsh boroughs (with a few exceptions) returning two members, and the Scotch and Irish boroughs one member. How the particular places came to be Parliamentary boroughs is a question of much historic interest, which cannot be dealt with here in detail. Originally, the places to which writs were issued seem to have been chosen by the Crown, or, not unfrequently, by the Sheriffs of the counties. Probably, in the first instance, the more important places were selected; though other considerations, such as the political opinions of the owners of the soil, and the desire to recognise services (often of a very questionable character) rendered by such owners to the King, no doubt had their weight. In the time of Cromwell, some important changes were made. In 1654, he disfranchised many small boroughs, increased the number of county members, and enfranchised Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax. All these reforms were cancelled after the Restoration; and from that time very few changes were made. ... In the hundred and fifty years which followed the Restoration, however, there were changes in the condition of the country, altogether beyond the control of either kings or parliaments. Old towns disappeared or decayed, and new ones sprang up. Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds were remarkable examples of the latter,--Old Sarum was an example of the former. ... At one time a place of some importance, it declined from the springing up of New Sarum (Salisbury); and, even so far back as the reign of Henry VII., it existed as a town only in imagination, and in the roll of the Parliamentary boroughs. ... Many other places might be named [known as Rotten Boroughs and Pocket Boroughs]--such as Gatton in Surrey, and Ludgershall in Wiltshire--which represented only their owners. In fact, the representation of owners, and of owners only, was a very prominent feature of the electoral system now under consideration. Thus, the Duke of Norfolk was represented by eleven members, who sat for places forming a part of his estates; similarly, Lord Lonsdale was represented by nine members, Lord Darlington by seven, the Duke of Rutland and several other peers by six each; and it is stated by one authority that the Duke of Newcastle, at one time, returned one third of all the members for the boroughs, while, up to 1780, the members for the county of York--the largest and most influential of the counties--were always elected in Lord Rockingham's dining-room. But these are only selected instances. Many others might be cited. According to a statement made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, 6,000 persons returned a clear majority of the House of Commons. In 1793, the Society of the Friends of the People asserted, and declared that they were able to prove, that 84 individuals returned 157 members; that 70 individuals returned 150 members; and that of the 154 individuals who thus returned 307 members--the majority of the House before the Union with Ireland--no fewer than 40 were peers. The same Society asserted in the same year, and declared that they were able to prove, that 70 members were returned by 35 places, in which there were scarcely any electors; that 90 members were returned by 46 places, in which there were fewer than 50 electors; that 37 members were returned by 19 places, with not more than 100 electors; and that 52 members were returned by 26 places, with not more than 200 electors: all these in England alone. Even in the towns which had a real claim to representation, the franchise rested upon no uniform basis. ... In some cases the suffrage was practically household suffrage; in other cases the suffrage was extremely restricted. But they all returned their two members equally; it made no difference whether the voters numbered 3,000 or only three or four. Such being the state of the representation, corruption was inevitable. Bribery was practised to an inconceivable extent. Many of the smaller boroughs had a fixed price, and it was by no means uncommon to see a borough advertised for sale in the newspapers. ... {954} As an example of cost in contesting a county election, it is on record that the joint expenses of Lord Milton and Mr. Lascelles, in contesting the county of York in 1807, were £200,000. ... It is not to be supposed that a condition of things which appears to us so intolerable attracted no attention before what may be called the Reform era. So far back as 1745, Sir Francis Dashwood (afterwards Lord de Spencer) moved an amendment to the Address in favour of Reform; Lord Chatham himself, in 1766 and 1770, spoke of the borough representation as 'the rotten part of the constitution,' and likened it to a 'mortified limb'; the Duke of Richmond of that day, in 1780, introduced a bill into the House of Lords which would have given manhood suffrage and annual parliaments; and three times in succession, in 1782, 1783, and 1785, Mr. Pitt proposed resolutions in favour of Reform. ... After Mr. Pitt had abandoned the cause, Mr. (afterwards Earl) Grey took up the subject. First, in 1792, he presented that famous petition from the Society of the Friends of the People, to which allusion has been already made, and founded a resolution upon it. He made further efforts in 1793, 1795, and 1797, but was on every occasion defeated by large majorities. ... From the beginning of the 19th century to the year 1815--with the exception of a few months after the Peace of Amiens in 1802--England was at war. During that time Reform dropped out of notice. ... In 1817, and again in 1818 and 1819, Sir Francis Burdett, who was at that time member for Westminster and a leading Reformer, brought the question of Reform before the House of Commons. On each occasion he was defeated by a tremendous majority. ... The next ten years were comparatively uneventful, so far as the subject of this history is concerned. ... Two events made the year 1830 particularly opportune for raising the question of Parliamentary Reform. The first of these events was the death of George IV. [June 26],--the second, the deposition of Charles X. of France. ... For the deposition of Charles--followed as it was very soon by a successful insurrection in Belgium--produced an immense impression upon the Liberals of this country, and upon the people generally. In a few days or weeks there had been secured in two continental countries what the people of England had been asking for in vain for years. ... We must not omit to notice one other circumstance that favoured the cause of Reform. This was the popular distress. Distress always favours agitation. The distress in 1830 was described in the House of Lords at the time as 'unparalleled in any previous part of our history.' Probably this was an exaggeration. But there can be no doubt that the distress was general, and that it was acute. ... By the law as it stood when George IV. died, the demise of the Crown involved a dissolution of Parliament. The Parliament which was in existence in 1830 had been elected in 1826. Since the beginning o£ 1828 the Duke of Wellington had been Prime Minister, with Mr. (soon after Sir Robert) Peel as Home Secretary, and Leader of the House of Commons. They decided to dissolve at once. ... In the Parliament thus dissolved, and especially in the session just brought to a close, the question of Reform had held a prominent place. At the very beginning of the session, in the first week of February, the Marquis of Blandford (afterwards Duke of Marlborough) moved an amendment to the Address, in which, though a Tory, he affirmed the conviction 'that the State is at this moment in the most imminent danger, and that no effectual measures of salvation will or can be adopted until the people shall be restored to their rightful share in the legislation of the country.' ... He was supported on very different grounds by Mr. O'Connell, but was defeated by a vote of 96 to 11. A few days later he introduced a specific plan of Reform--a very Radical plan indeed--but was again ignominiously defeated; then, on the 23d of February, Lord John Russell ... asked for leave to bring in a bill for conferring the franchise upon Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, as the three largest unrepresented towns in the kingdom, but was defeated by 188 votes to 140; and finally, on the 28th of May--scarcely two months before the dissolution--Mr. O'Connell brought in a bill to establish universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and triennial parliaments, but found only 13 members to support him in a House of 332. ... Thus, the question of Reform was now before the country, not merely as a popular but as a Parliamentary question. It is not too much to say that, when the dissolution occurred, it occupied all minds. ... The whole of August and a considerable part of September, therefore, were occupied with the elections, which were attended by an unparalleled degree of excite merit. ... When all was over, and the results were reckoned up, it was found that, of the 28 members who represented the thirteen greatest cities in England (to say nothing of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland), only 3 were Minsterialists. ... Of the 236 men who were returned by elections, more or less popular, in England, only 79 were Ministerialists. ... The first Parliament of William IV. met on the 26th of October, but the session was not really opened till the 2d of November, when the King came down and delivered his Speech. ... The occasion was made memorable, however, not by the King's Speech, but by a speech by the Duke of Wellington, who was then Prime Minister. ... 'The noble Earl [Grey],' said the Duke, 'has alluded to something in the shape of a Parliamentary Reform, but he has been candid enough to acknowledge that he is not prepared with any measure of Reform; and I have as little scruple to say that his Majesty's Government is as totally unprepared as the noble lord. Nay, on my own part, I will go further, and say, that I have never read or heard of any measure, up to the present moment, which could in any degree satisfy my mind that the state of the representation could be improved, or be rendered more satisfactory to the country at large than at the present moment. ... I am not only not prepared to bring forward any measure of this nature, but I will at once declare that, as far as I am concerned, as long as I hold any station in the government of the country, I shall always feel it my duty to resist such measures when proposed by others.' Exactly fourteen days after the delivery of this speech, the Duke's career' as Prime Minister came for the time to a close. On the 16th of November he came down to Westminster, and announced that he had resigned office. In the meantime, there had been something like a panic in the city, because Ministers, apprehending disturbance, had advised the King and Queen to abandon an engagement to dine, on the 9th, with the Lord Mayor at the Guildhall. {955} On the 15th, too, the Government had sustained a defeat in the House of Commons, on a motion proposed by Sir Henry Parnell on the part of the Opposition, having reference to the civil list. This defeat was made the pretext for resignation. But it was only a pretext. After the Duke's declaration in regard to Reform, and in view of his daily increasing unpopularity, his continuance in office was impossible."

W. Heaton, The Three Reforms of Parliament, chapters 1-2.

ALSO IN: A. Paul, History of Reform, chapters 1-6.

W. Bagehot, Essays on Parliamentary Reform, essay 2.

_H. Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections._

S. Walpole, The Electorate and the Legislature, chapter 4.

_E. A. Freeman, Decayed Boroughs (Historical Essays, 4th series)._

England: A. D. 1830-1832. The great Reform of Representation in Parliament, under the Ministry of Earl Grey.

"Earl Grey was the new Minister; and Mr. Brougham his Lord Chancellor. The first announcement of the premier was that the government would 'take into immediate consideration the state of the representation, with a view to the correction of those defects which have been occasioned in it, by the operation of time; and with a view to the reestablishment of that confidence upon the part of the people, which he was afraid Parliament did not at present enjoy, to the full extent that is essential for the welfare and safety of the country, and the preservation of the government.' The government were now pledged to a measure of parliamentary reform; and during the Christmas recess were occupied in preparing it. Meanwhile, the cause was eagerly supported by the people. ... So great were the difficulties with which the government had to contend, that they needed all the encouragement that the people could give. They had to encounter the reluctance of the king,--the interests of the proprietors of boroughs, which Mr. Pitt, unable to overcome, had sought to purchase,--the opposition of two thirds of the House of Lords; and perhaps of a majority of the House of Commons,--and above all, the strong Tory spirit of the country. ... On the 3d February, when Parliament reassembled, Lord Grey announced that the government had succeeded in framing 'a measure which would be effective, without exceeding the bounds of a just and well-advised moderation,' and which 'had received the unanimous consent of the whole government.' ... On the 1st March, this measure was brought forward in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell, to whom,--though not in the cabinet,--this honorable duty had been justly confided. ... On the 22d March, the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of one only, in a House of 608,--probably the greatest number which, up to that time, had ever been assembled at a division. On the 19th of April, on going into committee, ministers found themselves in a minority of eight, on a resolution proposed by General Gascoyne, that the number of members returned for England ought not to be diminished. On the 21st, ministers announced that it was not their intention to proceed with the bill. On that same night, they were again defeated on a question of adjournment, by a majority of twenty-two. This last vote was decisive. The very next day, Parliament was prorogued by the king in person, 'with a view to its immediate dissolution.' It was one of the most critical days in the history of our country. ... The people were now to decide the question;--and they decided it. A triumphant body of reformers was returned, pledged to carry the reform bill; and on the 6th July, the second reading of the renewed measure was agreed to, by a majority of 136. The most tedious and irritating discussions ensued in committee,--night after night; and the bill was not disposed of until the 21st September, when it was passed by a majority of 109. That the peers were still adverse to the bill was certain; but whether, at such a crisis, they would venture to oppose the national will, was doubtful. On the 7th October, after a debate of five nights,--one of the most memorable by which that House has ever been distinguished, and itself a great event in history,--the bill was rejected on the second reading, by a majority of forty-one. The battle was to be fought again. Ministers were too far pledged to the people to think of resigning; and on the motion of Lord Ebrington, they were immediately supported by a vote of confidence from the House of Commons. On the 20th October, Parliament was prorogued; and after a short interval of excitement, turbulence, and danger [see BRISTOL: A. D. 1831], met again on the 6th December. A third reform bill was immediately brought in,--changed in many respects,--and much improved by reason of the recent census, and other statistical investigations. Amongst other changes, the total number of members was no longer proposed to be reduced. This bill was read a second time on Sunday morning, the 18th of December, by a majority of 162. On the 23d March, it was passed by the House of Commons, and once more was before the House of Lords. Here the peril of again rejecting it could not be concealed,--the courage of some was shaken,--the patriotism of others aroused; and after a debate of four nights, the second reading was affirmed by the narrow majority of nine. But danger still awaited it. The peers who would no longer venture to reject such a bill, were preparing to change its essential character by amendments. Meanwhile the agitation of the people was becoming dangerous. ... The time had come, when either the Lords must be coerced; or the ministers must resign. This alternative was submitted to the king. He refused to create peers: the ministers resigned, and their resignation was accepted. Again the Commons came to the rescue of the bill and the reform ministry. On the motion of Lord Ebrington, an address was immediately voted by them, renewing their expressions of unaltered confidence in the late ministers, and imploring his Majesty 'to call to his councils such persons only as will carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions, that bill for reforming the representation of the people, which has recently passed this House.' ... The public excitement was greater than ever; and the government and the people were in imminent danger of a bloody collision, when Earl Grey was recalled to the councils of his sovereign. The bill was now secure. The peers averted the threatened addition to their numbers by abstaining from further opposition; and the bill,--the Great Charter of 1832,--at length received the Royal Assent. It is now time to advert to the provisions of this famous statute; and to inquire how far it corrected the faults of a system, which had been complained of for more than half a century. {956} The main evil had been the number of nomination, or rotten boroughs enjoying the franchise. Fifty-six of these,--having less than 2,000 inhabitants, and returning 111 members,--were swept away. Thirty boroughs, having less than 4,000 inhabitants, lost each a member. Weymouth and Melcombe Regis lost two. This disfranchisement extended to 143 members. The next evil had been, that large populations were unrepresented; and this was now redressed. Twenty-two large towns, including metropolitan districts, received the privilege of returning two members; and 20 more of returning one. The large county populations were also regarded in the distribution of seats,--the number of county members being increased from 94 to 159. The larger counties were divided; and the number of members adjusted with reference to the importance of the constituencies. Another evil was the restricted and unequal franchise. This too was corrected. All narrow rights of election were set aside in Boroughs; and a £10 household franchise was established. The freemen of corporate towns were the only class of electors whose rights were reserved; but residence within the borough was attached as a condition to their right of voting. ... The county constituency was enlarged by the addition of copyholders and leaseholders, for terms of years, and of tenants-at-will paying a rent of £50 a year. ... The defects of the Scotch representation, being even more flagrant and indefensible than those of England, were not likely to be omitted from Lord Grey's general scheme of reform. ... The entire representation was remodelled. Forty-five members had been assigned to Scotland at the Union: this number was now increased to 53 of whom 30 were allotted to counties, and 23 to cities and burghs. The county franchise was extended to all owners of property of £10 a year, and to certain classes of leaseholders; and the burgh franchise to all £10 householders. The representation of Ireland had many of the defects of the English system. ... The right of election was taken away from the corporations, and vested in £10 householders; and large additions were made to the county constituency. The number of members in Ireland, which the Act of Union had settled at 100, was now increased to 105."

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860, chapter 6 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: _W. N. Molesworth, History of the Reform Bill of 1832._

_W. Jones, Biographical Sketches of the Reform Ministers._

Lord Brougham, Life and Times, by Himself, chapters 21-22.

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, chapter 11 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1831. First assumption of the name Conservatives by the Tories.

See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832. Intervention in the Netherlands. Creation of the kingdom of Belgium. War with Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833. Abolition of Slavery in the West Indies. Trade monopoly of the East India Company withdrawn. Factory Bill. Irish tithes.

"The period which succeeded the passing of the Reform Bill was one of immense activity and earnestness in legislation. ... The first great reform was the complete abolition of the system of slavery in the British colonies. The slave trade had itself been suppressed so far as we could suppress it long before that time, but now the whole system of West Indian slavery was brought to an end [see SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1834-1838]. ... A long agitation of the small but energetic anti-slavery party brought about this practical result in 1833. ... Granville Sharpe, Zachary Macaulay, father of the historian and statesman, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Wilberforce, Brougham, and many others, had for a long time been striving hard to rouse up public opinion to the abolition of the slave system." The bill which passed Parliament gave immediate freedom to all children subsequently born, and to all those who were then under six years of age; while it determined for all other slaves a period of apprenticeship, lasting five years in one class and seven years in another, after which they attained absolute freedom. It appropriated £20,000,000 for the compensation of the slave-owners. "Another reform of no small importance was accomplished when the charter of the East India Company came to be renewed in 1833. The clause giving them a commercial monopoly of the trade of the East was abolished, and the trade thrown open to the merchants of the world [see INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833]. There were other slaves in those days as well as the negro. There were slaves at home, slaves to all intents and purposes, who were condemned to a servitude as rigorous as that of the negro, and who, as far as personal treatment went, suffered more severely than negroes in the better class plantations. We speak now of the workers in the great mines and factories. No law up to this time regulated with anything like reasonable stringency the hours of labour in factories. ... A commission was appointed to investigate the condition of those who worked in the factories. Lord Ashley, since everywhere known as the Earl of Shaftesbury, ... brought forward the motion which ended in the appointment of the commission. The commission quickly brought together an immense amount of evidence to show the terrible effect, moral and physical, of the over-working of women and children, and an agitation set in for the purpose of limiting by law the duration of the hours of labour. ... The principle of legislative interference to protect children working in factories was established by an Act passed in 1833, limiting the work of children to eight hours a day, and that of young persons under eighteen to 69 hours a week [see FACTORY LEGISLATION]. The agitation then set on foot and led by Lord Ashley was engaged for years after in endeavouring to give that principle a more extended application. ... Irish tithes were one of the grievances which came under the energetic action of this period of reform. The people of Ireland complained with justice of having to pay tithes for the maintenance of the church establishment in which they did not believe, and under whose roofs they never bent in worship." In 1832, committees of both Houses of Parliament reported in favor of the extinction of tithes; but the Government undertook temporarily a scheme whereby it made advances to the Irish clergy and assumed the collection of tithes among its own functions. It only succeeded in making matters worse, and several years passed before the adoption (in 1838) of a bill which "converted the tithe composition into a rent charge."

J. McCarthy, The Epoch of Reform, chapters 7-8.

ALSO IN: C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 8, chapter 17.

H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years' Peace, book 4, chapters 6-9 (volumes 2-3).

{957}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1840. Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement. The capture of Acre. Bombardment of Alexandria.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1845. The Oxford or Tractarian Movement.

See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837. Resignation of Lord Grey and the Reform Ministry. The first Melbourne Administration. Peel's first Ministry and Melbourne's second. Death of William IV. Accession of Queen Victoria.

"On May 27th, Mr. Ward, member of St. Albans, brought forward ... resolutions, that the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland much exceeded the spiritual wants of the Protestant population; that it was the right of the State, and of Parliament, to distribute church property, and that the temporal possessions of the Irish church ought to be reduced. The ministers determined to adopt a middle course and appoint a commission of inquiry; they hoped thereby to induce Mr. Ward to withdraw his motion, because the question was already in government hands. While the negotiations were going on, news was received of the resignation of four of the most conservative members of the Cabinet, who regarded any interference with church property with abhorrence; they were Mr. Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Duke of Richmond, and the Earl of Ripon. ... Owing to the difference of opinion in the Cabinet on the Irish coercion bill, on July 9, 1834, Earl Grey placed his resignation as Prime Minister in the hands of the king. On the 10th the House of Commons adjourned for four days. On the 14th, Viscount Melbourne stated in the House of Lords that his Majesty had honored him with his commands for the formation of a ministry. He had undertaken the task, but it was not yet completed. There was very little change in the Cabinet; Lord Melbourne's place in the Home Department was filled by Lord Duncannon; Sir John Cam Hobhouse obtained a seat as First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and Lord Carlisle surrendered the Privy Seal to Lord Mulgrave. The Irish Church Bill was again brought forward, and although it passed the Commons, was defeated in the Lords, August 1st. The king much disliked the church policy of the Whigs, and dreaded reform. He was eager to prevent the meeting of the House, and circumstances favored him. Before the session Lord Spencer died, and Lord Althorpe, his son, was thus removed to the upper House. There was no reason why this should have broken up the ministry, but the king seized the opportunity, sent for Lord Melbourne, asserted that the ministry depended chiefly on the personal influence of Lord Althorpe in the Commons, declared that, deprived of it as it now was, the government could not go on, and dismissed his ministers, instructing Melbourne at once to send for the Duke of Wellington. The sensation in London was great; the dismissal of the ministry was considered unconstitutional; the act of the king was wholly without precedent. ... The Duke of Wellington, from November 15th to December 9th, was the First Lord of the Treasury, and the sole Secretary of State, having only one colleague, Lord Lyndhurst, who held the great seal, while at the same time he sat as Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer. This temporary government was called a dictatorship. ... On Sir Robert Peel's return from Italy, whence he had been called, he waited upon the king and accepted the office of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. With the king's permission, he applied to Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham, entreating them to give him the benefit of their co-operation as colleagues in the Cabinet. They both declined. Prevented from forming a moderate Conservative ministry, he was reduced to fill his places with men of more pronounced opinions, which promised ill for any advance in reform. ... The Foreign, Home, War, and Colonial offices were filled by Wellington, Goulburn, Herries, and Aberdeen; Lord Lyndhurst was Lord Chancellor; Harding, Secretary for Ireland; and Lord Wharncliffe, Privy Seal. With this ministry Peel had to meet a hostile House of Commons. ... The Prime Minister therefore thought it necessary to dissolve Parliament, and took the opportunity [in what was called 'the Tamworth manifesto'] of declaring his policy. He declared his acceptance of the Reform Bill as a final settlement of the question. ... The elections, though they returned a House, as is generally the case, more favorable to the existing government than that which had been dissolved, still gave a considerable majority to the Liberals. ... Lord John Russell, on April 7th, proposed the resolution, 'That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the subject of the tithes in Ireland can lead to satisfactory and final adjustment which does not embody the temporalities of the Church in Ireland.' This was adopted by a majority of 27, and that majority was fatal to the ministry. On the following day the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, stated that in consequence of the resolution in the House of Commons, the ministry had tendered their resignation. Sir Robert made a similar explanation in the Commons. Ten days later, Viscount Melbourne, in moving the adjournment of the House of Lords, stated that the king had been pleased to appoint him First Lord of the Treasury. ... On June 9, 1837, a bulletin issued from Windsor Castle informing a loyal and really affectionate people that the king was ill. From the 12th they were regularly issued until the 19th, when the malady, inflammation of the lungs, had greatly increased. ... On Tuesday, June 20th, the last of these official documents was issued. His Majesty had expired that morning at 2 o'clock. William died in the seventy-second year of his age and seventh year of his reign, leaving no legitimate issue. He was succeeded by his niece, Alexandrina Victoria."

A. H. McCalman, Abridged History of England, pages 565-570.

ALSO IN: W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel, volume 2, chapters 10-12.

W. M. Torrens, Memoirs of Viscount Melbourne, volume 2, chapters 1-8.

J. W. Croker, Correspondence and Diaries, chapters 18-20 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1836-1839. Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law Agitation.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1837. Separation of Hanover.

See HANOVER: A. D. 1837.

{958}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839. Opening of the reign of Queen Victoria. End of personal rule. Beginning of purely constitutional government. Peel and the Bedchamber Question.

"The Duke of Wellington thought the accession of a woman to the sovereign's place would be fatal to the present hopes of the Tories [who were then expecting a turn of events in their favor, as against the Whig administration of Lord Melbourne]. 'Peel,' he said, 'has no manners, and I have no small talk.' He seemed to take it for granted that the new sovereign would choose her Ministers as a school-girl chooses her companions. He did not know, did not foresee, that with the accession of Queen Victoria the real reign of constitutional government in these islands was to begin. The late King had advanced somewhat on the ways of his predecessors, but his rule was still, to all intents and purposes, a personal rule. With the accession of Victoria the system of personal rule came to an end. The elections which at that time were necessary on the coming of a new sovereign went slightly in favour of the Tories. The Whigs had many troubles. They were not reformers enough for the great body of their supporters. ... The Radicals had split off from them. They could not manage O'Connell. The Chartist fire was already burning. There was many a serious crisis in foreign policy--in China and in Egypt, for example. The Canadian Rebellion and the mission of Lord Durham involved the Whigs in fresh anxieties, and laid them open to new attacks from their enemies. On the top of all came some disturbances, of a legislative rather than an insurrectionary kind, in Jamaica, and the Government felt called upon to bring in a Bill to suspend for five years the Constitution of the island. A Liberal and reforming Ministry bringing in a Bill to suspend a Constitution is in a highly awkward and dangerous position. Peel saw his opportunity, and opposed the Bill. The Government won by a majority of only 5. Lord Melbourne accepted the situation, and resigned [May 7, 1839]. The Queen sent for the Duke of Wellington, and he, of course, advised her to send for Peel. When Peel came, the young Queen told him with all the frankness of a girl that she was sorry to part with her late Ministers, and that she did not disapprove of their conduct, but that she felt bound to act in accordance with constitutional usages; Peel accepted the task of forming an Administration. And then came the famous dispute known as the 'Bedchamber Question'--the 'question de jupons.' The Queen wished to retain her ladies-in-waiting; Peel insisted that there must be some change. Two of these ladies were closely related to Whig statesmen whose policy was diametrically opposed to that of Peel on no less important a question than the Government of Ireland. Peel insisted that he could not undertake to govern under such conditions. The Queen, acting on the advice of her late Ministers, would not give way. The whole dispute created immense excitement at the time. There was a good deal of misunderstanding on both sides. It was quietly settled, soon after, by a compromise which the late Prince Consort suggested, and which admitted that Peel had been in the right. ... Its importance to us now is that, as Peel would not give way, the Whigs had to come back again, and they came back discredited and damaged, having, as Mr. Molesworth puts it, got back 'behind the petticoats of the ladies-in-waiting.'"

J. McCarthy, Sir Robert Peel, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: W. N. Molesworth, History of England, 1830-1874, volume 2, chapter 1.

H_. Dunckley, Lord Melbourne, chapter 11._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1837. The Victorian Age in Literature.

"It may perhaps be assumed without any undue amount of speculative venturesomeness that the age of Queen Victoria will stand out in history as the period of a literature as distinct from others as the age of Elizabeth or Anne, although not perhaps equal in greatness to the latter, and far indeed below the former. At the opening of Queen Victoria's reign a great race of literary men had come to a close. It is curious to note how sharply and completely the literature of Victoria separates itself from that of the era whose heroes were Scott, Byron, and Wordsworth: Before Queen Victoria came to the throne, Scott, Byron, Coleridge, and Keats were dead. Wordsworth lived, indeed, for many years after; so did Southey and Moore; and Savage Landor died much later still. But Wordsworth, Southey, Moore, and Landor had completed their literary work before Victoria came to the throne. Not one of them added a cubit or an inch to his intellectual stature from that time; some of them even did work which distinctly proved that their day was done. A new and fresh breath was soon after breathed into literature. Nothing, perhaps, is more remarkable about the better literature of the age of Queen Victoria than its complete severance from the leadership of that which had gone before it, and its evidence of a fresh and genuine inspiration. It is a somewhat curious fact, too, very convenient for the purposes of this history, that the literature of Queen Victoria's time thus far divides itself clearly enough into two parts. The poets, novelists, and historians who were making their fame with the beginning of the reign had done all their best work and made their mark before these later years, and were followed by a new and different school, drawing inspiration from wholly different sources, and challenging comparison as antagonists rather than disciples. We speak now only of literature. In science the most remarkable developments were reserved for the later years of the reign."

_J. McCarthy, The Literature of the Victorian Reign (Appletons' Journal, January, 1879, page 498)._

"The age of Queen Victoria is as justly entitled to give name to a literary epoch as any of those periods on which this distinction has been conferred by posterity. A new tone of thought and a new colour of style are discernible from about the date of the Queen's accession, and, even should these characteristics continue for generations without apparent break, it will be remembered that the Elizabethan age did not terminate with Elizabeth. In one important respect, however, it differs from most of those epochs which derive their appellation from a sovereign. The names of Augustus, Lorenzo, Louis XIV., Anne, are associated with a literary advance, a claim to have bequeathed models for imitation to succeeding ages. This claim is not preferred on behalf of the age of Victoria. It represents the fusion of two currents which had alternately prevailed in successive periods. Delight and Utility met, Truth and Imagination kissed each other. Practical reform awoke the enthusiasm of genius, and genius put poetry to new use, or made a new path for itself in prose. The result has been much gain, some loss, and an originality of aspect which would alone render our Queen's reign intellectually memorable. {959} Looking back to the 18th century in England, we see the spirit of utility entirely in the ascendant. Intellectual power is as great as ever, immortal books are written as of old, but there is a general incapacity not only for the production, but for the comprehension of works of the imagination. Minds as robust as Johnson's, as acute as Hume's, display neither strength nor intelligence in their criticism of the Elizabethan writers, and their professed regard for even the masterpieces of antiquity is evidently in the main conventional. Conversely, when the spell is broken and the capacity for imaginative composition returns, the half-century immediately preceding her Majesty's accession does not, outside the domain of the ideal, produce a single work of the first class. Hallam, the elder Mill, and others compose, indeed, books of great value, but not great books. In poetry and romantic fiction, on the other hand, the genius of that age reaches a height unattained since Milton, and probably not destined to be rivalled for many generations. In the age of Victoria we witness the fusion of its predecessors."

R. Garnett, Literature (The Reign of Queen Victoria, edited by T. H. Ward, volume 2, pages 445-446).

"The most conspicuous of the substantial distinctions between the literature of the present day and that of the first quarter or third of the century may be described as consisting in the different relative positions at the two dates of Prose and Verse. In the Georgian era verse was in the ascendant; in the Victorian era the supremacy has passed to prose. It is not easy for anyone who has grown up in the latter to estimate aright the universal excitement which used to be produced in the former by a new poem of Scott's, or Byron's, or Moore's, or Campbell's, or Crabbe's, or the equally fervid interest that was taken throughout a more limited circle in one by Wordsworth, or Southey, or Shelley. There may have been a power in the spirit of poetry which that of prose would in vain aspire to. Probably all the verse ages would be found to have been of higher glow than the prose ones. The age in question, at any rate, will hardly be denied by anyone who remembers it to have been in these centuries, perhaps from the mightier character of the events and circumstances in the midst of which we were then placed, an age in which the national heart beat more strongly than it does at present in regard to other things as well as this. Its reception of the great poems that succeeded one another so rapidly from the first appearance of Scott till the death of Byron was like its reception of the succession of great victories that, ever thickening, and almost unbroken by a single defeat, filled up the greater part of the ten years from Trafalgar to Waterloo--from the last fight of Nelson to the last of Wellington. No such huzzas, making the welkin ring with the one voice of a whole people, and ascending alike from every city and town and humblest village in the land, have been heard since then. ... Of course, there was plenty of prose also written throughout the verse era; but no book in prose that was then produced greatly excited the public mind, or drew any considerable amount of attention, till the Waverley novels began to appear; and even that remarkable series of works did not succeed in at once reducing poetry to the second place, however chief a share it may have had in hastening that result. Of the other prose writing that then went on what was most effective was that of the periodical press,--of the Edinburgh Review and Cobbett's Register, and, at a later date, of Blackwood's Magazine and the London Magazine (the latter with Charles Lamb and De Quincey among its contributors),--much of it owing more or less of its power to its vehement political partisanship. A descent from poetry to prose is the most familiar of all phenomena in the history of literature. Call it natural decay or degeneracy, or only a relaxation which the spirit of a people requires after having been for a certain time on the wing or on the stretch, it is what a period of more than ordinary poetical productiveness always ends in."

G. L. Craik, Compendious History of English Literature, volume 2, pages 553-555.

"What ... are the specific channels of Victorian utterance in verse? To define them is difficult, because they are so subtly varied and so inextricably interwoven. Yet I think they may be superficially described as the idyll and the lyric. Under the idyll I should class all narrative and descriptive poetry, of which this age has been extraordinarily prolific; sometimes assuming the form of minstrelsy, as in the lays of Scott; sometimes approaching to the classic style, as in the Hellenics of Landor; sometimes rivalling the novellette, as in the work of Tennyson; sometimes aiming at psychological analysis, as in the portraits drawn by Robert Browning; sometimes confining art to bare history, as in Crabbe; sometimes indulging flights of pure artistic fancy, as in Keats' "Endymion" and "Lamia." Under its many metamorphoses the narrative and descriptive poetry of our century bears the stamp of the idyll, because it is fragmentary and because it results in a picture. ... No literature and no age has been more fertile of lyric poetry than English literature in the age of Victoria. The fact is apparent. I should superfluously burden my readers if I were to prove the point by reference to Byron, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Rossetti, Clough, Swinburne, Arnold, Tennyson, and I do not know how many of less illustrious but splendid names, in detail. The causes are not far to seek. Without a comprehensive vehicle like the epic, which belongs to the first period of national life, or the drama, which belongs to its secondary period, our poets of a later day have had to sing from their inner selves, subjectively, introspectively, obeying impulses from nature and the world, which touched them not as they were Englishmen, but as they were this man or that woman. ... When they sang, they sang with their particular voice; and the lyric is the natural channel for such song. But what a complex thing is this Victorian lyric! It includes Wordsworth's sonnets and Rossetti's ballads, Coleridge's' Ancient Mariner' and Keats' odes, Clough's 'Easter day' and Tennyson's 'Maud,' Swinburne's 'Songs before Sunrise' and Browning's 'Dramatis Personæ,' Thomson's 'City of Dreadful Night' and Mary Robinson's 'Handful of Honeysuckles,' Andrew Lang's Ballades and Sharp's 'Weird of Michael Scot,' Dobson's dealings with the eighteenth century and Noel's 'Child's Garland,' Barnes's Dorsetshire Poems and Buchanan's London Lyrics, the songs from Empedocles on Etna and Ebenezer Jones's 'Pagan's Drinking Chant,' Shelley's Ode to the West Wind and Mrs. Browning's 'Pan is Dead,' Newman's hymns and Gosse's Chant Royal. {960} The kaleidoscope presented by this lyric is so inexhaustible that any man with the fragment of a memory might pair off scores of poems by admired authors, and yet not fall upon the same parallels as those which I have made. The genius of our century, debarred from epic, debarred from drama, falls back upon idyllic and lyrical expression. In the idyll it satisfies its objective craving after art. In the lyric it pours forth personality. It would be wrong, however, to limit the wealth of our poetry to these two branches. Such poems as Wordsworth's 'Excursion,' Byron's 'Don Juan' and 'Childe Harold,' Mrs. Browning's 'Aurora Leigh,' William Morris's 'Earthly Paradise,' Clough's 'Amours de Voyage,' are not to be classified in either species. They are partly autobiographical, and in part the influence of the tale makes itself distinctly felt in them. Nor again can we omit the translations, of which so many have been made; some of them real masterpieces and additions to our literature."

J. A. Symonds, A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry (Fortnightly Review, January 1, 1889, pages 62-64).

The difference between the drama and the novel "is one of perspective; and it is this which in a wide sense distinguishes the Elizabethan and the Victorian views of life, and thence of art. ... It is ... the present aim of art to throw on life all manner of side-lights, such as the stage can hardly contrive, but which the novel professes to manage for those who can read. The round unvarnished tale of the early novelists has been dead for over a century, and in its place we have fiction that seeks to be as complete as life itself. ... There is, then, in each of these periods an excellence and a relative defect: in the Elizabethan, roundness and balance, but, to us, a want of fulness; in the Victorian, amplified knowledge, but a falling short of comprehensiveness. And adapted to each respectively, the drama and the novel are its most expressive literary form. The limitations and scope of the drama are those of its time, and so of the novel. Even as the Elizabethan lived with all his might and was not troubled about many things, his art was intense and round, but restricted; and as the Victorian commonly views life by the light of a patent reading-lamp, and so, sitting apart, sees much to perplex, the novel gives a more complex treatment of life, with rarer success in harmony. This rareness is not, however, due to the novel itself, but to the minds of its makers. In possibility it is indeed the greater of the two, being more epical; for it is as capable of grandeur, and is ampler. This largeness in Victorian life and art argues in the great novelists a quality of spirit which it is difficult to name without being misunderstood, and which is peculiarly non-Elizabethan. It argues what Burns would call a castigated pulse, a supremacy over passion. Yet they are not Lucretian gods, however calm their atmosphere; their minds are not built above humanity, but, being rooted deep in it, rise high. ... Both periods are at heart earnest, and the stamp on the great literature of each is that of reality, heightened and made powerful by romance. Nor is their agreement herein greatly shaken by the novel laying considerable stress on the outside of life, while the drama is almost heedless of it; for they both seek to break into the kernel, their variance being chiefly one of method, dictated by difference of knowledge, taste, and perception."

T. D. Robb, The Elizabethan Drama and the Victorian Novel (Lippincott's Monthly Magazine, April, 1891, pages 520-522).

England: A. D. 1838-1842. The Chartist agitation.

"When the Parliament was opened by the Queen on the 5th of February, 1839, a passage in the Royal Speech had reference to a state of domestic affairs which presented an unhappy contrast to the universal loyalty which marked the period of the Coronation. Her Majesty said: 'I have observed with pain the persevering efforts which have been made in some parts of the country to excite my subjects to disobedience and resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous and illegal practices.' Chartism, which for ten subsequent years occasionally agitated the country, had then begun to take root. On the previous 12th of December a proclamation had been issued against illegal Chartist assemblies, several of which had been held, says the proclamation, 'after sunset by torchlight.' The persons attending these meetings were armed with guns and pikes; and demagogues, such as Feargus O'Connor and the Rev. Mr. Stephens at Bury, addressed the people in the most inflammatory language. ... The document called 'The People's Charter,' which was embodied in the form of a bill in 1838, comprised six points:--universal suffrage, excluding, however, women; division of the United Kingdom into equal electoral districts; vote by ballot; annual parliaments; no property qualification for members; and a payment to every member for his legislative services. These principles so quickly recommended themselves to the working-classes that in the session of 1839 the number of signatures to a petition presented to Parliament was upwards of a million and a quarter. The middle classes almost universally looked with extreme jealousy and apprehension upon any attempt for an extension of the franchise. The upper classes for the most part regarded the proceedings of the Chartists with a contempt which scarcely concealed their fears. This large section of the working population very soon became divided into what were called physical-force Chartists and moral-force Chartists. As a natural consequence, the principles and acts of the physical-force Chartists disgusted every supporter of order and of the rights of property."

C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 8, chapter 23.

"Nothing can be more unjust than to represent the leaders and promoters of the movement as mere factious and self-seeking demagogues. Some of them were men of great ability and eloquence; some were impassioned young poets, drawn from the class whom Kingsley has described in his 'Alton Locke'; some were men of education; many were earnest and devoted fanatics; and, so far as we can judge, all, or nearly all, were sincere. Even the man who did the movement most harm, and who made himself most odious to all reasonable outsiders, the once famous, now forgotten, Feargus O'Connor, appears to have been sincere, and to have personally lost more than he gained by his Chartism. ... He was of commanding presence, great stature, and almost gigantic strength. He had education; he had mixed in good society; he belonged to an old family. ... There were many men in the movement of a nobler moral nature than poor, huge, wild Feargus O'Connor. There were men like Thomas Cooper, ... devoted, impassioned, full of poetic aspiration, and no scant measure of poetic inspiration as well. Henry Vincent was a man of unimpeachable character. ... {961} Ernest Jones was as sincere and self-sacrificing a man as ever joined a sinking cause. ... It is necessary to read such a book as Thomas Cooper's Autobiography to understand how genuine was the poetic and political enthusiasm which was at the heart of the Chartist movement, and how bitter was the suffering which drove into its ranks so many thousands of stout working men who, in a country like England, might well have expected to be able to live by the hard work they were only too willing to do. One must read the Anti-Corn-Law Rhymes of Ebenezer Elliott to understand how the 'bread tax' became identified in the minds of the very best of the working class, and identified justly, with the system of political and economical legislation which was undoubtedly kept up, although not of conscious purpose, for the benefit of a class. ... A whole literature of Chartist newspapers sprang up to advocate the cause. The 'Northern Star,' owned and conducted by Feargus O'Connor, was the most popular and influential of them; but every great town had its Chartist press. Meetings were held at which sometimes very violent language was employed. ... A formidable riot took place in Birmingham, where the authorities endeavoured to put down a Chartist meeting. ... Efforts were made at times to bring about a compromise with the middle-class Liberals and the Anti-Corn-Law leaders; but all such attempts proved failures. The Chartists would not give up their Charter; many of them would not renounce the hope of seeing it carried by force. The Government began to prosecute some of the orators and leaders of the Charter movement; and some of these were convicted, imprisoned and treated with great severity. Henry Vincent's imprisonment at Newport, in Wales, was the occasion of an attempt at rescue [November 4, 1839] which bore a very close resemblance indeed to a scheme of organised and armed rebellion." A conflict occurred in which ten of the Chartists were killed, and some 50 were wounded. Three of the leaders, named Frost, Williams, and Jones, were tried and convicted on the charge of high treason, and were sentenced to death; but the sentence was commuted to one of transportation. "The trial and conviction of Frost, Williams, and Jones, did not put a stop to the Chartist agitation. On the contrary, that agitation seemed rather to wax and strengthen and grow broader because of the attempt at Newport and its consequences. ... There was no lack of what were called energetic measures on the part of the Government. The leading Chartists all over the country were prosecuted and tried, literally by hundreds. In most cases they were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. ... The working classes grew more and more bitter against the Whigs, who they said had professed Liberalism only to gain their own ends. ... There was a profound distrust of the middle class and their leaders," and it was for that reason that the Chartists would not join hands with the Anti-Corn-Law movement, then in full progress. "It is clear that at that time the Chartists, who represented the bulk of the artisan class in most of the large towns, did in their very hearts believe that England was ruled for the benefit of aristocrats and millionaires who were absolutely indifferent to the sufferings of the poor. It is equally clear that most of what are called the ruling class did really believe the English working men who joined the Chartist movement to be a race of fierce, unmanageable, and selfish communists, who, if they were allowed their own way for a moment, would prove themselves determined to overthrow throne, altar, and all established securities of society."

J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, chapter 5 (volume 1).

Among the measures of coercion advocated in the councils of the Chartists was that of appointing and observing what was to be called a "'sacred month,' during which the working classes throughout the whole kingdom were to abstain from every kind of labour, in the hope of compelling the governing classes to concede the charter."

W. N. Molesworth, History of England, 1830-1874, volume 2, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: T. Cooper, Life, by himself, chapter 14-23.

W. Lovett, Life and Struggles, chapters 8-15.

T. Frost, Forty Years' Recollections, chapters 3-11.

H. Jephson, The Platform, part 4, chapters 17 and 19 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1839-1842. The Opium War with China.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1840. Adoption of Penny-Postage.

"In 1837 Mr. Rowland Hill had published his plan of a cheap and uniform postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1837, which continued its inquiries throughout the session of 1838, and arrived at the conviction that the plan was feasible, and deserving of a trial under legislative sanction. After much discussion, and the experiment of a varying charge, the uniform rate for a letter not weighing more than half an ounce became, by order of the Treasury, one penny. This great reform came into operation on the 10th of January, 1840. Its final accomplishment is mainly due to the sagacity and perseverance of the man who first conceived the scheme."

C. Knight, Crown History of England, page 883.

"Up to this time the rates of postage on letters were very heavy, and varied according to the distance. For instance, a single letter conveyed from one part of a town to another cost 2d.; a letter from Reading, to London 7d.; from Brighton, 8d.; from Aberdeen, 1s. 3½d.; from Belfast, 1s. 4d. If the letter was written on more than a single sheet, the rate of postage was much higher."

W. N. Molesworth, History of England, 1830-1874, volume 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: _G. B. Hill, Life of Sir Rowland Hill._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1840. The Queen's marriage.

"On January 16,1840, the Queen, opening Parliament in person, announced her intention to marry her cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg-Gotha--a step which she trusted would be 'conducive to the interests of my people as well as to my own domestic happiness.' ... It was indeed a marriage founded on affection. ... The Queen had for a long time loved her cousin. He was nearly her own age, the Queen being the elder by three months and two or three days. Francis Charles Augustus Albert Emmanuel was the full name of the young Prince. He was the second son of Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and of his wife Louisa, daughter of Augustus, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenberg. Prince Albert was born at the Rosenau, one of his father's residences, near Coburg, on August 26, 1819. ... A marriage between the Princess Victoria and Prince Albert had been thought of as desirable among the families on both sides, but it was always wisely resolved that nothing should be said to the young Princess on the subject unless she herself showed a distinct liking for her cousin. {962} In 1836, Prince Albert was brought by his father to England, and made the personal acquaintance of the Princess, and she seems at once to have been drawn toward him in the manner which her family and friends would most have desired. ... The marriage of the Queen and the Prince took place on February 10, 1840."

J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842. Interference in Afghanistan. The first Afghan War.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838; 1838-1842; 1842-1869.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842. Fall of the Melbourne Ministry. Opening of the second administration of Sir Robert Peel.

In 1841, the Whig Ministry (Melbourne's) determined "to do something for freedom of trade. ... Colonial timber and sugar were charged with a duty lighter than was imposed on foreign timber and sugar; and foreign sugar paid a lighter or a heavier duty according as it was imported from countries of slave labour or countries of free labour. It was resolved to raise the duty on colonial timber, but to lower the duty on foreign timber and foreign sugar, and at the same time to replace the sliding scale of the Corn Laws then in force [see TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828] with a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter. ... The concessions offered by the Ministry, too small to excite the enthusiasm of the free traders, were enough to rally all the threatened interests around Peel. Baring's revision of the sugar duties was rejected by a majority of 36. Everybody expected the Ministers to resign upon this defeat; but they merely announced the continuance of the former duties. Then Peel gave notice of a vote of want of confidence, and carried it on the 4th of June by a single vote in a House of 623 members. Instead of resigning, the Ministers appealed to the country. The elections went on through the last days of June and the whole of July. When the new Parliament was complete, it appeared that the Conservatives could count upon 367 votes in the House of Commons. The Ministry met Parliament on the 24th of August. Peel in the House of Commons and Ripon in the House of Lords moved amendments to the Address, which were carried by majorities of 91 and 72 respectively." The Ministry resigned and a Conservative Government was formed, with Peel at its head, as First Lord of the Treasury. "Wellington entered the Cabinet without office, and Lyndhurst assumed for the third time the honours of Lord Chancellor." Among the lesser members of the Administration--not in the Cabinet--was Mr. Gladstone, who became Vice-President of the Board of Trade. "This time Peel experienced no difficulty with regard to the Queen's Household. It had been previously arranged that in the case of Lord Melbourne's resignation three Whig Ladies, the Duchess of Bedford, the Duchess of Sutherland, and Lady Normanby, should resign of their own accord. One or two other changes in the Household contented Peel, and these the Queen accorded with a frankness which placed him entirely at his ease. ... During the recess Peel took a wide survey of the ills affecting the commonwealth, and of the possible remedies. To supply the deficiency in the revenue without laying new burthens upon the humbler class; to revive our fainting manufactures by encouraging the importation of raw material; to assuage distress by making the price of provisions lower and more regular, without taking away that protection which he still believed essential to British agriculture: these were the tasks which Peel now bent his mind to compass. ... Having solved [the problems] to his own satisfaction, he had to persuade his colleagues that they were right. Only one proved obstinate. The Duke of Buckingham would hear of no change in the degree of protection afforded to agriculture. He surrendered the Privy Seal, which was given to the Duke of Buccleugh. ... The Queen's Speech recommended Parliament to consider the state of the laws affecting the importation of corn and other commodities. It announced the beginning of a revolution which few persons in England thought possible, although it was to be completed in little more than ten years."

F. C. Montague, Life of Sir Robert Peel, chapter 7-8.

ALSO IN: J. R. Thursfield, Peel, chapter 7-8.

W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel, volume 3, chapters 3-5.

J. W. Croker, Correspondence and Diaries, chapter 22 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1842. The Ashburton Treaty with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846. Repeal of the Corn Laws and dissolution of the League.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1845-1846.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846. First war with the Sikhs.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1846. Settlement of the Oregon Boundary Question with the United States.

See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1846. The vengeance of the Tory-Protectionists. Overthrow of Peel. Advent of Disraeli. Ministry of Lord John Russell.

"Strange to say, the day when the Bill [extinguishing the duties on corn] was read in the House of Lords for the third time [June 25] saw the fall of Peel's Ministry. The fall was due to the state of Ireland. The Government had been bringing in a Coercion Bill for Ireland. It was introduced while the Corn Bill was yet passing through the House of Commons. The situation was critical. All the Irish followers of Mr. O'Connell would be sure to oppose the Coercion Bill. The Liberal party, at least when out of office, had usually made it their principle to oppose Coercion Bills, if they were not attended with some promises of legislative reform. The English Radical members, led by Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, were certain to oppose coercion. If the protectionists should join with these other opponents of the Coercion Bill, the fate of the measure was assured, and with it the fate of the Government. This was exactly what happened. Eighty Protectionists followed Lord George Bentinck into the lobby against the Bill, in combination with the Free Traders, the Whigs, and the Irish Catholic and national members. The division took place on the second reading of the Bill on Thursday, June 25, and there was a majority of 73 against the Ministry."

J. McCarthy, The Epoch of Reform, page 183.

{963}

The revengeful Tory-Protectionist attack on Peel was led by Sir George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli, then just making himself felt in the House of Commons. It was distinctly grounded upon no objection in principle to the Irish Coercion Bill, but on the declaration that they could "no longer trust Peel, and, must therefore refuse to give him unconstitutional powers.' ... He had twice betrayed the party who had trusted his promises. ... 'The gentlemen of England,' of whom it had once been Sir Robert's proudest boast to be the leader, declared against him. He was beaten by an overpowering majority, and his career as an English Minister was closed. Disraeli's had been the hand which dethroned him, and to Disraeli himself, after three years of anarchy and uncertainty, descended the task of again building together the shattered ruins of the Conservative party. Very unwillingly they submitted to the unwelcome necessity. Canning and the elder Pitt had both been called adventurers, but they had birth and connection, and they were at least Englishmen. Disraeli had risen out of a despised race; he had never sued for their favours; he had voted and spoken as he pleased, whether they liked it or not. ... He was without Court favour, and had hardly a powerful friend except Lord Lyndhurst. He had never been tried on the lower steps of the official ladder. He was young, too--only 42--after all the stir that he had made. There was no example of a rise so sudden under such conditions. But the Tory party had accepted and cheered his services, and he stood out alone among them as a debater of superior power. Their own trained men had all deserted them. Lord George remained for a year or two as nominal chief: but Lord George died; the conservatives could only consolidate themselves under a real leader, and Disraeli was the single person that they had who was equal to the situation. ... He had overthrown Peel and succeeded to Peel's honours."

J. A. Froude, Lord Beaconsfield, chapter 9.

Although the Tory-Protectionists had accomplished the overthrow of Peel, they were not prepared to take the Government into their own hands. The new Ministry was formed under Lord John Russell, as First Lord of the Treasury, with Lord Palmerston in the Foreign Office, Sir George Grey in the Home Department, Earl Grey Colonial Secretary, Sir C. Wood Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Macaulay Paymaster-General.

W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel, volume 3, chapter 11.

The most important enactment of the Coercion Bill "(which subsequently gave it the name of the Curfew Act) was that which conferred on the executive Government the power in proclaimed districts of forbidding persons to be out of their dwellings between sunset and sunrise. The right of proclaiming a district as a disturbed district was placed in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant, who might station additional constabulary there, the whole expense of which was to be borne by the district."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, page 137.

ALSO IN: S. Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, chapter 16 (volume 1).

B. Disraeli, Lord George Bentinck, chapter 14-16.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1846. Difference with France on the Spanish marriages.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1848. The last Chartist demonstration.

"The more violent Chartists had broken from the Radical reformers, and had themselves divided into two sections; for their nominal leader, Feargus O'Connor, was at bitter enmity with more thoroughgoing and earnest leaders such as O'Brien and Cooper. O'Connor had not proved a very efficient guide. He had entered into a land scheme of a somewhat doubtful character. ... He had also injudiciously taken up a position of active hostility to the free-traders, and while thus appearing as the champion of a falling cause had alienated many of his supporters. Yet the Parliament elected in 1846 contained several representatives of the Chartist principles, and O'Connor himself had been returned for Nottingham by a large majority over Hobhouse, a member of the new Ministry. The revolution in France gave a sudden and enormous impulse to the agitation. The country was filled with meetings at which violent speeches were uttered and hints, not obscure, dropped of the forcible establishment of a republic in England. A new Convention was summoned for the 6th of April, a vast petition was prepared, and a meeting, at which it was believed that half a million of people would have been present, was summoned to meet on Kennington Common on the 10th of April for the purpose of carrying the petition to the House in procession. The alarm felt in London was very great. It was thought necessary to swear in special constables, and the wealthier classes came forward in vast numbers to be enrolled. There are said to have been no less than 170,000 special constables. The military arrangements were entrusted to the Duke of Wellington; the public offices were guarded and fortified; public vehicles were forbidden to pass the streets lest they should be employed for barricades; and measures were taken to prevent the procession from crossing the bridges. ... Such a display of determination seemed almost ridiculous when compared with what actually occurred. But it was in fact the cause of the harmless nature of the meeting. Instead of half a million, about 30,000 men assembled on Kennington Common. Feargus O'Connor was there; Mr. Maine, the Commissioner of Police, called him aside, told him he might hold his meeting, but that the procession would be stopped, and that he would be held personally responsible for any disorder that might occur. His heart had already begun to fail him, and he ... used all his influence to put an end to the procession. His prudent advice was followed, and no disturbance of any importance took place. ... The air of ridicule thrown over the Chartist movement by the abortive close of a demonstration which had been heralded with so much violent talk was increased by the disclosures attending the presentation of the petition." There were found to be only 2,000,000 names appended to the document, instead of 5,000,000 as claimed, and great numbers of them were manifestly spurious. "This failure proved a deathblow to Chartism."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, pages 176-178.

ALSO IN: S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, chapter 20 (volume 4).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1848-1849. Second war with the Sikhs. Conquest and annexation of the Punjab.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1849. Repeal of the Navigation Laws.

See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850. The Don Pacifico Affair. Lord Palmerston's speech.

The little difficulty with Greece which came to a crisis in the last weeks of 1849 and the first, of 1850 (see GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850), and which was commonly called the Don Pacifico Affair, gave occasion for a memorable speech in Parliament by Lord Palmerston, defending his foreign policy against attacks. {964} The speech (June 24, 1850), which occupied five hours, "from the dusk of one day till the dawn of another," was greatly admired, and proved immensely effective in raising the speaker's reputation. "The Don Pacifico debate was unquestionably an important landmark in the life of Lord Palmerston. Hitherto his merits had been known only to a select few; for the British public does not read Blue Books, and as a rule troubles itself very little about foreign politics at all. ... But the Pacifico speech caught the ear of the nation, and was received with a universal verdict of approval. From that hour Lord Palmerston became the man of the people, and his rise to the premiership only a question of time."

L. C. Sanders, Life of Viscount Palmerston, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: Marquis of Lorne, Viscount Palmerston, chapter 7.

J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, chapter 19 (volume 2).

J. Morley, Life of Cobden, volume 2, chapter 3.

T. Martin, Life of the Prince Consort, chapter 38 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850. The so-called Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with the United States, establishing a joint protectorate over the projected Nicaragua Canal.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850. Restoration of the Roman Episcopate. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1850.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850-1852. The London protocol and treaty on the Schleswig-Holstein Question.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1851. The Great Exhibition.

"The first of May, 1851, will always be memorable as the day on which the Great Exhibition was opened in Hyde Park. ... Many exhibitions of a similar kind have taken place since. Some of these far surpassed that of Hyde Park in the splendour and variety of the collections brought together. Two of them at least--those of Paris in 1867 and 1878--were infinitely superior in the array and display of the products, the dresses, the inhabitants of far-divided countries. But the impression which the Hyde Park Exhibition made upon the ordinary mind was like that of the boy's first visit to the play--an impression never to be equalled. ... It was the first organised to gather all the representatives of the world's industry into one great fair. ... The Hyde Park Exhibition was often described as the festival to open the long reign of Peace. It might, as a mere matter of chronology, be called without any impropriety the festival to celebrate the close of the short reign of Peace. From that year, 1851, it may be said fairly enough that the world has hardly known a week of peace. ... The first idea of the Exhibition was conceived by Prince Albert; and it was his energy and influence which succeeded in carrying the idea into practical execution. ... Many persons were disposed to sneer at it; many were sceptical about its doing any good; not a few still regarded Prince Albert as a foreigner and a pedant, and were slow to believe that anything really practical was likely to be developed under his impulse and protection. ... There was a great deal of difficulty in selecting a plan for the building. ... Happily, a sudden inspiration struck Mr. (afterward Sir Joseph) Paxton, who was then in charge of the Duke of Devonshire's superb grounds at Chatsworth. Why not try glass and iron? he asked himself. ... Mr. Paxton sketched out his plan hastily, and the idea was eagerly accepted by the Royal Commissioners. He made many improvements afterwards in his design; but the palace of glass and iron arose within the specified time on the green turf of Hyde Park."

J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, chapter 21 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: T. Martin, Life of the Prince Consort, chapters 33-36, 39, 42-43 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852. The Coup d'Etat in France and Lord Palmerston's dismissal from the Cabinet. Defeat and resignation of Lord John Russell. The first Derby Disraeli Ministry and the Aberdeen coalition Ministry.

The "coup d'etat" of December 2nd, 1851, by which Louis Napoleon made himself master of France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1851) brought about the dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the British Ministry, followed quickly by the overthrow of the Ministry which expelled him. "Lord Palmerston not only expressed privately to Count Walewski [the French ambassador] his approval of the 'coup d'etat,' but on the 16th of December wrote a despatch to Lord Normanby, our representative in Paris, expressing in strong terms his satisfaction at the success of the French President's arbitrary action. This despatch was not submitted either to the Prime Minister or to the Queen, and of course the offence was of too serious a character to be passed over. A great deal of correspondence ensued, and as Palmerston's explanations were not deemed satisfactory, and he had clearly broken the undertaking he gave some time previously, he was dismissed from office. ... There were some who thought him irretrievably crushed from this time forward; but a very short time only elapsed before he retrieved his fortunes and was as powerful as ever. In February 1852 Lord John Russell brought in a Militia Bill which was intended to develop a local militia for the defence of the country. Lord Palmerston strongly disapproved of the scope of the measure, and in committee moved an amendment to omit the word 'local,' so as to constitute a regular militia, which should be legally transportable all over the kingdom, and thus be always ready for any emergency. The Government were defeated by eleven votes, and as the Administration had been very weak for some time, Lord John resigned. Lord Derby formed a Ministry, and invited the cooperation of Palmerston, but the offer was declined, as the two statesmen differed on the question of imposing a duty on the importation of corn, and other matters.'

G. B. Smith, The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria, pages 264-265.

"The new Ministry [in which Mr. Disraeli became Chancellor of the Exchequer] took their seats on the 27th of February, but it was understood that a dissolution of Parliament would take place in the summer, by which the fate of the new Government would be decided, and that in the meantime the Opposition should hold its hand. The raw troops [of the Tory Party in the House of Commons], notwithstanding their inexperience, acquitted themselves with credit, and some good Bills were passed, the Militia Bill among the number, while a considerable addition to the strength of the Navy was effected by the Duke of Northumberland. No doubt, when the general election began, the party had raised itself considerably in public estimation. But for one consideration the country would probably have been quite willing to entrust its destinies to their hands. {965} But that one consideration was all important. ... The Government was obliged to go to the country, to some extent, on Protectionist principles. It was known that a Derbyite majority meant a moderate import duty; and the consequence was that Lord Derby just lost the battle, though by a very narrow majority. When Parliament met in November, Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli had a very difficult game to play. ... Negotiations were again opened with Palmerston and the Peelites, and on this occasion Gladstone and Mr. Sidney Herbert were willing to join if Lord Palmerston might lead in the House of Commons. But the Queen put her veto on this arrangement, which accordingly fell to the ground; and Lord Derby had to meet the Opposition attack without any reinforcements. ... On the 16th of December, ... being defeated on the Budget by a majority of 19, Lord Derby at once resigned."

T. E. Kebbel, Life of the Earl of Derby, chapter 6.

"The new Government [which succeeded that of Derby] was a coalition of Whigs and Peelites, with Sir William Molesworth thrown in to represent the Radicals. Lord Aberdeen became Prime Minister, and Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other Peelites in the Cabinet were the Duke of Newcastle, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert."

G. W. E. Russell, The Rt. Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, chapter 5.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1852. Second Burmese War. Annexation of Pegu.

See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1852-1853. Abandonment of Protection by the Conservatives. Further progress in Free Trade.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1846-1879.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1855. Civil-Service Reform.

See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1856. The Crimean War.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1855. Popular discontent with the management of the war. Fall of the Aberdeen Ministry. Palmerston's first premiership. A brightening of prospects.

"Our army system entirely broke down [in the Crimea], and Lord Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle were made the scapegoats of the popular indignation. ... But England was not only suffering from unpreparedness and want of administrative power in the War department; there were dissensions in the Cabinet. ... Lord John Russell gave so much trouble, that Lord Aberdeen, after one of the numerous quarrels and reconciliations which occurred at this juncture, wrote to the Queen that nothing but a sense of public duty and the necessity for avoiding the scandal of a rupture kept him at his post. ... At a little later stage ... the difficulties were renewed. Mr. Roebuck gave notice of his motion for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the condition of the army before Sebastopol, and Lord John definitively resigned. The Ministry remained in office to await the fate of Mr. Roebuck's motion, which was carried against them by the very large majority of 157. Lord Aberdeen now placed the resignation of the Cabinet in the hands of the Queen [January 31, 1855]. ... Thus fell the Coalition Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen. In talent and parliamentary influence it was apparently one of the strongest Governments ever seen, but it suffered from a fatal want of cohesion."

G. B. Smith, Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria, pages 227-230.

"Lord Palmerston had passed his 70th year when the Premiership came to him for the first time. On the fall of the Coalition Government the Queen sent for Lord Derby, and upon his failure for Lord John Russell. Palmerston was willing at the express request of her Majesty to serve once more under his old chief, but Clarendon and many of the Whigs not unnaturally positively refused to do so. Palmerston finally undertook and successfully achieved the task of forming a Government out of the somewhat heterogeneous elements at his command. Lord Clarendon continued at the Foreign Office, and Gladstone was still Chancellor of the Exchequer. The War Department was reorganised, the office of Secretary at War disappearing, and being finally merged in that of Secretary of State for War. Although Palmerston objected to Roebuck's Committee, he was practically compelled to accept it, and this led to the resignation of Gladstone, Graham and Herbert; their places being taken by Sir G. C. Lewis, Sir Charles Wood, and Lord John Russell."

Marquis of Lorne, Viscount Palmerston, chapter 10.

"It was a dark hour in the history of the nation when Lord Palmerston essayed the task which had been abandoned by the tried wisdom of Derby, Lansdowne, and John Russell. Far away in the Crimea the war was dragging on without much hope of a creditable solution, though the winter of discontent and mismanagement was happily over. The existence of the European concert was merely nominal. The Allies had discovered, many months previously, that, though Austria was staunch, Prussia was a faithless friend. ... Between the belligerent powers the cloud of suspicion and distrust grew thicker; for Abd-el-Medjid was known to be freely squandering his war loans on seraglios and palaces while Kars was starving; and though there was no reason for distrusting the present good faith of the Emperor of the French, his policy was straight-forward only as long as he kept himself free from the influence of the gang of stock-jobbers and adventurers who composed his Ministry. Nor was the horizon much brighter on the side of England. A series of weak cabinets, and the absence of questions of organic reform, had completely relaxed the bonds of Party. If there was no regular Opposition, still less was there a regular majority. ... And the hand that was to restore order out of chaos was not so steady as of yore. ... Lord Palmerston was not himself during the first weeks of his leadership. But the prospect speedily brightened. Though Palmerston was considerably over seventy, he still retained a wonderful vigour of constitution. He was soon restored to health, and was always to be found at his post. ... His generalship secured ample majorities for the Government in every division during the session. Of the energy which Lord Palmerston inspired into the operations against Sebastopol, there can hardly be two opinions."

L. C. Sanders, Life of Viscount Palmerston, chapter 10.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1855. Mr. Gladstone's Commission to the Ionian Islands.

See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1856-1860. War with China. French alliance in the war. Capture of Canton. Entrance into Pekin. Destruction of the Summer Palace.

See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

{966}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1857-1858. The Sepoy Mutiny in India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1858. Assumption of the government of India by the Crown. End of the rule of the East India Co.

See INDIA: A. D. 1858.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859. The Conspiracy Bill. Fall of Palmerston's government. Second Ministry of Derby and Disraeli. Lord Palmerston again Premier.

"On January 14, 1858, an attempt was made to assassinate Napoleon III. by a gang of desperadoes, headed by Orsini, whose head-quarters had previously been in London. Not without some reason it was felt in France that such men ought not to be able to find shelter in this country, and the French Minister was ordered to make representations to that effect. Lord Palmerston, always anxious to cultivate the good feeling of the French nation, desired to pass a measure which should give to the British Government the power to banish from England any foreigner conspiring in Britain against the life of a foreign sovereign. ... An unfortunate outburst of vituperation against England in the French press, and the repetition of such language by officers of the French army who were received by the Emperor when they waited on him as a deputation, aroused very angry English feeling. Lord Palmerston had already introduced the Bill he desired to pass, and it had been read the first time by a majority of 200. But the foolish action of the French papers changed entirely the current of popular opinion. Lord Derby saw his advantage. An amendment to the second reading, which was practically a vote of censure, was carried against Lord Palmerston, and to his own surprise no less than to that of the country, he was obliged to resign. Lord Derby succeeded to Palmerston's vacant office. ... Lord Derby's second Ministry was wrecked upon the fatal rock of Reform early in 1859, and at once appealed to the country. ... The election of 1859 failed to give the Conservatives a majority, and soon after the opening of the session they were defeated upon a vote of want of confidence moved by Lord Hartington. Earl Granville was commissioned by the Queen to form a Ministry, because her Majesty felt that 'to make so marked a distinction as is implied in the choice of one or other as Prime Minister of two statesmen so full of years and honour as Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell would be a very invidious and unwelcome task.' Each of these veterans was willing to serve under the other, but neither would follow the lead of a third. And so Granville failed, and to Palmerston was entrusted the task. He succeeded in forming what was considered the strongest Ministry of modern times, so far as the individual ability of its members was concerned. Russell went to the Foreign Office and Gladstone to the Exchequer."

Marquis of Lorne, Viscount Palmerston, chapters 10-11.

ALSO IN: T. Martin, Life of the Prince Consort, chapters 82-84, 91-92, and 94 (volume 4).

T. E. Kebbel, Life of the Earl of Derby, chapter 7.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1860. The Cobden-Chevalier commercial treaty with France.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (May). The Queen's Proclamation of Neutrality with reference to the American Civil War.

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

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (October). The allied intervention in Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (November). The Trent Affair. Seizure of Mason and Slidell.

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

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865. The Cotton Famine.

"Upon a population, containing half a million of cotton operatives, in a career of rapid prosperity, the profits of 1860 reaching in some instances from 30 to 40 per cent upon the capital engaged; and with wages also at the highest point which they had ever touched, came the news of the American war, with the probable stoppage of 85 per cent of the raw material of their manufacture. A few wise heads hung despondently down, or shook with fear for the fate of 'the freest nation under heaven,' but the great mass of traders refused to credit a report which neither suited their opinions nor their interests. ... There was a four months' supply held on this side the water at Christmas (1860), and there had been three months' imports at the usual rate since that time, and there would be the usual twelve months' supply from other sources; and by the time this was consumed, and the five months' stock of goods held by merchants sold, all would be right again. That this was the current opinion was proved by the most delicate of all barometers, the scale of prices; for during the greater part of the year 1861 the market was dull, and prices scarcely moved upwards. But towards the end of the year the aspect of affairs began to change. ... The Federals had declared a blockade of the Southern ports, and, although as yet it was pretty much a 'paper blockade,' yet the newly established Confederate government was doing its best to render it effective. They believed that cotton was king in England, and that the old country could not do without it, and would be forced, in order to secure its release, to side with those who kept it prisoner. Mills began to run short time or to close in the month of October, but no noise was made about it; and the only evidence of anything unusual was at the boards of guardians, where the applications had reached the mid-winter height three months earlier than usual. The poor-law guardians in the various unions were aware that the increase was not of the usual character--it was too early for out-door labourers to present themselves; still the difference was not of serious amount, being only about 3,000 in the whole twenty-eight unions. In November, 7,000 more presented themselves, and in December the increase was again 7,000; so that the recipients of relief were at this time 12,000 (or about 25 per cent) more than in the January previous. And now serious thoughts began to agitate many minds; cotton was very largely held by speculators for a rise, the arrivals were meagre in quantity, and the rates of insurance began to show that, notwithstanding the large profits on imports, the blockade was no longer on paper alone. January, 1862, added 16,000 more to the recipients of relief, who were now 70 per cent above the usual number for the same period of the year. But from the facts as afterwards revealed, the statistics of boards of guardians were evidently no real measure of the distress prevailing. ... The month of February usually lessens the dependents on the poor-rates, for out-door labour begins again as soon as the signs of spring appear; but in 1862 it added nearly 9,000 to the already large number of extra cases, the recipients being now 105 per cent above the average for the same period of the year. {967} But this average gives no idea of the pressure in particular localities. ... The cotton operatives were now, if left to themselves, like a ship's crew upon short provisions, and those very unequally distributed, and without chart or compass, and no prospect of getting to land. In Ashton there were 3,197; in Stockport, 8,588; and in Preston, 9,488 persons absolutely foodless; and who nevertheless declined to go to the guardians. To have forced the high-minded heads of these families to hang about the work-house lobbies in company with the idle, the improvident, the dirty, the diseased, and the vicious, would have been to break their heaving hearts, and to hurl them headlong into despair. Happily there is spirit enough in this country to appreciate nobility, even when dressed in fustian, and pride and sympathy enough to spare even the poorest from unnecessary humiliation; and organisations spring up for any important work so soon as the necessity of the case becomes urgent in any locality. Committees arose almost simultaneously in Ashton, Stockport, and Preston; and in April, Blackburn followed in the train, and the guardians and the relief committees of these several places divided an extra 6,000 dependents between them. The month of May, which usually reduces pauperism to almost its lowest ebb, added 6,000 more to the recipients from the guardians, and 5,000 to the dependents on the relief committees, which were now six in number, Oldham and Prestwich (a part of Manchester) being added to the list. ... The month of June sent 6,000 more applicants to sue for bread to the boards of guardians, and 5,000 additional to the six relief committees; and these six committees had now as many dependents as the whole of the boards of guardians in the twenty-eight unions supported in ordinary years. ... In the month of July, when all unemployed operatives would ordinarily be lending a hand in the hay harvest, and picking up the means of living whilst improving in health and enjoying the glories of a summer in the country, the distress increased like a flood, 13,000 additional applicants being forced to appeal for poor-law relief; whilst 11,000 others were adopted by the seven relief committees. ... In August the flood had become a deluge, at which the stoutest heart might stand appalled. The increased recipients of poor-law relief were in a single month, 33,000, being nearly as many as the total number chargeable in the same month of the previous year, whilst a further addition of more than 34,000 became chargeable to the relief committees. ... Most of the cotton on hand at this period was of Indian growth, and needed alterations of machinery to make it workable at all, and in good times an employer might as well shut up his mill as try to get it spun or manufactured. But oh! how glad would the tens of thousands of unwilling idlers have been now, to have had a chance even of working at Surats, although they knew that it required much harder work for one-third less than normal wages. ... Another month is past, and October has added to the number under the guardians no less than 55,000, and to the charge of the relief committees 39,000 more. ... And now dread winter approaches, and the authorities have to deal not only with hundreds of thousands who are compulsorily idle, and consequently foodless, but who are wholly unprepared for the inclemencies of the season; who have no means of procuring needful clothing, nor even of making a show of cheerfulness upon the hearth by means of the fire, which is almost as useful as food. ... The total number of persons chargeable at the end of November, 1862, was, under boards of guardians, 258,357, and on relief committees, 200,084; total 458,441. ... There were not wanting men who saw, or thought they saw, a short way out of the difficulty, viz., by a recognition on the part of the English government of the Southern confederacy in America. And meetings were called in various places to memorialise the government to this effect. Such meetings were always balanced by counter meetings, at which it was shown that simple recognition would be waste of words; that it would not bring to our shores a single shipload of cotton, unless followed up by an armed force to break the blockade, which course if adopted would be war; war in favour of the slave confederacy of the South, and against the free North and North-west, whence comes a large proportion of our imported corn. In addition to the folly of interfering in the affairs of a nation 3,000 miles away, the cotton, if we succeeded in getting it, would be stained with blood and cursed with the support of slavery, and would also prevent our getting the food which we needed from the North equally as much as the cotton from the South. ... These meetings and counter meetings perhaps helped to steady the action of the government (notwithstanding the sympathy of some of its members towards the South), to confirm them in the policy of the royal proclamation, and to determine them to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act against all offenders. ... The maximum pressure upon the relief committees was reached early in December, 1862, but, as the tide had turned before the end of the month, the highest number chargeable at any one time is nowhere shown. The highest number exhibited in the returns is for the last week in the year 1862, viz.: 485,434 persons; but in the previous weeks of the same month some thousands more were relieved."

J. Watts, The Facts of the Cotton Famine, chapters 8 and 12.

ALSO IN: _R. A. Arnold, History of the Cotton Famine._

_E. Waugh, Factory Folk during the Cotton Famine._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1862 (JULY). The fitting out of the Confederate cruiser Alabama at Liverpool.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1864.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1865. Governor Eyre and the Jamaica Insurrection.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868. Death of Palmerston. Ministry of Lord John Russell. Its unsatisfactory Reform Bill and its resignation. Triumph of the Adullamites. Third administration of Derby and Disraeli, and its Reform Bills.

"On the death of Lord Palmerston [which occurred October 18, 1865], the premiership was intrusted for the second time to Earl Russell, with Mr. Gladstone as leader in the House of Commons. The queen opened her seventh parliament (February 6, 1866), in person, for the first time since the prince consort's death. On March 12th Mr. Gladstone brought forward his scheme of reform, proposing to extend the franchise in counties and boroughs, but the opposition of the moderate Liberals, and their joining the Conservatives, proved fatal to the measure, and in consequence the ministry of Earl Russell resigned. {968} The government had been personally weakened by the successive deaths of Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, the Duke of Newcastle, Earl of Elgin, and Lord Palmerston. The queen sent for the Earl of Derby to form a Cabinet, who, although the Conservative party was in the minority in the House of Commons, accepted the responsibility of undertaking the management of the government: he as Premier and First Lord of the Treasury; Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer."

A. H. McCalman, Abridged History of England, page 603.

"The measure, in fact, was too evidently a compromise. The Russell and Gladstone section of the Cabinet wanted reform: the remnants of Palmerston's followers still thought it unnecessary. The result was this wretched, tinkering measure, which satisfied nobody, and disappointed the expectation of all earnest Reformers. ... The principal opposition came not from the Conservatives, as might have been expected, but from Mr. Horsman and Mr. Robert Lowe, both members of the Liberal party, who from the very first declared they would have none of it. ... Mr. Bright denounced them furiously as 'Adullamites'; all who were in distress, all who were discontented, had gathered themselves together in the political cave of Adullam for the attack on the Government. But Mr. Lowe, all unabashed by denunciation or sarcasm, carried the war straight into the enemy's camp in a swift succession of speeches of extraordinary brilliance and power. ... The party of two, which in its origin reminded Mr. Bright of 'the Scotch terrier which was so covered with hair that you could not tell which was the head and which was the tail of it,' was gradually reinforced by deserters from the ranks of the Government until at last the Adullamites were strong enough to turn the scale of a division. Then one wild night, after a hot and furious debate, the combined armies of the Adullamites and Conservatives carried triumphantly an amendment brought forward by one of the Adullamite chiefs, Lord Dunkellin, to the effect that a rating be substituted for a rental qualification; and the Government was at an end. ... The failure of the bill brought Lord Russell's official career to its close. He formally handed over the leadership of the party to Mr. Gladstone, and from this time took but little part in politics. Lord Derby, his opponent, was soon to follow his example, and then the long-standing duel between Gladstone and Disraeli would be pushed up to the very front of the parliamentary stage, right in the full glare of the footlights. Meanwhile, however, Lord Derby had taken office [July 9, 1866]. Disraeli and Gladstone were changing weapons and crossing the stage. ... The exasperated Liberals, however, were rousing a widespread agitation throughout the country in favour of Reform: monster meetings were held in Hyde Park; the Park railings were pulled down and trampled on by an excited mob, and the police regulations proved as unable to bear the unusual strain as police regulations usually do on such occasions. The result was that Mr. Disraeli became convinced that a Reform Bill of some kind or other was inevitable, and Mr. Disraeli's opinion naturally carried the day. The Government, however, did not go straight to the point at once. They began by proposing a number of resolutions on the subject, which were very soon laughed out of existence. Then they brought a bill founded on them, which, however, was very shortly afterwards withdrawn after a very discouraging reception. Finally, the Ministry, lightened by the loss of three of its members--the Earl of Carnarvon, Viscount Cranborne, and General Peel--announced their intention of bringing in a comprehensive measure. The measure in question proposed household suffrage in the boroughs subject to the payment of rates, and occupation franchise for the counties subject to the same limitation, and a variety of fanciful clauses, which would have admitted members of the liberal professions, graduates of the universities, and a number of other classes to the franchise. The most novel feature was a clause which permitted a man to acquire two votes if he possessed a double qualification by rating and by profession. The great objection to the bill was that it excluded the compound householder.' The compound householder is now as extinct an animal as the potwalloper found in earlier parliamentary strata, but he was the hero of the Reform debates of 1867, and as such deserves more than a passing reference. He was, in fact, an occupier of a small house who did not pay his rates directly and in person, but paid them through his landlord. Now the occupiers of these very small houses were naturally by far the most numerous class of occupiers in the boroughs, and the omission of them implied a large exclusion from the franchise. The Liberal party, therefore, rose in defence of the compound householder, and the struggle became fierce and hot. It must be remembered, however, that neither Mr. Gladstone nor Mr. Bright wished to lower the franchise beyond a certain point, and a meeting was held in consequence, in which it was agreed that the programme brought forward in committee should begin by an alteration of the rating laws, so that the compound householder above a certain level should pay his own rates and be given a vote, and that all occupiers below the level should be excluded from the rates and the franchise alike. On what may be described roughly as 'the great drawing-the-line question,' however, the Liberal party once more split up. The advanced section were determined that all occupiers should be admitted, and they would have no 'drawing the line.' Some fifty or sixty of them held a meeting in the tea-room of the House of Commons and decided on this course of action: in consequence they acquired the name of the 'Tea-Room Party.' The communication of their views to Mr. Gladstone made him excessively indignant. He denounced them in violent language, and his passion was emulated by Mr. Bright. ... Mr. Gladstone had to give in, and his surrender was followed by that of Mr. Disraeli. The Tea-Room Party, in fact, were masters of the day, and were able to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Government to induce them to admit the principle of household suffrage pure and simple, and to abolish all distinctions of rating. ... Not only was the household suffrage clause considerably extended, the dual vote abolished, and most of the fancy franchises swept away, but there were numerous additions which completely altered the character of the bill, and transformed it from a balanced attempt to enlarge the franchise without shifting the balance of power to a sweeping measure of reform."

B. C. Skottowe, Short History of Parliament, chapter 22.

{969}

The Reform Bill for England "was followed in 1868 by measures for Scotland and Ireland. By these Acts the county franchise in England was extended to all occupiers of lands or houses of the yearly value of £12, and in Scotland to all £5 property owners and £14 property occupiers; while that in Ireland was not altered. The borough franchise in England and Scotland was given to all ratepaying householders and to lodgers occupying lodgings of the annual value of £10; and in Ireland to all ratepaying £4 occupiers. Thus the House of Commons was made nearly representative of all taxpaying commoners, except agricultural labourers and women."

D. W. Rannie, Historical Outline of the English Constitution, chapter 12, section 4.

ALSO IN: _W. BAGEHOT, Essays on Parliamentary Reform, 3._

G. B. Smith, Life of Gladstone, chapters 17-18 (volume 2).

W. Robertson, Life and Times of John Bright, chapters 39-40.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1869. Discussion of the Alabama Claims of the United States. The Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and its rejection.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1867-1868. Expedition to Abyssinia.

See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870. Disestablishment of the Irish Church. Retirement of the Derby-Disraeli Ministry. Mr. Gladstone in power. His Irish Land Bill.

"On March 16, 1868, a remarkable debate took place in the House of Commons. It had for its subject the condition of Ireland, and it was introduced by a series of resolutions which Mr. John Francis Maguire, an Irish member, proposed. ... It was on the fourth night of the debate that the importance of the occasion became fully manifest. Then it was that Mr. Gladstone spoke, and declared that in his opinion the time had come when the Irish Church as a State institution must cease to exist. Then every man in the House knew that the end was near. Mr. Maguire withdrew his resolutions. The cause he had to serve was now in the hands of one who, though not surely more earnest for its success, had incomparably greater power to serve it. There was probably not a single Englishman capable of forming an opinion who did not know that from the moment when Mr. Gladstone made his declaration, the fall of the Irish State Church had become merely a question of time. Men only waited to see how Mr. Gladstone would proceed to procure its fall. Public expectation was not long kept in suspense. A few days after the debate on Mr. Maguire's motion, Mr. Gladstone gave notice of three resolutions on the subject of the Irish State Church. The first declared that in the opinion of the House of Commons it was necessary that the Established Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an Establishment, due regard being had to all personal interests and to all individual rights of property. The second resolution pronounced it expedient to prevent the creation of new personal interests by the exercise of any public patronage; and the third asked for an address to the Queen, praying that Her Majesty would place at the disposal of Parliament her interest in the temporalities of the Irish Church. The object of these resolutions was simply to prepare for the actual disestablishment of the Church, by providing that no further appointments should be made, and that the action of patronage should be stayed, until Parliament should decide the fate of the whole institution. On March 30, 1868, Mr. Gladstone proposed his resolutions. Not many persons could have had much doubt as to the result of the debate. But if there were any such, their doubts must have begun to vanish when they read the notice of amendment to the resolutions which was given by Lord Stanley. The amendment proclaimed even more surely than the resolutions the impending fall of the Irish Church. Lord Stanley must have been supposed to speak in the name of the Government and the Conservative party; and his amendment merely declared that the House, while admitting that considerable modifications in the temporalities of the Church in Ireland might appear to be expedient, was of opinion 'that any proposition tending to the disestablishment or disendowment of the Church ought to be reserved for the decision of the new Parliament.' Lord Stanley's amendment asked only for delay. ... The debate was one of great power and interest. ... When the division was called there were 270 votes for the amendment, and 331 against it. The doom of the Irish Church was pronounced by a majority of 61. An interval was afforded for agitation on both sides. ... Mr. Gladstone's first resolution came to a division about a month after the defeat of Lord Stanley's amendment. It was carried by a majority somewhat larger than that which had rejected the amendment--330 votes were given for the resolution; 265 against it. The majority for the resolution was therefore 65. Mr. Disraeli quietly observed that the Government must take some decisive step in consequence of that vote; and a few days afterwards it was announced that as soon as the necessary business could be got through, Parliament would be dissolved and an appeal made to the country. On the last day of July the dissolution took place, and the elections came on in November. Not for many years had there been so important a general election. The keenest anxiety prevailed as to its results. The new constituencies created by the Reform Bill were to give their votes for the first time. The question at issue was not merely the existence of the Irish State Church. It was a general struggle of advanced Liberalism against Toryism. ... The new Parliament was to all appearance less marked in its Liberalism than that which had gone before it. But so far as mere numbers went the Liberal party was much stronger than it had been. In the new House of Commons it could count upon a majority of about 120, whereas in the late Parliament it had but 60. Mr. Gladstone it was clear would now have everything in his own hands, and the country might look for a career of energetic reform. ... Mr. Disraeli did not meet the new Parliament as Prime Minister. He decided very properly that it would be a mere waste of public time to wait for the formal vote of the House of Commons, which would inevitably command him to surrender. He at once resigned his office, and Mr. Gladstone was immediately sent for by the Queen, and invited to form an Administration. Mr. Gladstone, it would seem, was only beginning his career. He was nearly sixty years of age, but there were scarcely any evidences of advancing years to be seen on his face. ... The Government he formed was one of remarkable strength. ... Mr. Gladstone went to work at once with his Irish policy. {970} On March 1, 1869, the Prime Minister introduced his measure for the disestablishment and partial disendowment of the Irish State Church. The proposals of the Government were, that the Irish Church should almost at once cease to exist as a State Establishment, and should pass into the condition of a free Episcopal Church. As a matter of course the Irish bishops were to lose their seats in the House of Lords. A synodal, or governing body, was to be elected from the clergy and laity of the Church and was to be recognised by the Government, and duly incorporated. The union between the Churches of England and Ireland was to be dissolved, and the Irish Ecclesiastical Courts were to be abolished. There were various and complicated arrangements for the protection of the life interests of those already holding positions in the Irish Church, and for the appropriation of the fund which would return to the possession of the State when all these interests had been fairly considered and dealt with. ... Many amendments were introduced and discussed; and some of these led to a controversy between the two Houses of Parliament; but the controversy ended in compromise. On July 26, 1869, the measure for the disestablishment of the Irish Church received the royal assent. Lord Derby did not long survive the passing of the measure which he had opposed with such fervour and so much pathetic dignity. Be died before the Irish State Church had ceased to live. ... When the Irish Church had been disposed of, Mr. Gladstone at once directed his energies to the Irish land system. ... In a speech delivered by him during his electioneering campaign in Lancashire, he had declared that the Irish upas-tree had three great branches: the State Church, the Land Tenure System, and the System of Education, and that he meant to hew them all down if he could. On February 15, 1870, Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land Bill into the House of Commons. ... It recognised a certain property or partnership of the tenant in the land which he tilled. Mr. Gladstone took the Ulster tenant-right as he found it, and made it a legal institution. In places where the Ulster practice, or something analogous to it, did not exist, he threw upon the landlord the burden of proof as regarded the right of eviction. The tenant disturbed in the possession of his land could claim compensation for improvements, and the bill reversed the existing assumption of the law by presuming all improvements to be the property of the tenant, and leaving it to the landlord, if he could, to prove the contrary. The bill established a special judiciary machinery for carrying out its provisions. ... It put an end to the reign of the landlord's absolute power; it reduced the landlord to the level of every other proprietor, of every other man in the country who had anything to sell or hire. ... The bill passed without substantial alteration. On August 1, 1870, the bill received the Royal assent. The second branch of the upas-tree had been hewn down. ... Mr. Gladstone had dealt with Church and land; he had yet to deal with university education. He had gone with Irish ideas thus far."

J. McCarthy, Short History of Our Own Times, chapter 23.

ALSO IN: W. N. Molesworth, History of England, 1830-1874, volume 3, chapter 6.

Annual Register, 1869, part 1: English History, chapters 2-3, and 1870, chapters 1-2.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1870. The Education Bill.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, ENGLAND: A. D. 1699-1870.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1871. Abolition of Army Purchase and University Religious Tests. Defeat of the Ballot Bill.

"The great measure of the Session [of 1871] was of course the Army Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Cardwell, on the 16th of February. It abolished the system by which rich men obtained by purchase commissions and promotion in the army, and provided £8,000,000 to buy all commissions, as they fell in, at their regulation and over-regulation value [the regulation value being a legal price, fixed by a Royal Warrant, but which in practice was never regarded]. In future, commissions were to be awarded either to those who won them by open competition, or who had served as subalterns in the Militia, or to deserving non-commissioned officers. ... The debate, which seemed interminable, ended in an anti-climax that astonished the Tory Opposition. Mr. Disraeli threw over the advocates of Purchase, evidently dreading an appeal to the country. ... The Army Regulation Bill thus passed the Second Reading without a division," and finally, with some amendments passed the House. "In the House of Lords the Bill was again obstructed. ... Mr. Gladstone met them with a bold stroke. By statute it was enacted that only such terms of Purchase could exist as her Majesty chose to permit by Royal Warrant. The Queen, therefore, acting on Mr. Gladstone's advice, cancelled her warrant permitting Purchase, and thus the opposition of the Peers was crushed by what Mr. Disraeli indignantly termed 'the high-handed though not illegal' exercise of the Royal Prerogative. The rage of the Tory Peers knew no bounds." They "carried a vote of censure on the Government, who ignored it, and then their Lordships passed the Army Regulation Bill without any alterations. ... The Session of 1871 was also made memorable by the struggle over the Ballot Bill, in the course of which nearly all the devices of factious obstruction were exhausted. ... When the Bill reached the House of Lords, the real motive which dictated the ... obstruction of the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons was quickly revealed. The Lords rejected the Bill on the 18th of August, not merely because they disliked and dreaded it, but because it had come to them too late for proper consideration. Ministers were more successful with some other measures. In spite of much conservative opposition they passed a Bill abolishing religious tests in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and throwing open all academic distinctions and privileges except Divinity Degrees and Clerical Fellowships to students of all creeds and faiths."

R. Wilson, Life and Times of Queen Victoria, volume 2, chapter 16.

ALSO IN: G. W. E. Russell, The Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone, chapter 9.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1871-1872. Renewed negotiations with the United States. The Treaty of Washington and the Geneva Award.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871; 1871; and 1871-1872.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1879. Rise of the Irish Home Rule Party and organization of the Land League.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880. Decline and fall of the Gladstone government. Disraeli's Ministry. His rise to the peerage, as Earl of Beaconsfield. The Eastern Question. Overthrow of the administration. The Second Gladstone Ministry.

{971}

"One of the little wars in which we had to engage broke out with the Ashantees, a misunderstanding resulting from our purchase of the Dutch possessions (1873) in their neighbourhood. Troops and marines under Wolseley ... were sent out to West Africa. Crossing the Prah River, January 20th, 1874, he defeated the Ashantees on the last day of that month at a place called Amoaful, entered and burnt their capital, Coomassie, and made a treaty with their King, Koffee, by which he withdrew all claims of sovereignty over the tribes under our protection. The many Liberal measures carried by the Ministry caused moderate men to wish for a halt. Some restrictions on the licensed vintners turned that powerful body against the Administration, which, on attempting to carry an Irish University Bill in 1873, became suddenly aware of its unpopularity, as the second reading was only carried by a majority of three. Resignation followed. The erratic, but astute, Disraeli declined to undertake the responsibility of governing the country with the House of Commons then existing, consequently Mr. Gladstone resumed office; yet Conservative reaction progressed. He in September became Chancellor of the Exchequer (still holding the Premiership) and 23rd January, 1874, he suddenly dissolved Parliament, promising in a letter to the electors of Greenwich the final abolition of the income tax, and a reduction in some other 'imposts.' The elections went against him. The 'harassed' interests overturned the Ministry (17th February, 1874). ... On the accession of the Conservative Government under Mr. Disraeli (February, 1874), the budget showed a balance of six millions in favour of the reduction of taxation. Consequently the sugar duties were abolished and the income tax reduced to 2d. in the pound. This, the ninth Parliament of Queen Victoria, sat for a little over six years. ... Mr. Disraeli, now the Earl of Beaconsfield, was fond of giving the country surprises. One of these consisted in the purchase of the interest of the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal for four millions sterling (February, 1876). Another was the acquisition of the Turkish Island of Cyprus, handed over for the guarantee to Turkey of her Asiatic provinces in the event of any future Russian encroachments. ... As war had broken out in several of the Turkish provinces (1876), and as Russia had entered the lists for the insurgents against the Sultan, whom England was bound to support by solemn treaties, we were treated to a third surprise by the conveyance, in anticipation of a breach with Russia, of 7,000 troops from India to Malta. The Earl of Derby, looking upon this manœuvre as a menace to that Power, resigned his office, which was filled by Lord Salisbury (1878). ... The war proving disastrous to Turkey, the treaty of St. Stephano (February, 1878), was concluded with Russia, by which the latter acquired additional territory in Asia Minor in violation of the treaty of Paris (1856). Our Government strongly remonstrated, and war seemed imminent. Through the intercession, however, of Bismarck, the German Chancellor, war was averted, and a congress soon met in Berlin, at which Britain was represented by Lords Salisbury and Beaconsfield; the result being the sanction of the treaty already made, with the exception that the town of Erzeroum was handed back to Turkey. Our ambassadors returned home rather pompously, the Prime Minister loftily declaring, that they had brought back 'peace with honour.' ... Our expenses had rapidly increased, the wealthy commercial people began to distrust a Prime Minister who had brought us to the brink of war, the Irish debates, Irish poverty, and Irish outrages had brought with them more or less discredit on the Ministry. ... The Parliament was dissolved March 24th, but the elections went so decisively in favour of the Liberals that Beaconsfield resigned (April 23rd). Early in the following year he appeared in his place in the House of Peers, but died April 19th. Though Mr. Gladstone had in 1875 relinquished the political leadership in favour of Lord Hartington yet the 'Bulgarian Atrocities' and other writings brought him again so prominent before the public that his leadership was universally acknowledged by the party. ... He now resumed office, taking the two posts so frequently held before by Prime Ministers since the days of William Pitt, who also held them. ... The result of the general election of 1880 was the return of more Liberals to Parliament than Conservatives and Home Rulers together. The farming interest continued depressed both in Great Britain and Ireland, resulting in thousands of acres being thrown on the landlords' hands in the former country, and numerous harsh evictions in the latter for non-payment of rent. Mr. Gladstone determined to legislate anew on the Irish Land Question: and (1881) carried through both Houses that admirable measure known as the Irish Land Act, which for the first time in the history of that country secured to the tenant remuneration for his own industry. A Land Commission Court was established to fix Fair Rents for a period of 15 years. After a time leaseholders were included in this beneficent legislation."

R. Johnston, A Short History of the Queen's Reign, pages 49-57.

ALSO IN: J. A. Froude, Lord Beaconsfield, chapters 16-17.

G. B. Smith, Life of Gladstone, chapters 22-28 (volume 2).

H. Jephson, The Platform, chapters 21-22 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1877. Assumption by the Queen of the title of Empress of India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1878. The Eastern Question again. Bulgarian atrocities. Excitement over the Russian successes in Turkey. War-clamor of "the Jingoes." The fleet sent through the Dardanelles. Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878; and TURKS: A. D. 1878.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1881. Annexation of the Transvaal. The Boer War.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1878. The Congress of Berlin. Acquisition of the control of Cyprus.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1878-1880. The second Afghan War.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1880. Breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1880.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1882. War in Egypt. Bombardment of Alexandria. Battle of Tel-el-Kebir.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1883. The Act for Prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Parliamentary Elections.

{972}

"Prior to the General Election of 1880 there were those who hoped and believed that Corrupt Practices at Elections were decreasing. These hopes were based upon the growth of the constituencies and their increased political intelligence, and also upon the operation of the Ballot Act. The disclosures following the General Election proved to the most sanguine that this belief was an error. Corrupt practices were found to be more prevalent than ever. If in olden times larger aggregate sums were expended in bribery and treating, never probably had so many persons been bribed and treated as at the General Election of 1880. After that election nineteen petitions against returns on the ground of corrupt practices were presented. In eight instances the Judges reported that those practices had extensively prevailed, and in respect of seven of these the reports of the Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1852 demonstrated the alarming extent to which corruption of all kinds had grown. ... A most serious feature in the Commissioners' Reports was the proof they afforded that bribery was regarded as a meritorious not as a disgraceful act. Thirty magistrates were reported as guilty of corrupt practices and removed from the Commission of the Peace by the Lord Chancellor. Mayors, aldermen, town-councillors, solicitors, the agents of the candidates, and others of a like class were found to have dealt with bribery as if it were a part of the necessary machinery for conducting an election. Worst of all, some of these persons had actually attained municipal honours, not only after they had committed these practices, but even after their misdeeds had been exposed by public inquiry. The Reports also showed, and a Parliamentary Return furnished still more conclusive proof, that election expenses were extravagant even to absurdity, and moreover were on the increase. The lowest estimate of the expenditure during the General Election of 1880 amounts to the enormous sum of two and a half millions. With another Reform Bill in view, the prospects of future elections were indeed alarming. ... The necessity for some change was self-evident. Public opinion insisted that the subject should be dealt with, and the evil encountered. ... The Queen's Speech of the 6th of January, 1881, announced that a measure 'for the repression of corrupt practices' would be submitted to Parliament, and on the following day the Attorney-General (Sir Henry James), in forcible and eloquent terms, moved for leave to introduce his Bill. His proposals (severe as they seemed) were received with general approval and sympathy, both inside and outside the House of Commons, at a time when members and constituents alike were ashamed of the excesses so recently brought to light. It is true that the two and a half years' delay that intervened between the introduction of the Bill and its finally becoming law (a delay caused by the necessities of Irish legislation), sufficed very considerably to cool the enthusiasm of Parliament and the public. Yet enough desire for reform remained to carry in July 1883 the Bill of January 1881, modified indeed in detail, but with its principles intact and its main provisions unaltered. The measure which has now become the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1883, was in its conception pervaded by two principles. The first was to strike hard and home at corrupt practices; the second was to prohibit by positive legislation any expenditure in the conduct of an election which was not absolutely necessary. Bribery, undue influence, and personation, had long been crimes for which a man could be fined and imprisoned. Treating was now added to the same class of offences, and the punishment for all rendered more deterrent by a liability to hard labour. ... Besides punishment on conviction, incapacities of a serious character are to result from a person being reported guilty of corrupt practices by Election Judges or Election Commissioners. ... A candidate reported personally guilty of corrupt practices can never sit again for the same constituency, and is rendered incapable of being a member of the House of Commons for seven years. All persons, whether candidates or not, are, on being reported, rendered incapable of holding any public office or exercising any franchise for the same period. Moreover, if any persons so found guilty are magistrates, barristers, solicitors, or members of other honourable professions, they are to be reported to the Lord Chancellor, Inns of Court, High Court of Justice, or other authority controlling their profession, and dealt with as in the case of professional misconduct. Licensed victuallers are, in a similar manner, to be reported to the licensing justices, who may on the next occasion refuse to renew their licenses. ... The employment of all paid assistants except a very limited number is forbidden; no conveyances are to be paid for, and only a restricted number of committee rooms are to be engaged. Unnecessary payments for the exhibition of bills and addresses, and for flags, bands, torches, and the like are declared illegal. But these prohibitions of specific objects were not considered sufficient. Had these alone been enacted, the money of wealthy and reckless candidates would have found other channels in which to flow. ... And thus it was that the 'maximum scale' was adopted as at once the most direct and the most efficacious means of limiting expenditure. Whether by himself or his agents, by direct payment or by contract, the candidate is forbidden to spend more in 'the conduct and management of an election' than the sums permitted by the Act, sums which depend in each case on the numerical extent of the constituency."

H. Hobhouse, The Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1883, pages 1-8.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885. The Third Reform Bill and the Redistribution Bill. The existing qualifications and disqualifications of the Suffrage.

"Soon after Mr. Gladstone came into power in 1880, Mr. Trevelyan became a member of his Administration. Already the Premier had secured the co-operation of two other men new to office--Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke. ... Their presence in the Administration was looked upon as a good augury by the Radicals, and the augury was not destined to prove misleading. It was understood from the first that, with such men as his coadjutors, Mr. Gladstone was pledged to a still further Reform. He was pledged already, in fact, by his speeches in Midlothian. ... On the 17th of October, 1883, a great Conference was held at Leeds, for the purpose of considering the Liberal programme for the ensuing season. The Conference was attended by no fewer than 2,000 delegates, who represented upwards of 500 Liberal Associations. {973} It was presided over by Mr. John Morley. ... To a man the delegates agreed as to the imperative necessity of household suffrage being extended to the counties; and almost to a man they agreed also as to the necessity of the measure being no longer delayed. ... When Parliament met on the 5th of the following February ... a measure for 'the enlargement of the occupation franchise in Parliamentary Elections throughout the United Kingdom' was distinctly promised in the Royal Speech; and the same evening Mr. Gladstone gave notice that 'on the first available day,' he would move for leave to bring in the bill. So much was the House of Commons occupied with affairs in Egypt and the Soudan, however, that it was not till the 29th of February that the Premier was able to fulfil his pledge." Four months were occupied in the passage of the bill through the House of Commons, and when it reached the Lords it was rejected. This roused "an intense feeling throughout the country. On the 21st of July, a great meeting was held in Hyde Park, attended, it was believed, by upwards of 100,000 persons. ... On the 30th of July, a great meeting of delegates was held in St. James's Hall, London. ... Mr. John Morley, who presided, used some words respecting the House that had rejected the bill which were instantly caught up by Reformers everywhere. 'Be sure,' he said, 'that no power on earth can separate henceforth the question of mending the House of Commons from the question of mending, or ending, the House of Lords.' On the 4th of August, Mr. Bright, speaking at Birmingham, referred to the Lords as 'many of them the spawn of the plunder and the wars and the corruption of the dark ages of our country'; and his colleague, Mr. Chamberlain, used even bolder words: 'During the last one hundred years the House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the common weal; and during that time it has protected every abuse and sheltered every privilege. ... It is irresponsible without independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without judgment, and arrogant without knowledge.' ... In very many instances, a strong disposition was manifested to drop the agitation for the Reform of the House of Commons for a time, and to concentrate the whole strength of the Liberal party on one final struggle for the Reform (or, preferably, the extinction) of the Upper House." But Mr. Gladstone gave no encouragement to this inclination of his party. The outcome of the agitation was the passage of the Franchise Bill a second time in the House of Commons, in November, 1884, and by the Lords soon afterwards. A concession was made to the latter by previously satisfying them with regard to the contemplated redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, for which a separate bill was framed and introduced while the Franchise Bill was yet pending. The Redistribution Bill passed the Commons in May and the Lords in June, 1885.

W. Heaton, The Three Reforms of Parliament, chapter 6.

"In regard to electoral districts, the equalization, in other words, the radical refashioning of electoral districts, having about the same number of inhabitants, is carried out. For this purpose, 79 towns, having less than 15,000 inhabitants, are divested of the right of electing a separate member; 36 towns, with less than 50,000, return only one member; 14 large towns obtain an increase of the number of the members in proportion to the population; 35 towns, of nearly 50,000, obtain a new franchise. The counties are throughout parcelled-out into 'electoral districts' of about the like population, to elect one member each. This single-seat system is, regularly, carried out in towns, with the exception of 28 middle-sized towns, which have been left with two members. The County of York forms, for example, 26 electoral districts; Liverpool 9. To sum up, the result stands thus:--the counties choose 253 members (formerly 187), the towns 237 (formerly 297). The average population of the county electoral districts is now 52,800 (formerly 70,800); the average number of the town electoral districts 52,700 (formerly 41,200). ... The number of the newly-enfranchised is supposed, according to an average estimate, to be 2,000,000."

Dr. R. Gneist, The English Parliament in its Transformations, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: _J. Murdoch, History of Constitutional Reform in Great Britain and Ireland, pages 277-398._

H. Jephson, The Platform, chapter 23 (volume 2).

The following is the text of the "Third Reform Act," which is entitled "The Representation of the People Act, 1884":

An Act to amend the Law relating to the Representation of the People of the United Kingdom. [6th December, 1884.]

Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. This Act may be cited as the Representation of the People Act, 1884.

2. A uniform household franchise and a uniform lodger franchise at elections shall be established in all counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom, and every man possessed of a household qualification or a lodger qualification shall, if the qualifying premises be situate in a county in England or Scotland, be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election for such county, and if the qualifying premises be situate in a county or borough in Ireland, be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election for such county or borough.

3. Where a man himself inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom such man serves in such office, service, or employment, he shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act and of the Representation of the People Acts to be an inhabitant occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant.

4. Subject to the saving in this Act for existing voters, the following provisions shall have effect with reference to elections:

(1.) A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of the ownership of any rentcharge except the owner of the whole of the tithe rentcharge of a rectory, vicarage, chapelry, or benefice to which an apportionment of tithe rentcharge shall have been made in respect of any portion of tithes.

(2.) Where two or more men are owners either as joint tenants or as tenants in common of an estate in any land or tenement, one of such men, but not more than one, shall, if his interest is sufficient to confer a qualification as a voter in respect of the ownership of such estate, be entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like conditions as if he were the sole owner) to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election. {974} Provided that where such owners have derived their interest by descent, succession, marriage, marriage settlement, or will, or where they occupy the land or tenement, and are bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business thereon, each of such owners whose interest is sufficient to confer on him a qualification as a voter shall be entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like conditions as if he were sole owner) to be registered as a voter in respect of such ownership, and when registered to vote at an election, and the value of the interest of each such owner where not otherwise legally defined shall be ascertained by the division of the total value of the land or tenement equally among the whole of such owners.

5. Every man occupying any land or tenement in a county or borough in the United Kingdom of a clear yearly value of not less than ten pounds shall be entitled to be registered as a voter and when registered to vote at an election for such county or borough in respect of such occupation subject to the like conditions respectively as a man is, at the passing of this Act, entitled to be registered as a voter and to vote at an election for such county in respect of the county occupation franchise, and at an election for such borough in respect of the borough occupation franchise.

6. A man shall not by virtue of this Act be entitled to be registered as a voter or to vote at any election for a county in respect of the occupation of any dwelling-house, lodgings, land, or tenement, situate in a borough.

7. (1.) In this Act the expression "a household qualification" means, as respects England and Ireland, the qualification enacted by the third section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments appended to this text], and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section and enactments so far as they are consistent with this Act, shall extend to counties in England and to counties and boroughs in Ireland.

(2.) In the construction of the said enactments, as amended and applied to Ireland, the following dates shall be substituted for the dates therein mentioned, that is to say, the twentieth day of July for the fifteenth day of July, the first day of July for the twentieth day of July, and the first day of January for the fifth day of January.

(3.) The expression "a lodger qualification" means the qualification enacted, as respects England, by the fourth section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments appended to this text], and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and as respects Ireland, by the fourth section of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section of the English Act of 1867, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in England, and the said section of the Irish Act of 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in Ireland; and sections five and six and twenty-two and twenty-three of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, so far as they relate to lodgings, shall apply to Ireland, and for the purpose of such application the reference in the said section six to the Representation of the People Act, 1867, shall be deemed to be made to the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and in the said section twenty-two of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, the reference to section thirteen of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843, shall be construed to refer to the enactments of the Registration Acts in Ireland relating to the making out, signing, publishing, and otherwise dealing with the lists of voters, and the reference to the Parliamentary Registration Acts shall be construed to refer to the Registration Acts in Ireland, and the following dates shall be substituted in Ireland for the dates in that section mentioned, that is to say, the twentieth day of July for the last day of July, and the fourteenth day of July for the twenty-fifth day of July, and the word "overseers" shall be construed to refer in a county to the clerk of the peace, and in a borough to the town clerk.

(4.) The expression "a household qualification" means, as respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the third section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section and enactments shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in Scotland, and for the purpose of the said section and enactments the expression "dwelling-house" in Scotland means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, and this definition of a dwelling-house shall be substituted for the definition contained in section fifty-nine of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868.

(5.) The expression "a lodger qualification" means, as respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the fourth section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section and enactments, so far as they are consistent with this Act, shall extend to counties in Scotland.

(6.) The expression "county occupation franchise" means, as respects England, the franchise enacted by the sixth section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments appended to this text]; and, as respects Scotland, the franchise enacted by the sixth section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868; and, as respects Ireland, the franchise enacted by the first section of the Act of the session of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine.

(7.) The expression "borough occupation franchise" means, as respects England, the franchise enacted by the twenty-seventh section of the Act of the session of the second and third years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter forty-five [see comments appended to this text]; and as respects Scotland, the franchise enacted by the eleventh section of the Act of the session of the second and third years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter sixty-five; and as respects Ireland the franchise enacted by section five of the Act of the session of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine, and the third section of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868.

{975}

(8.) Any enactments amending or relating to the county occupation franchise or 'borough occupation franchise other than the sections in this Act in that behalf mentioned shall be deemed to be referred to in the definition of the county occupation franchise and the borough occupation franchise in this Act mentioned.

8. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Representation of the People Acts" means the enactments for the time being in force in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively relating to the representation of the people, inclusive of the Registration Acts as defined by this Act.

(2.) The expression "the Registration Acts" means the enactments for the time being in force in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, relating to the registration of persons entitled to vote at elections for counties and boroughs, inclusive of the Rating Acts as defined by this Act.

(3.) The expressions "the Representation of the People Acts" and "the Registration Acts" respectively, where used in this Act, shall be read distributively in reference to the three parts of the United Kingdom as meaning in the case of each part the enactments for the time being in force in that part.

(4.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate to the registration of persons entitled to vote in boroughs in England in respect of a household or a lodger qualification, and in boroughs in Ireland in respect of a lodger qualification, shall, with the necessary variations and with the necessary alterations of precepts, notices, lists, and other forms, extend to counties as well as to boroughs.

(5.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate to the registration in counties and boroughs in Ireland of persons entitled to vote in respect of the county occupation franchise and the borough occupation franchise respectively, shall, with the necessary variations and with the necessary alterations of precepts, notices, lists, and other forms, extend respectively to the registration in counties and boroughs in Ireland of persons entitled to vote in respect of the household qualification conferred by this Act.

(6.) In Scotland all enactments of the Registration Acts which relate to the registration of persons entitled to vote in burghs, including the provisions relating to dates, shall, with the necessary variations, and with the necessary alterations of notices and other forms, extend and apply to counties as well as to burghs; and the enactments of the said Acts which relate to the registration of persons entitled to vote in counties shall, so far as inconsistent with the enactments so applied, be repealed: Provided that in counties the valuation rolls, registers, and lists shall continue to be arranged in parishes as heretofore.

9. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Rating Acts" means the enactments for the time being in force in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, relating to the placing of the names of occupiers on the rate book, or other enactments relating to rating in so far as they are auxiliary to or deal with the registration of persons entitled to vote at elections; and the expression "the Rating Acts" where used in this Act shall be read distributively in reference to the three parts of the United Kingdom as meaning in the case of each part the Acts for the time being in force in that part.

(2.) In every part of the United Kingdom it shall be the duty of the overseers annually, in the months of April and May, or one of them, to inquire or ascertain with respect to every hereditament which comprises any dwelling-house or dwelling-houses within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts, whether any man, other than the owner or other person rated or liable to be rated in respect of such hereditament, is entitled to be registered as a voter in respect of his being an inhabitant occupier of any such dwelling-house, and to enter in the rate book the name of every man so entitled, and the situation or description of the dwelling-house in respect of which he is entitled, and for the purposes of such entry a separate column shall be added to the rate book.

(3.) For the purpose of the execution of such duty the overseers may serve on the person who is the occupier or rated or liable to be rated in respect of such hereditament, or on some agent of such person concerned in the management of such hereditament, the requisition specified in the Third Schedule of this Act requiring that the form in that notice be accurately filled up and returned to the overseers within twenty-one days after such service; and if any such person or agent on whom such requisition is served fails to comply therewith, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings, and any overseer who fails to perform his duty under this section shall be deemed guilty of a breach of duty in the execution of the Registration Acts, and shall be liable to be fined accordingly a sum not exceeding forty shillings for each default.

(4.) The notice under this section may be served in manner provided by the Representation of the People Acts with respect to the service on occupiers of notice of non-payment of rates, and, where a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, is rated, shall be served on the secretary or agent of such body of persons; and where the hereditament by reason of belonging to the Crown or otherwise is not rated, shall be served on the chief local officer having the superintendence or control of such hereditament.

(5.) In the application of this section to Scotland the expression rate book means the valuation roll, and where a man entered on the valuation roll by virtue of this section inhabits a dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, there shall not be entered in the valuation roll any rent or value against the name of such man as applicable to such dwelling-house, nor shall any such man by reason of such entry become liable to be rated in respect of such dwelling-house.

(6.) The proviso in section two of the Act for the valuation of lands and heritages in Scotland passed in the session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty chapter ninety-one, and section fifteen of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, shall be repealed: Provided that in any county in Scotland the commissioners of supply, or the parochial board of any parish, or any other rating authority entitled to impose assessments according to the valuation roll, may, if they think fit, levy such assessments in respect of lands and heritages separately let for a shorter period than one year or at a rent not amounting to four pounds per annum in the same manner and from the same persons as if the names of the tenants and occupiers of such lands and heritages were not inserted in the valuation roll.

{976}

(7.) In Ireland where the owner of a dwelling-house is rated instead of the occupier, the occupier shall nevertheless be entitled to be registered as a voter, and to vote under the same conditions under which an occupier of a dwelling-house in England is entitled in pursuance of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and the Acts amending the same, to be registered as a voter, and to vote where the owner is rated, and the enactments referred to in the First Schedule to this Act shall apply to Ireland accordingly, with the modifications in that schedule mentioned.

(8.) Both in England and Ireland where a man inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and is deemed for the purposes of this Act and of the Representation of the People Acts to be an inhabitant occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant, and another person is rated or liable to be rated for such dwelling-house, the rating of such other person shall for the purposes of this Act and of the Representation of the People Acts be deemed to be that of the inhabitant occupier; and the several enactments of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and other Acts amending the same referred to in the First Schedule to this Act shall for those purposes apply to such inhabitant occupier, and in the construction of those enactments the word "owner" shall be deemed to include a person actually rated or liable to be rated as aforesaid.

(9.) In any part of the United Kingdom where a man inhabits a dwelling-house in respect of which no person is rated by reason of such dwelling-house belonging to or being occupied on behalf of the Crown, or by reason of any other ground of exemption, such person shall not be disentitled to be registered as a voter, and to vote by reason only that no one is rated in respect of such dwelling-house, and that no rates are paid in respect of the same, and it shall be the duty of the persons making out the rate book or valuation roll to enter any such dwelling-house as last aforesaid in the rate book or valuation roll, together with the name of the inhabitant occupier thereof.

10. Nothing in this Act shall deprive any person (who at the date of the passing of this Act is registered in respect of any qualification to vote for any county or borough), of his right to be from time to time registered and to vote for such county or borough in respect of such qualification in like manner as if this Act had not passed. Provided that where a man is so registered in respect of the county or borough occupation franchise by virtue of a qualification which also qualifies him for the franchise under this Act, he shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such latter franchise only. Nothing in this Act shall confer on any man who is subject to any legal incapacity to be registered as a voter or to vote, any right to be registered as a voter or to vote.

11. This Act, so far as may be consistently with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as one with the Representation of the People Acts as defined by this Act; and the expressions "election," "county," and "borough," and other expressions in this Act and in the enactments applied by this Act, shall have the same meaning as in the said Acts. Provided that in this Act and the said enactments--The expression "overseers" includes assessors, guardians, clerks of unions, or other persons by whatever name known, who perform duties in relation to rating or to the registration of voters similar to those performed in relation to such matters by overseers in England. The expression "rentcharge" includes a fee farm rent, a feu duty in Scotland, a rent seck, a chief rent, a rent of assize, and any rent or annuity granted out of land. The expression "land or tenement" includes any part of a house separately occupied for the purpose of any trade, business, or profession, and that expression, and also the expression "hereditament" when used in this Act, in Scotland includes "lands and heritages." The expressions "joint tenants" and "tenants in common" shall include "pro indiviso proprietors." The expression "clear yearly value" as applied to any land or tenement means in Scotland the annual value as appearing in the valuation roll, and in Ireland the net annual value at which the occupier of such land or tenement was rated under the last rate for the time being, under the Act of the session of the first and second years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-six, or any Acts amending the same.

12. Whereas the franchises conferred by this Act are in substitution for the franchises conferred by the enactments mentioned in the first and second parts of the Second Schedule hereto, be it enacted that the Acts mentioned in the first part of the said Second Schedule shall be repealed to the extent in the third column of that part of the said schedule mentioned except in so far as relates to the rights of persons saved by this Act; and the Acts mentioned in the second part of the said Second Schedule shall be repealed to the extent in the third column of that part of the said schedule mentioned, except in so far as relates to the rights of persons saved by this Act and except in so far as the enactments so repealed contain conditions made applicable by this Act to any franchise enacted by this Act.

13. This Act shall commence and come into operation on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five: Provided that the register of voters in any county or borough in Scotland made in the last-mentioned year shall not come into force until the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, and until that day the previous register of voters shall continue in force.

The following comments upon the foregoing act afford explanations which are needed for the understanding of some of its provisions:

"The introduction of the household franchise into counties is the main work of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. ... The county household franchise is ... made identical with the borough franchise created by the Reform Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 102), to which we must, therefore, turn for the definition of the one household franchise now established in both counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom. The third section of the Act in question provides that 'Every man shall in and after the year 1868 be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote, for a member or members to serve in Parliament for a borough [we must now add "or for a county or division of a county"] who is qualified as follows:

(1.) Is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity;

(2.) Is on the last day of July [now July 15th] in any year, and has during the whole of the preceding twelve calendar months been an inhabitant occupier as owner or tenant of any dwelling house within the borough [or within a county or division of a county];

{977}

(3.) Has during the time of such occupation been rated as an ordinary occupier in respect of the premises so occupied by him within the borough to all rates (if any) made for the relief of the poor in respect of such premises; and,

(4.) Has on or before the 20th day of July in the same year bona fide paid an equal amount in the pound to that payable by other ordinary occupiers in respect of all poor rates that have been payable by him in respect of the said premises up to the preceding 5th day of January: Provided that no man shall under this section be entitled to be registered as a voter by reason of his being a joint occupier of any dwelling house. ... The lodger franchise was the creation of the Reform Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 102), the 4th section of which conferred the suffrage upon lodgers who, being of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, have occupied in the same borough lodgings 'of a clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of £10 or upwards' for twelve months preceding the last day of July, and have claimed to be registered as voters at the next ensuing registration of voters. By this clause certain limitations or restrictions were imposed on the lodger franchise; but these were swept away by the 41 & 42 Vict., c. 26, the 6th section of which considerably enlarged the franchise by enacting that:--

(1.) Lodgings occupied by a person in any year or two successive years shall not be deemed to be different lodgings by reason only that in that year or either of those years he has occupied some other rooms or place in addition to his original lodgings.

(2.) For the purpose of qualifying a lodger to vote the occupation in immediate succession of different lodgings of the requisite value in the same house shall have the same effect as continued occupation of the same lodgings.

(3.) Where lodgings are jointly occupied by more than one lodger, and the clear yearly value of the lodgings if let unfurnished is of an amount which, when divided by the number of the lodgers, gives a sum of not less than £10 for each lodger, then each lodger (if otherwise qualified and subject to the conditions of the Representation of the People Act, 1867) shall be entitled to be registered and when registered to vote as a lodger, provided that not more than two persons being such joint lodgers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of such lodgings. ... Until the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, no householder was qualified to vote unless he not only occupied a dwelling house, but occupied it either as owner or as the tenant of the owner. And where residence in an official or other house was necessary, or conducive to the efficient discharge of a man's duty or service, and was either expressly or impliedly made a part of such duty or service then the relation of landlord or tenant was held not to be created. The consequence was that a large number of persons who as officials, as employes, or as servants are required to reside in public buildings, on the premises of their employers or in houses assigned to them by their masters were held not to be entitled to the franchise. In future such persons will ... be entitled to vote as inhabitant occupiers and tenants (under Section 3 of the recent Act), notwithstanding that they occupy their dwelling houses 'by virtue of any office, service or employment.' But this is subject to the condition that a subordinate cannot qualify or obtain a vote in respect of a dwelling house which is also inhabited by any person under whom 'such man serves in such office, service or employment.' ... Persons seised of (i. e., owning) an estate of inheritance (i. e., in fee simple or fee-tail) of freehold tenure, in lands or tenements, of the value of 40s. per annum, are entitled to a vote for the county or division of the county in which the estate is situated. This is the class of electors generally known as 'forty shilling freeholders.' Originally all freeholders were entitled to county votes, but by the 8 Henry VI., c. 7, it was provided that no freehold of a less annual value than 40s. should confer the franchise. Until the Reform Act of 1832, 40s. freeholders, whether their estate was one of inheritance or one for life or lives, were entitled to county votes. That Act, however, restricted the county freehold franchise by drawing a distinction between (1) freeholds of inheritance, and (2) freeholds not of inheritance. While the owners of the first class of freeholds were left in possession of their former rights (except when the property is situated within a Parliamentary borough), the owners of the latter were subjected to a variety of conditions and restrictions. ... Before the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, any number of persons might qualify and obtain county votes as joint owners of a freehold of inheritance, provided that it was of an annual value sufficient to give 40s. for each owner. But ... this right is materially qualified by Section 4 of the recent Act. ... Persons seised of an estate for life or lives of freehold tenure of the annual value of 40s., but of less than £5, are entitled to a county vote, provided that they

(1) actually and bonâ fide occupy the premises, or

(2) were seised of the property at the time of the passing of the 2 Will. IV., c. 45 (June 7th, 1832), or

(3) have acquired the property after the date by marriage, marriage settlement, devise, or promotion to a benefice or office. ... Persons seised of an estate for life or lives or of any larger estate in lands or tenements of any tenure whatever of the yearly value of £5 or upwards: This qualification is not confined to the ownership of freehold lands. Under the words 'of any tenure whatever' (30 & 31 Vict., c. 102, s. 5) copyholders have county votes if their property is of the annual value of £5. ... The electoral qualifications in Scotland are defined by the 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 65, the 31 & 32 Vict., c. 48, and the Representation of the People Act, 1884 (48 Vict., c. 3). The effect of the three Acts taken together is that the County franchises are as follows:

1. Owners of Land, &c., of the annual value of £5, after deducting feu duty, ground annual, or other considerations which an owner may be bound to pay or to give an account for as a condition of his right.

2. Leaseholders under a lease of not less than 57 years or for the life of the tenant of the clear yearly value of £10, or for a period of not less than 19 years when the clear yearly value is not less than £50, or the tenant is in actual personal occupancy of the land.

3. Occupiers of land, &c., of the clear yearly value of £10.

4. Householders.

5. Lodgers.

6. The service franchise.

Borough franchises. 1. Occupiers of land or tenements of the annual value of £10. 2. Householders. 3. Lodgers. 4. The service franchise.

{978}

The qualification for these franchises is in all material respects the same as for the corresponding franchises in the Scotch counties, and in the counties and boroughs of England and Wales. ... The Acts relating to the franchise in Ireland are 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 88, 13 & 14 Vict., c. 69, the representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and the Representation of the People Act, 1884. Read together they give the following qualifications:

County franchises.

1. Owners of freeholds of inheritance or of freeholds for lives renewable for ever rated to the poor at the annual value of £5.

2. Freeholders and copyholders of a clear annual value of £10.

3. Leaseholders of various terms and value.

4. Occupiers of land or a tenement of the clear annual value of £10.

5. Householders.

6. The lodger franchise.

7. The service franchise.

Borough franchises.

1. Occupiers of lands and tenements of the annual value of £10.

2. Householders. ...

3. Lodgers.

4. The service franchise.

5. Freemen in certain boroughs. ...

All the franchises we have described ... are subject to this condition, that no one, however qualified, can be registered or vote in respect of them if he is subjected to any legal incapacity to become or act as elector. ... No alien unless certificated or naturalised, no minor, no lunatic or idiot, nor any person in such a state of drunkenness as to be incapable--is entitled to vote. Police magistrates in London and Dublin, and police officers throughout the country, including the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, are disqualified from voting either generally or for constituencies within which their duties lie. In the case of the police the disqualification continues for six months after an officer has left the force. ... Persons are disqualified who are convicted of treason or treason-felony, for which the sentence is death or penal servitude, or any term of imprisonment with hard labour or exceeding twelve months, until they have suffered their punishment (or such as may be substituted by competent authority), or until they receive a free pardon. Peers are disqualified from voting at the election of any member to serve in Parliament. A returning officer may not vote at any election for which he acts, unless the numbers are equal, when he may give a casting vote. No person is entitled to be registered in any year as a voter for any county or borough who has within twelve calendar months next previous to the last day of July in such year received parochial relief or other alms which by the law of Parliament disqualify from voting. Persons employed at an election for reward or payment are disqualified from voting thereat although they may be on the register. ... The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict., c. 51), disqualifies a variety of offenders [see above, A. D. 1883] against its provisions from being registered or voting."

W. A. Holdsworth, The New Reform Act, pages 20-36.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1881-1885. Campaign in the Soudan for the relief of General Gordon.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1885. The fall of the Gladstone government. The brief first Ministry of Lord Salisbury.

"Almost simultaneously with the assembling of Parliament [February 19, 1885] had come the news of the fall of Khartoum and the death of General Gordon [see EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885]. These terrible events sent a thrill of horror and indignation throughout the country, and the Government was severely condemned in many quarters for its procrastination. Mr. Gladstone, who was strongly moved by Gordon's death, rose to the situation, and announced that it was necessary to overthrow the Mahdi at Khartoum, to renew operations against Osman Digma, and to construct a railway from Suakim to Berber with a view to a campaign in the autumn. A royal proclamation was issued calling out the reserves. Sir Stafford Northcote initiated a debate on the Soudan question with a motion affirming that the risks and sacrifices which the Government appeared to be ready to encounter could only be justified by a distinct recognition of our responsibility for Egypt, and those portions of the Soudan which are necessary to its security. Mr. John Morley introduced an amendment to the motion, waiving any judgment on the policy of the Minister, but expressing regret at its decision to continue the conflict with the Mahdl. Mr. Gladstone skilfully dealt with both motion and amendment. Observing that it was impossible to give rigid pledges as to the future, he appealed to the Liberal party, if they had not made up their minds to condemn and punish the Government, to strengthen their hands by an unmistakable vote of confidence. The Government obtained a majority of 14, the votes being 302 in their favour with 288 against; but many of those who supported the Government had also voted for the amendment by Mr. Morley. ... Financial questions were extremely embarrassing to the Government, and it was not until the 30th of April that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was ready with his financial statement. He was called upon to deal with a deficit of upwards of a million, with a greatly depressed revenue, and with an estimated expenditure for the current year--including the vote of credit--of no less than £100,000,000. Amongst Mr. Childers's proposals was one to levy upon land an amount of taxation proportioned to that levied on personal property. There was also an augmentation of the spirit duties and of the beer duty. The country members were dissatisfied and demanded that no new charges should be thrown on the land till the promised relief of local taxation had been carried out. The agricultural and the liquor interests were discontented, as well as the Scotch and Irish members with the whiskey duty. The Chancellor made some concessions, but they were not regarded as sufficient, and on the Monday after the Whitsun holidays, the Opposition joined battle on a motion by Sir M. Hicks Beach. ... Mr. Gladstone stated at the close of the debate that the Government would resign if defeated. The amendment was carried against them by 264 to 252, and the Ministry went out. ... Lord Salisbury became Premier. ... The general election ... [was] fixed for November 1885."

G. B. Smith, The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria, pages 373-377.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886. The partition of East Africa with Germany.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

{979}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886. Mr. Gladstone's return to power. His Home Rule Bill for Ireland and his Irish Land Bill. Their defeat. Division of the Liberal Party. Lord Salisbury's Ministry.

"The House of Commons which had been elected in November and December, 1885, was the first House of Commons which represented the whole body of the householders and lodgers of the United Kingdom. The result of the appeal to new constituencies and an enlarged electorate had taken all parties by surprise. The Tories found themselves, by the help of their Irish allies, successful in the towns beyond all their hopes; the Liberals, disappointed in the boroughs, had found compensation in unexpected successes in the counties; and the Irish Nationalists had almost swept the board. ... The English representation--exclusive of one Irish Nationalist for Liverpool--gave a liberal majority of 28 in the English constituencies; which Wales and Scotland swelled to 106. The Irish representation had undergone a still more remarkable change. Of 103 members for the sister island, 85 were Home Rulers and only 18 were Tories. ... The new House of Commons was exactly divided between the Liberals on one side and the Tories with their Irish allies on the other. Of its 670 members just one-half, or 335, were Liberals, 249 were Tories, and 86 were Irish Nationalists [or Home Rulers]. ... It was soon clear enough that the alliance between the Tory Ministers and the Irish Nationalists was at an end." On the 25th of January 1886, the Government was defeated on an amendment to the address, and on the 28th it resigned. Mr. Gladstone was invited to form a Ministry and did so with Lord Herschell for Lord Chancellor, Sir William Harcourt for Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Childers for Home Secretary, Lord Granville for Secretary for the Colonies, Mr. John Morley for Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Mr. Chamberlain for President of the Local Government Board. On the 29th of March "Mr. Gladstone announced in the House of Commons that on the 8th of April he would ask for leave to bring in a bill 'to amend the provision for the future government of Ireland'; and that on the 15th he would ask leave to bring in a measure 'to make amended provision for the sale and purchase of land in Ireland.'" The same day Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan (Secretary for Ireland) resigned their seats in the Cabinet, and it was generally understood that differences of opinion on the Irish bills had arisen. On the 8th of April the House of Commons was densely crowded when Mr. Gladstone introduced his measure for giving Home Rule to Ireland. In a speech which lasted three hours and a half he set forth the details of his plan and the reasons on which they were based. The essential conditions observed in the framing of the measure, as he defined them, were these: "The unity of the Empire must not be placed in jeopardy; the minority must be protected; the political equality of the three countries must be maintained, and there must be an equitable distribution of Imperial burdens. He then discussed some proposals which had been made for the special treatment of Ulster--its exclusion from the bill, its separate autonomy or the reservation of certain matters, such as education, for Provincial Councils; all of which he rejected. The establishment of an Irish legislature involved the removal of Irish peers from the House of Lords and the Irish representatives from the House of Commons. But if Ireland was not represented at Westminster, how was it to be taxed? The English people would never force on Ireland taxation without representation. The taxing power would be in the hands of the Irish legislature, but Customs and Excise duties connected with Customs would be solely in the control of the Imperial Parliament, Ireland's share in these being reserved for Ireland's use. Ireland must have security against her Magna Charta being tampered with; the provision of the Act would therefore only be capable of modification with the concurrence of the Irish legislature, or after the recall of the Irish members to the two Houses of Parliament. The Irish legislature would have all the powers which were not specially reserved from it in the Act. It was to consist of two orders, though not two Houses. It would be subject to all the prerogatives of the Crown; it would have nothing to do with Army or Navy, or with Foreign or Colonial relations; nor could it modify the Act on which its own authority was based. Contracts, charters, questions of education, religious endowments and establishments, would be beyond its authority. Trade and navigation, coinage, currency, weights and measures, copyright, census, quarantine laws, and some other matters, were not to be within the powers of the Irish Parliament. The composition of the legislature was to be first, the 103 members now representing Ireland with 101, elected by the same constituencies, with the exception of the University, with power to the Irish legislature to give two members to the Royal University if it chose; then the present Irish members of the House of Lords, with 75 elected by the Irish people under a property qualification. The Viceroyalty was to be left, but the Viceroy was not to quit office with an outgoing government, and no religious disability was to affect his appointment. He would have a Privy Council, and the executive would remain as at present, but might be changed by the action of the legislative body. The present judges would preserve their lien on the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain, and the Queen would be empowered to antedate their pensions if it was seen to be desirable. Future judges, with the exception of two in the Court of Exchequer, would be appointed by the Irish government, and, like English judges, would hold their office during good behaviour. The Constabulary would remain under its present administration, Great Britain paying all charges over a million. Eventually, however, the whole police of Ireland would be under the Irish government. The civil servants would have two years' grace, with a choice of retirement on pension before passing under the Irish executive. Of the financial arrangements Mr. Gladstone spoke in careful and minute detail. He fixed the proportion of Imperial charges Ireland should pay at one-fifteenth, or in other words she would pay one part and Great Britain fourteen parts. More than a million of duty is paid on spirits in Ireland which come to Great Britain, and this would be practically a contribution towards the Irish revenue. So with Irish porter and with the tobacco manufactured in Ireland and sold here. Altogether the British taxpayers would contribute in this way £1,400,000 a year to the Irish Exchequer; reducing the actual payment of Ireland itself for Imperial affairs to one-twenty-sixth." On the 16th of April Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land Bill, connecting it with the Home Rule Bill as forming part of one great measure for the pacification of Ireland. In the meantime the opposition to his policy within the ranks of the Liberal party had been rapidly taking form. It Mr. Trevelyan, Sir Henry James, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Goschen, and Mr. Courtney. It soon received the support of Mr. John Bright. The debate in the House, which lasted until the 3rd of June, was passionate and bitter. {980} It ended in the defeat of the Government by a majority of 30 against the bill. The division was the largest which had ever been taken in the House of Commons, 657 members being present. The majority was made up of 249 Conservatives and 94 Liberals. The minority consisted of 228 Liberals and 85 Nationalists. Mr. Gladstone appealed to the country by a dissolution of Parliament. The elections were adverse to him, resulting in the return to Parliament of members representing the several parties and sections of parties as follows:

Home Rule Liberals, or Gladstonians, 194, Irish Nationalists 85 total 279; seceding Liberals 75, Conservatives 316 total 391.

Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues resigned and a new Ministry was formed under Lord Salisbury. The Liberals, in alliance with the Conservatives and giving their support to Lord Salisbury's Government, became organized as a distinct party under the leadership of Lord Hartington, and took the name of Liberal Unionists.

P. W. Clayden, England under the Coalition, chapters 1-6.

ALSO IN: H. D. Traill, The Marquis of Salisbury, chapter 12.

Annual Register, 1885, 1886.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1888. Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington. Renewed controversies with the United States. The rejected Treaty.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1886. Defeat of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill. The plan of campaign in Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1886-1893. The Bering Sea Controversy and Arbitration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1890. Settlement of African questions with Germany. Cession of Heligoland.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1891. The Free Education Bill.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. ENGLAND: A. D. 1891.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1892-1893. The fourth Gladstone Ministry. Passage of the Irish Home Rule Bill by the House of Commons. Its defeat by the Lords.

On the 28th of June, 1892, Parliament was dissolved, having been in existence since 1886, and a new Parliament was summoned to meet on the 4th of August. Great excitement prevailed in the ensuing elections, which turned almost entirely on the question of Home Rule for Ireland. The Liberal or Gladstonian party, favoring Home Rule, won a majority of 42 in the House of Commons; but in the representation of England alone there was a majority of 70 returned against it. In Ireland, the representation returned was 103 for Home Rule, and 23 against; in Scotland, 51 for and 21 against; in Wales, 28 for and 2 against. Conservatives and Liberal Unionists (opposing Home Rule) lost little ground in the boroughs, as compared with the previous Parliament, but largely in the counties. As the result of the election, Lord Salisbury and his Ministry resigned August 12, and Mr. Gladstone was summoned to form a Government. In the new Cabinet, which was announced four days later, Earl Rosebery became Foreign Secretary; Baron Herschell, Lord Chancellor; Sir William Vernon Harcourt, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Herbert H. Asquith, Home Secretary; and Mr. John Morley, Chief Secretary for Ireland. Although the new Parliament assembled in August, 1892, it was not until the 13th of February following that Mr. Gladstone introduced his bill to establish Home Rule in Ireland. The bill was under debate in the House of Commons until the night of September 1, 1893, when it passed that body by a vote of 301 to 267. "The bill provides for a Legislature for Ireland, consisting of the Queen and of two Houses--the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. This Legislature, with certain restrictions, is authorized to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some part thereof. The bill says that the powers of the Irish Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law respecting the establishment or endowment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or imposing any disability or conferring any privilege on account of religious belief, or whereby any person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or whereby private property may be taken without just compensation. According to the bill the executive power in Ireland shall continue vested in her Majesty the Queen, and the Lord Lieutenant, on behalf of her Majesty, shall exercise any prerogatives or other executive power of the Queen the exercise of which may be delegated to him by her Majesty, and shall in the Queen's name summon, prorogue, and dissolve the Legislature. An Executive Committee of the Privy Council of Ireland is provided for, which 'shall aid and advise in the government of Ireland.' The Lord Lieutenant, with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, is authorized to give or withhold the assent of her Majesty to bills passed by the houses of the Legislature. The Legislative Council by the terms of the bill shall consist of forty-eight Councilors. Every man shall be entitled to vote for a Councilor who owns or occupies any land or tenement of a ratable value of £20. The term of office of the Councilors is to be for eight years, which is not to be affected by dissolution, but one-half of the Councilors shall retire in every fourth year and their seats be filled by a new election. The Legislative Assembly is to consist of 103 members returned by the Parliamentary constituencies existing at present in Ireland. This Assembly, unless sooner dissolved, may exist for five years. The bill also provides for 80 Irish members in the House of Commons. In regard to finance, the bill provides that for the purposes of this act the public revenue shall be divided into general revenue and special revenue, and general revenue shall consist of the gross revenue collected in Ireland from taxes; the portion due to Ireland of the hereditary revenues of the crown which are managed by the Commissioners of Woods, an annual sum for the customs and excise duties collected in Great Britain on articles consumed in Ireland, provided that an annual sum of the customs and excise duties collected in Ireland on articles consumed in Great Britain shall be deducted from the revenue collected in Ireland and treated as revenue collected in Great Britain; these annual sums to be determined by a committee appointed jointly by the Irish Government and the Imperial Treasury. It is also provided that one-third of the general revenue of Ireland and also that portion of any imperial miscellaneous revenue to which Ireland may claim to be entitled shall be paid into the Treasury of the United Kingdom as the contribution of Ireland to imperial liabilities and expenditures; this plan to continue for a term of six years, at the end of which time a new scheme of tax division shall be devised. {981} The Legislature, in order to meet expenses of the public service, is authorized to impose taxes other than those now existing in Ireland. Ireland should also have charged up against her and be compelled to pay out of her own Treasury all salaries and pensions of Judges and liabilities of all kinds which Great Britain has assumed for her benefit. The bill further provides that appeal from courts in Ireland to the House of Lords shall cease and that all persons having the right of appeal shall have a like right to appeal to the Queen in council. The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant is fixed at six years. Ultimately the Royal Irish Constabulary shall cease to exist and no force other than the ordinary civil police shall be permitted to be formed. The Irish Legislature shall be summoned to meet on the first Tuesday in September, 1894, and the first election for members shall be held at such time before that day as may be fixed by her Majesty in council." In the House of Lords, the bill was defeated on the 8th of September--the second reading postponed to a day six months from that date--by the overwhelming vote of 419 to 41.

----------ENGLAND: End----------

ENGLE.--ENGLISH.

See ANGLES AND JUTES; also, ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

ENGLISH PALE, The.

See PALE, THE ENGLISH.

ENGLISH SWEAT, The.

See SWEATING SICKNESS.

ENGLISHRY.

To check the assassination of his tyrannical Norman followers by the exasperated English, William the Conqueror ordained that the whole Hundred within which one was slain should pay a heavy penalty. "In connexion with this enactment there grew up the famous law of 'Englishry,' by which every murdered man was presumed to be a Norman, unless proofs of 'Englishry' were made by the four nearest relatives of the deceased. 'Presentments of Englishry,' as they were technically termed, are recorded in the reign of Richard I., but not later."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History. page 68.

ENNISKILLEN, The defence of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.

ENÔMOTY, The.

In the Spartan military organization the enômoty "was a small company of men, the number of whom was variable, being given differently at 25, 32, or 36 men,--drilled and practised together in military evolutions, and bound to each other by a common oath. Each Enômoty had a separate captain or enomotarch, the strongest and ablest soldier of the company."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 8.

ENRIQUE.

See HENRY.

ENSISHEIM, Battle of (1674).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

EORL AND CEORL.

"The modern English forms of these words have completely lost their ancient meaning. The word 'Earl,' after several fluctuations, has settled down as the title of one rank in the Peerage; the word 'Churl' has come to be a word of moral reprobation, irrespective of the rank of the person who is guilty of the offence. But in the primary meaning of the words, 'Eorl' and 'Ceorl'--words whose happy jingle causes them to be constantly opposed to each other--form an exhaustive division of the free members of the state. The distinction in modern language is most nearly expressed br the words 'Gentle' and 'Simple.' The 'Ceorl' is the simple freeman, the mere unit in the army or in the assembly, whom no distinction of birth or office marks out from his fellows."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 3, section 2.

See, also, ETHEL; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

EORMEN STREET.

See ERMYN STREET.

EPAMINONDAS, and the greatness of Thebes.

See GREECE: B. C. 379-371, and 371-362; also THEBES: B. C. 378.

EPEIROS.

See Epmus.

EPHAH, The.

"The ephah, or bath, was the unit of measures of capacity for both liquids and grain [among the ancient Jews]. The ephah is considered by Queipo to have been the measure of water contained in the ancient Egyptian cubic foot, and thus equivalent to 29.376 litres, or 6.468 imperial gallons, and to have been nearly identical with the ancient Egyptian artaba and the Greek metretes. For liquids, the ephah was divided into six hin, and the twelfth part of the hin was the log. As a grain measure, the ephah was divided into ten omers, or gomers. The omer measure of manna gathered by the Israelites in the desert as a day's food for each adult person was thus equal to 2.6 imperial quarts. The largest measure of capacity both for liquids and dry commodities was the cor of twelve ephahs."

H. W. Chisholm, On the Science of Weighing and Measuring, chapter 2.

EPHES-DAMMIM, Battle of.

The battle which followed David's encounter with Goliath, the gigantic Philistine.

1 Samuel, xvii.

EPHESIA, The.

See IONIC (PAN-IONIC) AMPHIKTYONY.

EPHESUS. The Ephesian Temple.

"The ancient city of Ephesus was situated on the river Cayster, which falls into the Bay of Scala Nova, on the western coast of Asia Minor. Of the origin and foundation of Ephesus we have no historical record. Stories were told which ascribed the settlement of the place to Androklos, the son of the Athenian king, Codrus. ... With other Ionian cities of Asia Minor, Ephesus fell into the hands of Crœsus, the last of the kings of Lydia, and, on the overthrow of Crœsus by Cyrus, it passed under the heavier yoke of the Persian despot. Although from that time, during a period of at least five centuries, to the conquest by the Romans, the city underwent great changes of fortune, it never lost its grandeur and importance. The Temple of Artemis (Diana), whose splendour has almost become proverbial, tended chiefly to make Ephesus the most attractive and notable of all the cities of Asia Minor. Its magnificent harbour was filled with Greek and Phenician merchantmen, and multitudes flocked from all parts to profit by its commerce and to worship at the shrine of its tutelary goddess. The City Port was fully four miles from the sea, which has not, as has been supposed, receded far. ... During the generations which immediately followed the conquest of Lydia and the rest of Asia Minor by the Persian kings, the arts of Greece attained their highest perfection, and it was within this short period of little more than two centuries that the great Temple of Artemis was three times built upon the same site, and, as recent researches have found, each time on the same grand scale."

J. T. Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus, chapter 1.

{982}

The excavations which were carried on at Ephesus by Mr. Wood, for the British Museum, during eleven years, from 1863 until 1874, resulted in the uncovering of a large part of the site of the great Temple and the determining of its architectural features, besides bringing to light many inscriptions and much valuable sculpture. The account given in the work named above is exceedingly interesting.

EPHESUS: Ionian conquest and occupation.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

EPHESUS: Ancient Commerce.

"The spot on the Asiatic coast which corresponded most nearly with Corinth on the European, was Ephesus, a city which, in the time of Herodotus, had been the starting point of caravans for Upper Asia, but which, under the change of dynasties and ruin of empires, had dwindled into a mere provincial town. The mild sway of Augustus restored it to wealth and eminence, and as the official capital of the province of Asia, it was reputed to be the metropolis of no less than 500 cities."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 40.

EPHESUS: A. D. 267. Destruction by the Goths of the Temple of Diana.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

EPHESUS: A. D. 431 and 449. The General Council and the "Robber Synod."

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

----------EPHESUS: End----------

EPHETÆ, The.

A board of fifty-one judges instituted by the legislation of Draco, at Athens, for the trial of crimes of bloodshed upon the Areopagus.

G. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3.

EPHORS.

"Magistrates, called by the name of Ephors, existed in many Dorian as well as in other States [of ancient Greece], although our knowledge with regard to them extends no further than to the fact of their existence; while the name, which signifies quite generally 'overseers,' affords room for no conclusion as to their political position or importance. In Sparta, however, the Board of Five Ephors became, in the course of time, a magistracy of such dignity and influence that no other can be found in any free State with which it can be compared. Concerning its first institution nothing certain can be ascertained. ... The following appears to be a probable account:--The Ephors were originally magistrates appointed by the kings, partly to render them special assistance in the judicial decision of private disputes,--a function which they continued to exercise in later times,--partly to undertake, as lieutenants of the kings, other of their functions, during their absence in military service, or through some other cause. ... When the monarchy and the Gerousia wished to re-establish their ancient influence in opposition to the popular assembly, they were obliged to agree to a concession which should give some security to the people that this power should not be abused to their detriment. This concession consisted in the fact that the Ephors were independently authorized to exercise control over the kings themselves. ... The Ephors were enabled to interfere in every department of the administration, and to remove or punish whatever they found to be contrary to the laws or adverse to the public interest."

G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 1, section 8.

See, also, SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

EPHTHALITES, The.

See HUNS, THE WHITE.

EPIDAMNUS.

See GREECE: B. C. 435-432; and KORKYRA.

EPIDII, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

EPIGAMIA.

The right of marriage in ancient Athens.

G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3.

EPIGONI, The.

See BŒOTIA.

EPIPOLÆ.

One of the parts or divisions of the ancient city of Syracuse, Sicily.

EPIROT LEAGUE, The.

"The temporary greatness of the Molossian kingdom [of Epeiros, or Epirus] under Alexander and Pyrrhus is matter of general history. Our immediate business is with the republican government which succeeded on the bloody extinction of royalty and the royal line [which occurred B. C. 239]. Epeiros now became a republic; of the details of its constitution we know nothing, but its form can hardly fail to have been federal. The Epeirots formed one political body; Polybios always speaks of them, like the Achaians and Akarnanians, as one people acting with one will. Decrees are passed, ambassadors are sent and received, in the name of the whole Epeirot people, and Epeiros had, like Akarnania, a federal coinage bearing the common name of the whole nation."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, book 4, section 1.

EPIRUS.--THE EPIROTS.

"Passing over the borders of Akarnania [in ancient western Greece] we find small nations or tribes not considered as Greeks, but known, from the fourth century B. C. downwards, under the common name of Epirots. This word signifies, properly, inhabitants of a continent, as opposed to those of an island or a peninsula. It came only gradually to be applied by the Greeks as their comprehensive denomination to designate all those diverse tribes, between the Ambrakian Gulf on the south and west, Pindus on the east, and the Illyrians and Macedonians to the north and north-east. Of these Epirots the principal were--the Chaonians, Thesprotians, Kassopians, and Molossians, who occupied the country inland as well as maritime along the Ionian Sea, from the Akrokeraunian mountains to the borders of Ambrakia in the interior of the Ambrakian Gulf. ... Among these various tribes it is difficult to discriminate the semi-Hellenic from the non-Hellenic; for Herodotus considers both Molossians and Thesprotians as Hellenic,--and the oracle of Dôdôna, as well as the Nekyomanteion (or holy cavern for evoking the dead) of Acheron, were both in the territory of the Thesprotians, and both (in the time of the historian) Hellenic. Thucydides, on the other hand, treats both Molossians and Thesprotians as barbaric. ... Epirus is essentially a pastoral country: its cattle as well as its shepherds and shepherds' dogs were celebrated throughout all antiquity; and its population then, as now, found divided village residence the most suitable to their means and occupations. ... Both the Chaonians and Thesprotians appear, in the time of Thucydides, as having no kings: there was a privileged kingly race, but the presiding chief was changed from year to year. The Molossians, however, had a line of kings, succeeding from father to son, which professed to trace its descent through fifteen generations downward from Achilles and Neoptolemus to Tharypas about the year 400 B. C."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 24.

{983}

The Molossian kings subsequently extended their sovereignty over the whole country and styled themselves kings of Epirus. Pyrrhus, whose war with Rome (see ROME: B. C. 282-275) is one of the well known episodes of history, was the most ambitious and energetic of the dynasty (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280); Hannibal reckoned him among the greatest of soldiers. In the next century Epirus fell under the dominion of Rome. Subsequently it formed part of the Byzantine empire; then became a separate principality, ruled by a branch of the imperial Comnenian family; was conquered by the Turks in 1466 and is now represented by the southern half of the province of Turkey, called Albania.

See, also, ŒNOTRIANS.

EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350. The Greek Despotat.

From the ruins of the Byzantine empire, overthrown by the Crusaders and the Venetians in 1204, "that portion ... situated to the west of the range of Pindus was saved from feudal domination by Michael, a natural son of Constantine Angelos, the uncle of the Emperors Isaac II. and Alexius III. After the conquest of Constantinople, he escaped into Epirus, where his marriage with a lady of the country gave him some influence; and assuming the direction of the administration of the whole country from Dyrrachium to Naupactus, he collected a considerable military force, and established the seat of his authority generally at Ioannina or Arta. ... History has unfortunately preserved very little information concerning the organisation and social condition of the different classes and races which inhabited the dominions of the princes of Epirus. Almost the only facts that have been preserved relate to the wars and alliances of the despots and their families with the Byzantine emperors and the Latin princes. ... They all assumed the name of Angelos Komnenos Dukas; and the title of despot, by which they are generally distinguished, was a Byzantine honorary distinction, never borne by the earlier members of the family until it had been conferred on them by the Greek emperor. Michael I, the founder of the despotat, distinguished himself by his talents as a soldier and a negotiator. He extended his authority over all Epirus, Acarnania and Etolia, and a part of Macedonia and Thessaly. Though virtually independent, he acknowledged Theodore I. (Laskaris), [at Nicæa] as the lawful emperor of the East." The able and unscrupulous brother of Michael, Theodore, who became his successor in 1214, extinguished by conquest the Lombard kingdom of Saloniki, in Macedonia (A. D. 1222), and assumed the title of emperor, in rivalry with the Greek emperor at Nicæa, establishing his capital at Thessalonica. The empire of Thessalonica was short lived. Its capital was taken by the emperor of Nicæa, in 1234, and Michael's son John, then reigning, was forced to resign the imperial title. The despotat of Epirus survived for another century, much torn and distracted by wars and domestic conflicts. In 1350 its remaining territory was occupied by the king of Servia, and finally it was swallowed up in the conquests of the Turks.

G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusader, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: Sir J. E. Tennent, History of Modern Greece, chapter 3.

EPIRUS: Modern History.

See ALBANIANS.

EPISCOPALIAN CHURCH.

See CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

EPISTATES.

The presiding officer of the ancient Athenian council and popular assembly.

EPONYM.--EPONYMUS.

The name-giver,--the name-giving hero of primitive myths, in which tribes and races of people set before themselves, partly by tradition, partly by imagination, an heroic personage who is supposed to be their common progenitor and the source of their name.

EPONYM CANON OF ASSYRIA.

See ASSYRIA, EPONYM CANON OF.

EPPING FOREST.

Once so extensive that it covered the whole county of Essex, England, and was called the Forest of Essex. Subsequently, when diminished in size, it was called Waltham Forest. Still later, when further retrenched, it took the name of Epping, from a town that is embraced in it. It is still quite large, and within recent years it has been formally declared by the Queen "a people's park."

_J. C. Brown, Forests of England._

EPULONES, The.

"The epulones [at Rome] formed a college for the administration of the sacred festivals."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 31.

EQUADOR.

See ECUADOR.

EQUAL RIGHTS PARTY.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.

EQUESTRIAN ORDER, Roman.

"The selection of the burgess cavalry was vested in the censors. It was, no doubt, the duty of these to make the selection on purely military grounds, and at their musters to insist that all horsemen incapacitated by age or otherwise, or at all unserviceable, should surrender their public horse; but it was not easy to hinder them from looking to noble birth more than to capacity, and from allowing men of standing, who were once admitted, senators particularly, to retain their horse beyond the proper time. Accordingly it became the practical rule for the senators to vote in the eighteen equestrian centuries, and the other places in these were assigned chiefly to the younger men of the nobility. The military system, of course, suffered from this, not so much through the unfitness for effective service of no small part of the legionary cavalry, as through the destruction of military equality to which the change gave rise; the noble youth more and more withdrew from serving in the infantry, and the legionary cavalry became a close aristocratic corps."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 3, chapter 11.

"The eighteen centuries, therefore, in course of time ... lost their original military character and remained only as a voting body. It was by the transformation thus effected in the character of the eighteen centuries of knights, whilst the cavalry service passed over to the richer citizens not included in the senatorial families, that a new class of Roman citizens began gradually to be formed, distinct from the nobility proper and from the mass of the people, and designated as the equestrian order."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter. 1.

The equestrian order became a legally constituted class under the judicial law of Caius Gracchus, B. C. 123, which fixed its membership by a census, and transferred to it the judicial functions previously exercised by the senators only. It formed a kind of monetary aristocracy, as a counterweight to the nobility.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 6.

{984}

ERA, Christian.

"Unfortunately for ancient Chronology, there was no one fixed or universally established Era. Different countries reckoned by different eras, whose number is embarrassing, and their commencements not always easily to be adjusted or reconciled to each other; and it was not until A. D. 532 that the Christian Era was invented by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian by birth, and a Roman Abbot, who flourished in the reign of Justinian. ... Dionysius began his era with the year of our Lord's incarnation and nativity, in U. C. 753, of the Varronian Computation, or the 45th of the Julian Era. And at an earlier period, Panodorus, an Egyptian monk, who flourished under the Emperor Arcadius, A. D. 395, had dated the incarnation in the same year. But by some mistake, or misconception of his meaning, Bede, who lived in the next century after Dionysius, adopted his year of the Nativity, U. C. 753, yet began the Vulgar Era, which he first introduced, the year after, and made it commence Jan. 1, U. C. 754, which was an alteration for the worse, as making the Christian Era recede a year further from the true year of the Nativity. The Vulgar Era began to prevail in the West about the time of Charles Martel and Pope Gregory II. A. D. 730. ... But it was not established till the time of Pope Eugenius IV. A. D. 1431, who ordered this era to be used in the public Registers. ... Dionysius was led to date the year of the Nativity, U. C. 753, from the Evangelist Luke's account that John the Baptist began his ministry 'in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar'; and that Jesus, at his baptism, 'was beginning to be about 30 years of age.' Luke iii. 1-23. ... But this date of the Nativity is at variance with Matthew's account, that Christ was born before Herod's death; which followed shortly after his massacre of the infants at Bethlehem. ... Christ's birth, therefore, could not have been earlier than U. C. 748, nor later than U. C. 749. And if we assume the latter year, as most conformable to the whole tenor of Sacred History, with Chrysostom, Petavius, Prideaux, Playfair, &c., this would give Christ's age at his baptism, about 34 years; contrary to Luke's account."

W. Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, volume 1, book l.

In a subsequent table, Mr. Hales gives the results of the computations made by different chronologists, ancient and modern, to fix the true year of the Nativity, as accommodated to what is called "the vulgar," or popularly accepted, Christian Era. The range is through no less than ten years, from B. C. 7 to A. D. 3. His own conclusion, supported by Prideaux and Playfair, is in favor of the year B. C. 5. Somewhat more commonly at the present time, it is put at B. C. 4.

See, also, JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.

ERA, French Revolutionary.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), and 1793 (OCTOBER).

ERA, Gregorian.

See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

ERA, Jalalæan.

See TURKS (THE SELJUK): A. D. 1073-1092.

ERA, Julian.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

ERA, Mahometan, or Era of the Hegira.

"The epoch of the Era of the Hegira is, according to the civil calculation, Friday, the 16th of July, A. D. 622, the day of the flight of Mahomet from Mecca to Medina, which is the date of the Mahometans; but astronomers and some historians assign it to the preceding day, viz., Thursday, the 15th of July; an important fact to be borne in mind when perusing Arabian writers. The years of the Hegira are lunar years, and contain twelve months, each commencing with the new moon; a practice which necessarily leads to great confusion and uncertainty, inasmuch as every year must begin considerably earlier in the season than the preceding. In chronology and history, however, and in dating their public instruments, the Turks use months which contain alternately thirty and twenty-nine days, excepting the last month, which, in intercalary years, contains thirty days. ... The years of the Hegira are divided into cycles of thirty years, nineteen of which are termed common years, of 354 days each; and the eleven others intercalary, or abundant, from their consisting of one day more: these are the 2d, 5th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 26th and 29th. To ascertain whether any given year be intercalary or not divide it by 30; and if either of the above numbers remain, the year is one of 355 days."

_Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History._

See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

ERA, Spanish.

"The Spanish era dates from 38 B. C. (A. U. 716) and is supposed to mark some important epoch in the organization of the province by the Romans. It may coincide with the campaign of Calvinus, which is only known to us from a notice in the Fasti Triumphales. ... The Spanish era was preserved in Aragon till 1358, in Castile till 1383, and in Portugal till 1415."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 34, note.

ERA OF DIOCLETIAN, or Era of Martyrs.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

ERA OF GOOD FEELING.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1824.

ERA OF THE FOUNDATION OF ROME.

See ROME: B. C. 753.

ERA OF THE OLYMPIADS.

See OLYMPIADS, ERA OF THE.

ERANI.

Associations existing in ancient Athens which resembled the mutual benefit or friendly-aid societies of modern times.

G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3.

ERASTIANISM.

A doctrine which "received its name from Thomas Erastus, a German physician of the 16th century, contemporary with Luther. The work in which he delivered his theory and reasonings on the subject is entitled 'De Excommunicatione Ecclesiastica.' ... The Erastians ... held that religion is an affair between man and his creator, in which no other man or society of men was entitled to interpose. ... Proceeding on this ground, they maintained that every man calling himself a Christian has a right to make resort to any Christian place of worship, and partake in all its ordinances. Simple as this idea is, it strikes at the root of all priestcraft."

W. Godwin, History of the Commonwealth, volume 1, chapter 13.

ERCTÉ, Mount, Hamilcar on.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

See, also, ERYX.

ERDINI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

EREMITES OF ST. FRANCIS.

See MINIMS.

ERETRIA.

See CHALCIS AND ERETRIA.

ERFURT, IMPERIAL CONFERENCE AND TREATY OF.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

{985}

ERECTHEION AT ATHENS, The.

"At a very early period there was, opposite the long northern side of the Parthenon, a temple which, according to Herodot, was dedicated jointly to Athene Polias and the Attic hero, Erectheus. ... This temple was destroyed by fire while the Persians held the city. Not unlikely the rebuilding of the Erectheion was begun by Perikles together with that of the other destroyed temples of the Akropolis; but as it was not finished by him, it is generally not mentioned amongst his works. ... This temple was renowned amongst the ancients as one of the most beautiful and perfect in existence, and seems to have remained almost intact down to the time of the Turks. The siege of Athens by the Venetians in 1687 seems to have been fatal to the Erectheion, as it was to the Parthenon."

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks, section 14.

See, also, ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

ERIC, King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, A. D. 1412-1439. Eric Blodaexe, King of Norway, A. D. 934-940. Eric I., King of Denmark, A. D: 850-854. Eric I. (called Saint), King of Sweden, A. D. 1155-1161. Eric II., King of Denmark, A. D. 854-883. Eric II., King of·Norway, A. D. 1280-1299. Eric II. (Knutsson), King of Sweden, A. D. 1210-1216. Eric III., King of Denmark, A. D. 1095-1103. Eric III. (called The Stammerer), King of Sweden, A. D. 1222-1250. Eric IV., King of Denmark, A. D. 1134-1137. Eric V., King of Denmark, A. D. 1137-1147. Eric VI., King of Denmark, A. D. 1241-1250. Eric VII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1259-1286. Eric VIII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1286-1319. Eric XIV., King of Sweden, A. D. 1560-1568.

ERICSSON, John Invention and construction of the Monitor.

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

ERIE, The City of: A. D. 1735. Site occupied by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1764-1791. Origin.

Four years after the British conquest of Canada, in 1764, Colonel John Bradstreet built a blockhouse and stockade near the site of the later Fort Erie, which was not constructed until 1791. When war with the United States broke out, in 1812, the British considered the new fort untenable, or unnecessary, and evacuated and partly destroyed it, in May, 1813.

_C. K. Remington, Old Fort Erie._

ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1814. The siege and the destruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

ERIE, Fort: A. D. 1866. The Fenian invasion.

See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

----------ERIE: End----------

ERIE, Lake: The Indian name.

See NIAGARA: THE NAME, &c.

ERIE, Lake: A. D. 1679. Navigated by La Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

ERIE, Lake: A. D. 1813. Perry's naval victory.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

----------ERIE, Lake: End----------

ERIE CANAL, Construction of the.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

ERIES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c., and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS.

ERIN.

See IRELAND.

ERMANRIC, OR HERMANRIC, The empire of.

See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 350-375; and 376.

ERMYN STREET.

A corruption of Eormen street, the Saxon name of one of the great Roman roads in Britain, which ran from London to Lincoln. Some writers trace it northwards through York to the Scottish border and southward to Pevensey.

See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

ERNESTINE LINE OF SAXONY.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

ERPEDITANI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

ERTANG, The. The sacred book of the Manicheans.

See MANICHEANS.

ERYTHRÆ.-ERYTHRÆAN SIBYL.

Erythræ was an ancient Ionian city on the Lydian coast of Asia Minor, opposite the island of Chios or Scio. It was chiefly famous as the home or seat of one of the most venerated of the sibyls--prophetic women--of antiquity. The collection of Sibylline oracles which was sacredly preserved at Rome appears to have been largely derived from Erythræ. The Cumæan Sibyl is sometimes identified with her Erythræan sister, who is said to have passed into Europe.

See, also, SIBYLS.

ERYTHRÆAN SEA, The.

The Erythræan Sea, in the widest sense of the term, as used by the ancients, comprised "the Arabian Gulf (or what we now call the Red Sea), the coasts of Africa outside the straits of Bab el Mandeb as far as they had then been explored, as well as those of Arabia and India down to the extremity of the Malabar coast." The Periplus of the Erythræan Sea is a geographical treatise of great importance which we owe to some unknown Greek writer supposed to be nearly contemporary with Pliny. It is "a kind of manual for the instruction of navigators and traders in the Erythræan Sea."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 25.

"The Erythrêam Sea is an appellation ... in all appearance deduced [by the ancients] from their entrance into it by the straits of the Red Sea, styled Erythra by the Greeks, and not excluding the gulph of Persia, to which the fabulous history of a king Erythras is more peculiarly appropriate."

W. Vincent, Periplus of the Erythrêan Sea, book 1, prelim. disquis.

ERYX.--ERCTE.

A town originally Phoœnician or Carthaginian on the northwestern coast of Sicily. It stood on the slope of a mountain which was crowned with an ancient temple of Aphrodite, and which gave the name Erycina to the goddess when her worship was introduced at Rome.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ERZEROUM: A. D. 1878. Taken by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

ESCOCÉS, The party of the.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

ESCOMBOLI.

See STAMBOUL.

ESCORIAL, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.

ESCUYER.--ESQUIRE.

See CHIVALRY.

ESDRAELON, Valley of.

See MEGIDDO.

ESKIMO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

ESNE.

See THEOW.

ESPARTERO, Regency of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

ESPINOSA, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

{986}

ESQUILINE, The.

See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

ESQUIRE.--ESCUYER.--SQUIRE.

See CHIVALRY.

ESQUIROS, Battle of (1521).

See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

ESSELENIAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESSELENIAN FAMILY.

ESSENES, The.

See Supplement in volume 5.

ESSEX.

Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon conquerors of Britain, in the fifth and sixth centuries, who acquired, from their geographical position in the island, the name of the East Saxons. It covered the present county of Essex and also included London and Middlesex.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

ESSEX JUNTO, The.

In the Massachusetts election of 1781, "the representatives of the State in Congress, and some of the more moderate leaders at home, opposed Governor Hancock, the popular candidate, and supported James Bowdoin, who was thought to represent the more conservative elements. ... It was at this time that Hancock is said to have bestowed on his opponents the title of the 'Essex Junto,' and this is the first appearance of the name in American politics. ... The 'Junto' was generally supposed to be composed of such men as Theophilus Parsons, George Cabot, Fisher Ames, Stephen Higginson, the Lowells, Timothy Pickering, &c., and took its name from the county to which most of its reputed members originally belonged. ... The reputed members of the 'Junto' held political power in Massachusetts [as leaders of the Federalist party] for more than a quarter of a century." According to Chief Justice Parsons, as quoted by Colonel Pickering in his Diary, the term 'Essex Junto' was applied by one of the Massachusetts royal governors, before the Revolution, to certain gentlemen of Essex county who opposed his measures. Hancock, therefore, only revived the title and gave it currency, with a new application.

H. C. Lodge, Life and Letters of George Cabot, pages 17-22.

ESSLINGEN, OR ASPERN, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ESSUVII, The.

A Gallic tribe established anciently in the modern French department of the Orne.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, note.

ESTATES, Assembly of.

"An assembly of estates is an organised collection, made by representation or otherwise, of the several orders, states or conditions of men, who are recognised as possessing political power. A national council of clergy and barons is not an assembly of estates, because it does not include the body of the people, the plebs, the simple freemen or commons."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 15, section 185.

See, also, ESTATES, THE THREE.

ESTATES, The Three.

"The arrangement of the political factors in three estates is common, with some minor variations, to all the European constitutions, and depends on a principle of almost universal acceptance. This classification differs from the system of caste and from all divisions based on differences of blood or religion, historical or prehistorical. ... In Christendom it has always taken the form of a distinction between clergy and laity, the latter being subdivided according to national custom into noble and non-noble, patrician and plebeian, warriors and traders, landowners and craftsmen. ... The Aragonese cortes contained four brazos or arms, the clergy, the great barons or ricos hombres, the minor barons, knights or infanzones, and the towns. The Germanic diet comprised three colleges, the electors, the princes and the cities, the two former being arranged in distinct benches, lay and clerical. ... The Castilian cortes arranged the clergy, the ricos hombres and the communidades, in three estates. The Swedish diet was composed of clergy, barons, burghers and peasants. ... In France, both in the States General and in the provincial estates, the division is into gentz de l'eglise, nobles, and gentz des bonnes villes. In England, after a transitional stage, in which the clergy, the greater and smaller barons, and the cities and boroughs, seemed likely to adopt the system used in Aragon and Scotland, and another in which the county and borough communities continued to assert an essential difference, the three estates of clergy, lords and commons, finally emerge as the political constituents of the nation, or, in their parliamentary form, as the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons. This familiar formula in either shape bears the impress of history. The term commons is not in itself an appropriate expression for the third estate; it does not signify primarily the simple freemen, the plebs, but the plebs organised and combined in corporate communities, in a particular way for particular purposes. The commons are the communitates or universitates, the organised bodies of freemen of the shires and towns. ... The third estate in England differs from the same estate in the continental constitutions, by including the landowners under baronial rank. In most of those systems it contains the representatives of the towns or chartered communities only."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 15, sections 185, 193.

"The words 'gens de tiers et commun état' are found in many acts [France] of the 15th century. The expressions 'tiers état,' 'commun état,' and 'le commun' are used indifferently, ... This name of 'Tiers État, when used in its ordinary sense, properly comprises only the population of the privileged cities; but in effect it extends much beyond this; it includes not only the cities, but the villages and hamlets--not only the free commonalty, but all those for whom civil liberty is a privilege still to come."

A. Thierry, Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France, volume 1, pages 61 and 60.

ESTATES, or "States," of the Netherland Provinces.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

ESTATES GENERAL.

See STATES GENERAL.

ESTE, The House of.

"Descended from one of the northern families which settled in Italy during the darkest period of the middle ages, the Este traced their lineal descent up to the times of Charlemagne. They had taken advantage of the frequent dissensions between the popes and the German emperors of the houses of Saxony and Swabia, and acquired wide dominions in Lunigiana, and the March of Treviso, where the castle of Este, their family residence, was situated. Towards the middle of the 11th century, that family had been connected by marriages with the Guelphs of Bavaria, and one of the name of Este was eventually to become the common source from which sprung the illustrious houses of Brunswick and Hanover. The Este had warmly espoused the Guelph party [see GUELFS], during the wars of the Lombard League. ... {987} Towards the year 1200, Azzo V., Marquis of Este, married Marchesella degli Adelardi, daughter of one of the most conspicuous Guelphs at Ferrara, where the influence of the House of Este was thus first established."

L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga), Italy, volume 2, pages 62-63.

The Marquesses of Este became, "after some of the usual fluctuations, permanent lords of the cities of Ferrara [1264] and Modena [1288]. About the same time they lost their original holding of Este, which passed to Padua, and with Padua to Venice. Thus the nominal marquess of Este and real lord of Ferrara was not uncommonly spoken of as Marquess of Ferrara. In the 15th century these princes rose to ducal rank; but by that time the new doctrine of the temporal dominion of the Popes had made great advances. Modena, no man doubted, was a city of the Empire; but Ferrara was now held to be under the supremacy of the Pope. The Marquess Borso had thus to seek his elevation to ducal rank from two separate lords. He was created Duke of Modena [1453] and Reggio by the Emperor, and afterwards Duke of Ferrara [1471] by the Pope. This difference of holding ... led to the destruction of the power of the house of Este. In the times in which we are now concerned, their dominions lay in two masses. To the west lay the duchy of Modena and Reggio; apart from it to the east lay the duchy of Ferrara. Not long after its creation, this last duchy was cut short by the surrender of the border-district of Rovigo to Venice. ... Modena and Ferrara remained united, till Ferrara was annexed [1598] as an escheated fief to the dominions of its spiritual overlord. But the house of Este still reigned over Modena with Reggio and Mirandola, while its dominions were extended to the sea by the addition of Massa and other small possessions between Lucca and Genoa. The duchy in the end passed by female succession to the House of Austria [1771-1803]."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 8, sections 3-4.

"The government of the family of Este at Ferrara, Modena, and Reggio displays curious contrasts of violence and popularity. Within the palace frightful deeds were perpetrated; a princess was beheaded [1425] for alleged adultery with a stepson; legitimate and illegitimate children fled from the court, and even abroad their lives were threatened by assassins sent in pursuit of them (1471). Plots from without were incessant; the bastard of a bastard tried to wrest the crown from the lawful heir, Hercules I.: this latter is said afterwards (1493) to have poisoned his wife on discovering that she, at the instigation of her brother, Ferrante of Naples, was going to poison him. This list of tragedies is closed by the plot of two bastards against their brothers; the ruling Duke Alfonso I. and the Cardinal Ippolito (1506), which was discovered in time, and punished with imprisonment for life. ... It is undeniable that the dangers to which these princes were constantly exposed developed in them capacities of a remarkable kind."

J. Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy, part 1, chapter 5.

For the facts of the ending of the legitimate Italian line of Este,

See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

ESTHONIA, OR ESTONIA: Origin of the name.

See ÆSTII.

ESTHONIA, OR ESTONIA: Christian conquest.

See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

ESTIENNES, The Press of the.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.

ESTREMOS, OR AMEIXAL, Battle of (1663).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

ETCHEMINS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

ETHANDUN, OR EDINGTON, Battle of (A. D. 878).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

ETHEL, ETHELINGS, OR ÆTHELINGS.

"The sons and brothers of the king [of the English] were distinguished by the title of Æthelings. The word Ætheling, like eorl, originally denoted noble birth simply; but as the royal house of Wessex rose to pre-eminence and the other royal houses and the nobles generally were thereby reduced to a relatively lower grade, it became restricted to the near kindred of the national king."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, page 29.

"It has been sometimes held that the only nobility of blood recognized in England before the Norman Conquest was that of the king's kin. The statement may be regarded as deficient in authority, and as the result of a too hasty generalization from the fact that only the sons and brothers of the kings bear the name of ætheling. On the other hand must be alleged the existence of a noble (edhiling) class among the continental Saxons who had no kings at all. ... The laws of Ethelbert prove the existence of a class bearing the name of eorl of which no other interpretation can be given. That these, eorlas and æthel, were the descendants of the primitive nobles of the first settlement, who, on the institution of royalty, sank one step in dignity from the ancient state of rude independence, in which they had elected their own chiefs and ruled their own dependents, may be very reasonably conjectured. ... The ancient name of eorl, like that of ætheling, changed its application, and, under the influence, perhaps, of Danish association, was given like that of jarl to the official ealdorman. Henceforth the thegn takes the place of the æthel, and the class of thegns probably embraces all the remaining families of noble blood. The change may have been very gradual; the 'north people's law' of the tenth or early eleventh century still distinguishes the eorl and ætheling with a wergild nearly double that of the ealdorman and seven times that of the thegn; but the north people's law was penetrated with Danish influence, and the eorl probably represents the jarl rather than the ealdorman, the great eorl of the fourth part of England as it was divided by Canute. ... The word eorl is said to be the same as the Norse jarl and another form of ealdor (?); whilst the ceorl answers to the Norse Karl; the original meaning of the two being old man and young man."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 6, section 64, and note.

ETHEL.--Family-land.

See ALOD; and FOLCLAND.

ETHELBALD, King of Mercia, A. D. 716-755. Ethelbald, King of Wessex, A. D. 858-860.

ETHELBERT, King of Kent, A. D. 565-616. Ethelbert, King of Wessex, A. D. 860-866.

ETHELFRITH, King of Northumberland, A. D. 593-617.

ETHELRED, King of Wessex, A. D. 866-871. Ethelred, called the Unready, King of Wessex, A. D. 979-1016.

{988}

ETHELSTAN, King of Wessex, A. D. 925-940.

ETHELWULF, King of Wessex, A. D. 836-858.

ETHIOPIA.

The Ethiopia of the ancients, "in the ordinary and vague sense of the term, was a vast tract extending in length above a thousand miles, from the 9th to the 24th degree of north latitude, and in breadth almost 900 miles, from the shores of the Red Sea and Indian Ocean to the desert of the Sahara. This tract was inhabited for the most part by wild and barbarous tribes--herdsmen, hunters, or fishermen--who grew no corn, were unacquainted with bread, and subsisted on the milk and flesh of their cattle, or on game, turtle, and fish, salted or raw. The tribes had their own separate chiefs, and acknowledged no single head, but on the contrary were frequently at war one with the other, and sold their prisoners for slaves. Such was Ethiopia in the common vague sense; but from this must be distinguished another narrower Ethiopia, known sometimes as 'Ethiopia Proper' or 'Ethiopia above Egypt,' the limits of which were, towards the south, the junction of the White and Blue Niles, and towards the north the Third Cataract. Into this tract, called sometimes 'the kingdom of Meroë,' Egyptian civilisation had, long before the eighth century [B. C.], deeply penetrated. Temples of the Egyptian type, stone pyramids, avenues of sphinxes, had been erected; a priesthood had been set up, which was regarded as derived from the Egyptian priesthood; monarchical institutions had been adopted; the whole tract formed ordinarily one kingdom, and the natives were not very much behind the Egyptians in arts or arms, or very different from them in manners, customs, and mode of life. Even in race the difference was not great. The Ethiopians were darker in complexion than the Egyptians, and possessed probably a greater infusion of Nigritic blood; but there was a common stock at the root of the two races--Cush and Mizraim were brethren. In the region of Ethiopia Proper a very important position was occupied in the eighth century [B. C.] by Napata. Napata was situated midway in the great bend of the Nile, between latitude 18° and 19°. ... It occupied the left bank of the river in the near vicinity of the modern Gebel Berkal. . . Here, when the decline of Egypt enabled the Ethiopians to reclaim their ancient limits, the capital was fixed of that kingdom, which shortly became a rival of the old empire of the Pharaohs, and aspired to take its place. ... The kingdom of Meroë, whereof it was the capital, reached southward as far as the modern Khartoum, and eastward stretched up to the Abyssinian highlands, including the valleys of the Atbara and its tributaries, together with most of the tract between the Atbara and the Blue Nile. ... Napata continued down to Roman times a place of importance, and only sank to ruin in consequence of the campaigns of Petronius against Candacé in the first century after our era."

G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, chapter 25.

ALSO IN: _A. H. L. Heeren, Historical Researches, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, &c., pages 143-249._

See, also, EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1200-670; and LIBYANS, THE.

ETON SCHOOL.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.--ENGLAND.

ETRURIA, Ancient.

See ETRUSCANS.

ETRURIA, The kingdom of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803; also PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807; and FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808(NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

ETRUSCANS, The.

"At the time when Roman history begins, we find that a powerful and warlike race, far superior to the Latins in civilisation and in the arts of life, hemmed in the rising Roman dominion in the north. The Greeks called them Turrhenoi, the Romans called them Etrusci, they called themselves the Rasenna. Who they were and whence they came has ever been regarded as one of the most doubtful and difficult problems in ethnology. One conclusion only can be said to have been universally accepted both in ancient and in modern times. It is agreed on every hand that in all essential points, in language, in religion, in customs, and in appearance, the Etruscans were a race wholly different from the Latins. There is also an absolute agreement of all ancient tradition to the effect that the Etruscans were not the original inhabitants of Etruria, but that they were an intrusive race of conquerors. ... It has been usually supposed that the Rasenna made their appearance in Italy some ten or twelve centuries before the Christian era. ... For some six or seven centuries, the Etruscan power and territory continued steadily to increase, and ultimately stretched far south of the Tiber, Rome itself being included in the Etruscan dominion, and being ruled by an Etruscan dynasty. The early history of Rome is to a great extent the history of the uprising of the Latin race, and its long struggle for Italian supremacy with its Etruscan foe. It took Rome some six centuries of conflict to break through the obstinate barrier of the Etruscan power. The final conquest of Etruria by Rome was effected in the year 281 B. C. ... The Rasennic people were collected mainly in the twelve great cities of Etruria proper, between the Arno and the Tiber. [Modern Tuscany takes its name from the ancient Etruscan inhabitants of the region.] This region was the real seat of the Etruscan power. ... From the 'Shah-nameh,' the great Persian epic, we learn that the Aryan Persians called their nearest non-Aryan neighbours--the Turkic or Turcoman tribes to the north of them--by the name Turan, a word from which we derive the familiar ethnologic term Turanian. The Aryan Greeks, on the other hand, called the Turkic tribe of the Rasenna, the nearest non-Aryan race, by the name of Turrhenoi. The argument of this book is to prove that the Tyrrhenians of Italy were of kindred race with the Turanians of Turkestan. Is it too much to conjecture that the Greek form Turrhene may be identically the same word as the Persian form Turan?"

I. Taylor, Etruscan Researches, chapter 2.

"The utmost we can say is that several traces, apparently reliable, point to the conclusion that the Etruscans may be on the whole included among the Indo-Germans. ... But even granting those points of connection, the Etruscan people appears withal scarcely less isolated. 'The Etruscans,' Dionysius said long ago, 'are like no other nation in language and manners'; and we have nothing to add to his statement. ... Reliable traces of any advance of the Etruscans beyond the Tiber, by land, are altogether wanting. ... South of the Tiber no Etruscan settlement can be pointed out as having owed its origin to founders who came by land; and that no indication whatever is discernible of any serious pressure by the Etruscans upon the Latin nation."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 9.

{989}

EUBŒA.

"The island of Eubœa, long and narrow like Krête, and exhibiting a continuous backbone of lofty mountains from northwest to southeast, is separated from Bœotia at one point by a strait so narrow (celebrated in antiquity under the name of the Eurīpus) that the two were connected by a bridge for a large portion of the historical period of Greece, erected during the later times of the Peloponnesian war by the inhabitants of Chalkis [Chalcis]. Its general want of breadth leaves little room for plains. The area of the island consists principally of mountain, rock, dell, and ravine, suited in many parts for pasture, but rarely convenient for grain-culture or town habitations. Some plains there were, however, of great fertility, especially that of Lelantum, bordering on the sea near Chalkis, and continuing from that city in a southerly direction towards Eretria. Chalkis and Eretria, both situated on the western coast, and both occupying parts of this fertile plain, were the two principal places in the island: the domain of each seems to have extended across the island from sea to sea. ... Both were in early times governed by an oligarchy, which among the Chalcidians was called the Hippobotæ, or Horse feeders,-- proprietors probably of most part of the plain called Lelantum."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 12.

See, also, NEGROPONT.

EUBOIC TALENT.

See TALENT.

EUCHITES, The.

See MYSTICISM.

EUDES, King of France (in partition with Charles the Simple), A. D. 887-898.

EUDOSES, The.

See AVIONES.

EUGENE (Prince) of Savoy, Campaigns of.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718; GERMANY: A. D. 1704; ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713; NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709, and 1710-1712.

EUGENE I., Pope, A. D. 655-657. Eugene II., Pope, A. D. 824-827. Eugene III., Pope, A. D. 1145-1153. Eugene IV., Pope, A. D. 1431-1447.

EUGENIANS, The.

See HY-NIALS.

EUMENES, and the wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

EUMOLPHIDÆ, The.

See PHYLÆ.

EUPATRIDÆ, The.

"The Eupatridæ [in ancient Athens] are the wealthy and powerful men, belonging to the most distinguished families in all the various gentes, and principally living in the city of Athens, after the consolidation of Attica: from them are distinguished the middling and lower people, roughly classified into husbandmen and artisans. To the Eupatridæ is ascribed a religious as well as a political and social ascendency. They are represented as the source of all authority on matters both sacred and profane,"

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10.

EUROKS, OR YUROKS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

EUROPE.

A HISTORICAL SKETCH.

A general sketch of the history of Europe at large cannot, for obvious reasons, be constructed of quotations from the historians, on the plan followed in other parts of this work. The editor has found it necessary, therefore, to introduce here an essay of his own.

The first inhabitants of the continent of Europe have left no trace of their existence on the surface of the land. The little that we know of them has been learned by the discovery of deeply buried remains, including a few bones and skulls, many weapons and tools which they had fashioned out of stone and bone, and some other rude marks of their hands which time has not destroyed. The places in which these remains are found--under deposits that formed slowly in ancient river beds and in caves--have convinced geologists that the people whose existence they reveal lived many thousands of years ago, and that the continent of Europe in their time was very different from the Europe of the present day, in its climate, in its aspect, and in its form. They find reason to suppose that the peninsula of Italy, as well as that of Spain, was then an isthmus which joined Europe to Africa; and this helps to explain the fact that remains of such animals as the elephant, the lion, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, and the hyena, as well as the mammoth, are found with the remains of these early men. They all seem to have belonged, together, to a state of things, on the surface of the earth, which was greatly changed before the men and the animals that we have historical knowledge of appeared.

The Stone Age.

These primitive Europeans were evidently quite at the bottom of the savage state. They had learned no use of metals, since every relic of their workmanship that can be found is of stone, or bone, or wood. It is thought possible that they shaped rough vessels out of unbaked clay; but that is uncertain. There is nothing to show that they had domesticated any animals. It is plain that they dwelt in caves, wherever nature provided such dwellings; but what shelters they may have built elsewhere for themselves is unknown.

In one direction, only, did these ancient people exhibit a faculty finer than we see in the lowest savages of the present day: they were artists, in a way. They have left carvings and drawings of animals--the latter etched with a sharp point on horns, bones, and stones--which are remarkable for uncultured men.

The period in man's life on the earth at which these people lived--the period before metals were known--has been named by archæologists the Stone Age. But the Stone Age covers two stages of human culture--one in which stone implements were fashioned unskilfully, and a second in which they were finished with expert and careful hands. The first is called the Palæolithic or Old Stone Age, the second the Neolithic or New Stone Age. Between the two periods in Europe there seems to have been a long interval of time, and a considerable change in the condition of the country, as well as in that of its people. {990} In fact, the Europe of the Neolithic Age was probably not very different in form and climate from the Europe of our own day. Relics of the human life of that time are abundantly scattered over the face of the continent. There are notable deposits of them in the so-called "kitchen-middens" of Denmark, which are great mounds of shells,--shells of oysters and other molluscs,--which these ancient fishermen had opened and emptied, and then cast upon a refuse heap. Buried in those mounds, many bits of their workmanship have been preserved, and many hints of their manner of life are gleaned from the signs and tokens which these afford. They had evidently risen some degrees above the state of the men of the Palæolithic or Old Stone Age; but they were inferior in art.

The Bronze Age.

The discovery and use of copper--the metal most easily worked, and most frequently found in the metallic state--is the event by which archæologists mark the beginning of a second state in early civilizations. The period during which copper, and copper hardened by an alloy of tin, are the only metals found in use, they call the Bronze Age. There is no line of positive division between this and the Neolithic period which it followed. The same races appear to have advanced from the one stage to the other, and probably some were in possession of tools and weapons of bronze, while others were still contenting themselves with implements of stone.

Lake Dwellings.

In many parts of Europe, especially in Switzerland and northern Italy, plain traces of some curious habitations of people who lived through the later Stone Age into the Bronze Age, and even after it, have been brought to light. These are the "lake dwellings," or "lacustrine habitations," as they have been called, which have excited interest in late years. They were generally built on piles, driven into a lake-bottom, at such distance from shore as would make them easy of defence against enemies. The foundations of whole villages of these dwellings have been found in the Swiss and North Italian lakes, and less numerously elsewhere. From the lake-mud under and around them, a great quantity of relics of the lake-dwellers have been taken, and many facts about their arts and mode of life have been learned. It is known that, even before a single metal had come into their hands, they had begun to cultivate the earth; had raised wheat and barley and flax; had domesticated the horse, the ox, the sheep, the goat, the pig and the dog; had become fairly skilful in weaving, in rope-making, and in the art of the potter, but without the potter's wheel.

Gradually copper and bronze made their appearance among the implements of these people, as modern search discovers them imbedded, layer upon layer, in the old ooze of the lake-beds where they were dropped. In time, iron, too, reveals itself among their possessions, showing that they lived in their lake-villages from the later Stone Age into that third period of the early process of civilization which is named the Iron Age--when men first acquired the use of the most useful of all the metals. It appears, in fact, that the lake-dwellings were occupied even down to Roman times, since articles of Roman make have been found in the ruins of them.

Barrows.

In nearly all parts of Europe there are found burial mounds, called barrows, which contain buried relics of people who lived at one or the other of the three periods named. For the most part, they represent inhabitants of the Neolithic and of the Bronze Ages. In Great Britain some of these barrows are long, some are round; and the skulls found in the long barrows are different in shape from those in the round ones, showing a difference of race. The people to whom the first belonged are called "long-headed," or "dolichocephalic"; the others are called "broad-headed," or "brachycephalic." In the opinion of some ethnologists, who study this subject of the distinctions of race in the human family, the broad-headed people were ancestors of the Celtic or Keltic tribes, whom the Romans subdued in Gaul and Britain; while the long-headed men were of a preceding race, which the Celts, when they came, either drove out of all parts of Europe, except two or three mountainous corners, or else absorbed by intermarriage. The Basques of northwestern Spain, and some of their neighbors on the French side of the Pyrenees, are supposed to be survivals of this very ancient people; and there are suspected to be traces of their existence seen in the dark-haired and dark-skinned people of parts of Wales, Ireland, Corsica, North Africa, and elsewhere.

The Aryan Nations.

At least one part of this conjecture has much to rest upon. The inhabitants of western Europe when our historical knowledge of them--that is, our recorded and reported knowledge of them--begins, were, certainly, for the most part, Celtic peoples, and it is extremely probable that they had been occupying the country as long as the period represented by the round barrows. It is no less probable that they were the lake-dwellers of Switzerland, North Italy, and other regions; and that they did, in fact, displace some earlier people in most parts of Western Europe.

The Celts--whose nearly pure descendants are found now in the Bretons of France, the Welsh, the Highland Scotch and the Celtic Irish, and who formed the main stock of the larger part of the French nation--were one branch of the great family of nations called Aryan or Indo-European. The Aryan peoples are assumed to be akin to one another--shoots from one stem--because their languages are alike in grammatical structure and contain great numbers of words that are manifestly formed from the same original "root"; and because they differ in these respects from all other languages. The nations thus identified as Aryan are the nations that have acted the most important parts in all human history except the history of extremely ancient times. Besides the Celtic peoples already mentioned, they include the English, the Dutch, the Germans, and the Scandinavians, forming the Teutonic race; the Russians, Poles, and others of the Slavonic group; the ancient Greeks and Romans, with their modern representatives, and the Persians and Hindus in Asia. According to the evidence of their languages, there must have been a time and a place, in the remote past, when and where a primitive Aryan race, which was ancestral to all these nations, lived and multiplied until it outgrew its original country and began to send forth successive "swarms," or migrating hordes, as many unsettled races have been seen to do within the historic age. {991} It is hopeless, perhaps, to think of determining the time when such a dispersion of the Aryan peoples began; but many scholars believe it possible to trace, by various marks and indications, in language and elsewhere, the lines of movement in the migration, so far as to guess with some assurance the region of the primitive Aryan home; but thus far there are great disagreements in the guessing. Until recent years, the prevailing judgment pointed to that highland district in Central Asia which lies north of the Hindoo-Koosh range of mountains, and between the upper waters of the Oxus and Jaxartes. But later studies have discredited this first theory and started many opposing ones. The strong tendency now is to believe that the cradle of all the peoples of Aryan speech was somewhere in Europe, rather than in Asia, and in the north of Europe rather than in the center or the south. At the same time, there seems to be a growing opinion that the language of the Aryans was communicated to conquered peoples so extensively that its spread is not a true measure of the existing diffusion of the race.

The Celtic Branch.

Whatever may have been the starting-point of the Aryan migrations, it is supposed that the branch now distinguished as Celtic was the first to separate from the parent stem and to acquire for itself a new domain. It occupied southwestern Europe, from northern Spain to the Rhine, and across the Channel to the British islands, extending eastward into Switzerland, North It&ly and the Tyrol. But little of what the tribes and nations forming this Celtic race did is known, until the time when another Aryan people, better civilized, came into collision with them, and drew them into the written history of the world by conquering them and making them its subjects.

The people who did this were the Romans, and the Romans and the Greeks are believed to have been carried into the two peninsulas which they inhabited, respectively, by one and the same movement in the Aryan dispersion. Their languages show more affinity to one another than to the other Aryan tongues, and there are other evidences of a near relationship between them; though they separated, it is quite certain, long before the appearance of either in history.

The Hellenes, or Greeks.

The Greeks, or Hellenes, as they called themselves, were the first among the Aryan peoples in Europe to make themselves historically known, and the first to write the record which transmits history from generation to generation. The peninsula in which they settled themselves is a very peculiar one in its formation. It is crossed in different directions by mountain ranges, which divide the land into parts naturally separated from one another, and which form barriers easily defended against invading foes. Between the mountains lie numerous fertile valleys. The coast is ragged with gulfs and bays, which notch it deeply on all sides, making the whole main peninsula a cluster of minor peninsulas, and supplying the people with harbors which invite them to a life of seafaring and trade. It is surrounded, moreover, with islands, which repeat the invitation.

Almost necessarily, in a country marked with such features so strongly, the Greeks became divided politically into small independent states--city-states they have been named--and those on the sea-coast became engaged very early in trade with other countries of the Mediterranean Sea. Every city of importance in Greece was entirely sovereign in the government of itself and of the surrounding territory which formed its domain. The stronger among them extended their dominion over some of the weaker or less valiant ones; but even then the subject cities kept a considerable measure of independence. There was no organization of national government to embrace the whole, nor any large part, of Greece. Certain among the states were sometimes united in temporary leagues, or confederacies, for common action in war; but these were unstable alliances, rather than political unions. In their earliest form, the Greek city-states were governed by kings, whose power appears to have been quite limited, and who were leaders rather than sovereigns. But kingship disappeared from most of the states in Greece proper before they reached the period of distinct and accepted history. The kings were first displaced by aristocracies--ruling families, which took all political rights and privileges to themselves, and allowed their fellows (whom they usually oppressed) no part or voice in public affairs. In most instances these aristocracies, or oligarchies, were overthrown, after a time, by bold agitators who stirred up a revolution, and then contrived, while confusion prevailed, to gather power into their own hands. Almost every Greek city had its time of being ruled by one or more of these Tyrants, as they were called. Some of them, like Pisistratus of Athens, ruled wisely and justly for the most part, and were not "tyrants" in the modern sense of the term; but all who gained and held a princely power unlawfully were so named by the Greeks. The reign of the Tyrants was nowhere lasting. They were driven out of one city after another until they disappeared. Then the old aristocracies came uppermost again in some cities, and ruled as before. But some, like Athens, had trained the whole body of their citizens to such intelligence and spirit that neither kingship nor oligarchy would be endured any longer, and the people undertook to govern themselves. These were the first democracies--the first experiments in popular government--that history gives any account of. "The little commonwealths of Greece," says a great historian, "were the first states at once free and civilized which the world ever saw. They were the first states which gave birth to great statesmen, orators, and generals who did great deeds, and to great historians who set down those great deeds in writing. It was in the Greek commonwealths, in short, that the political and intellectual life of the world began."

In the belief of the Greeks, or of most men among them, their early history was embodied with truth in the numerous legends and ancient poems which they religiously preserved; but people in modern times look differently upon those wonderful myths and epics, studying them with deep interest, but under more critical views. They throw much light on the primitive life of the Hellenes, and more light upon the development of the remarkable genius and spirit of those thoughtful and imaginative people; but of actual history there are only glimpses and guesses to be got from them.

{992}

The Homeric poems, the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey," describe a condition of things in which the ruling state of Peloponnesus (the southern peninsula of Greece) was a kingdom of the Achaians, having its capital at Mycenæ, in Argolis,--the realm of King Agamemnon,--and in which Athens is unknown to the poet. Within recent years, Dr. Schliemann has excavated the ruins of Mycenæ, and has found evidence that it really must have been, in very early times, the seat of a strong and rich monarchy. But the Achaian kingdom had entirely disappeared, and the Achaian people had shrunk to an insignificant community, on the Gulf of Corinth, when the first assured views of Greek history open to us.

The Dorians.

It seems to be a fact that the Achaians had been overwhelmed by a great invasion of more barbarous Greek tribes from the North, very much as the Roman Empire, in later times, was buried under an avalanche of barbarism from Germany. The invaders were a tribe or league of tribes called Dorians, who had been driven from their own previous home on the slopes of the Pindus mountain range. Their movement southward was part, as appears, of an extensive shifting of place, or migration, that occurred at that time (not long, it is probable, before the beginning of the historic period) among the tribes of Hellas. The Dorians claimed that in conquering Peloponnesus they were recovering a heritage from which their chiefs had been anciently expelled, and their legends were shaped accordingly. The Dorian chiefs appeared in these legends as descendants of Hercules, and the tradition of the conquest became a story of "The Return of the Heraclids."

The principal states founded or possessed and controlled by the Dorians in Peloponnesus, after their conquest, were Sparta, or Lacedæmon, Argos, and Corinth. The Spartans were the most warlike of the Greeks,--the most resolute and energetic,--and their leadership in practical affairs common to the whole came to be generally acknowledged. At the same time they had little of the intellectual superiority which distinguished some of their Hellenic kindred in so remarkable a degree. Their state was organized on military principles; its constitution (the body of famous ordinances ascribed to Lycurgus) was a code of rigid discipline, which dealt with the citizen as a soldier always under training for war, and demanded from him the utmost simplicity of life. Their form of government combined a peculiar monarchy (having two royal families and two kings) with an aristocratic senate (the Gerousia), and a democratic assembly (which voted on matters only as submitted to it by the senate), with an irresponsible executive over the whole, consisting of five men called the Ephors. This singular government, essentially aristocratic or oligarchical, was maintained, with little disturbance or change, through the whole independent history of Sparta. In all respects, the Spartans were the most conservative and the least progressive among the politically important Greeks.

At the beginning of the domination of the Dorians in Peloponnesus, their city of Argos took the lead, and was the head of a league which included Corinth and other city-states. But Sparta soon rose to rivalry with Argos; then reduced it to a secondary place, and finally subjugated it completely.

The Ionians.

The extensive shifting of population which had produced its most important result in the invasion of Peloponnesus by the Dorians, must have caused great commotions and changes throughout the whole Greek peninsula; and quite as much north of the Corinthian isthmus as south of it. But in the part which lies nearest to the isthmus--the branch peninsula of Attica--the old inhabitants appear to have held their ground, repelling invaders, and their country was affected only by an influx of fugitives, flying from the conquered Peloponnesus. The Attic people were more nearly akin to the expelled Achaians and Ionians than to the conquering Dorians, although a common brotherhood in the Hellenic race was recognized by all of them. Whatever distinction there may have been before between Achaians and Ionians now practically disappeared, and the Ionic name became common to the whole branch of the Greek people which derived itself from them. The important division of the race through all its subsequent history was between Dorians and Ionians. The Æolians constituted a third division, of minor importance and of far less significance. The distinction between Ionians and Dorians was a very real one, in character no less than in traditions and name. The Ionians were the superior Greeks on the intellectual side. It was among them that the wonderful genius resided which produced the greater marvels of art, literature and philosophy in Greek civilization. It was among them, too, that the institutions of political freedom were carried to their highest attainment. Their chief city was Athens, and the splendor of its history bears testimony to their unexampled genius. On the other hand, the Dorians were less thoughtful, less imaginative, less broad in judgment or feeling--less susceptible, it would seem, of a high refinement of culture; but no less capable in practical pursuits, no less vigorous in effective action, and sounder, perhaps, in their moral constitution. Sparta, which stood at the head of the Doric states, contributed almost nothing to Greek literature, Greek thought, Greek art, or Greek commerce, but exercised a great influence on Greek political history. Other Doric states, especially Corinth, were foremost in commercial and colonizing enterprise, and attained some brilliancy of artistic civilization, but with moderate originality.

Greeks and Phœnicians.

It was natural, as noted above, that the Greeks should be induced at an early day to navigate the surrounding seas, and to engage in trade with neighboring nations. They were not original, it is supposed, in these ventures, but learned more or less of ship-building and the art of navigation from an older people, the Phœnicians, who dwelt on the coast of Syria and Palestine, and whose chief cities were Sidon and Tyre. The Phœnicians had extended their commerce widely through the Mediterranean before the Greeks came into rivalry with them. Their ships, and their merchants, and the wares they bartered, were familiar in the Ægean when the Homeric poems were composed. {993} They seem to have been the teachers of the early Greeks in many things. They gave them, with little doubt, the invention of the alphabet, which they themselves had borrowed from Egypt. They conveyed hints of art, which bore astonishing fruits when planted in the fertile Hellenic imagination. They carried from the East strange stories of gods and demigods, which were woven into the mythology of the Greeks. They gave, in fact, to Greek civilization, at its beginning, the greatest impulse it received. But all that Hellas took from the outer world it wrought into a new character, and put upon it the stamp of its own unmistakable genius. In navigation and commerce the Greeks of the coast-cities and the islands were able, ere long, to compete on even terms with the Phœnicians, and it happened, in no great space of time, that they had driven the latter entirely from the Ægean and the Euxine seas.

Greek Colonies.

They had now occupied with colonies the coast of Asia Minor and the islands on both their own coasts. The Ionian Greeks were the principal colonizers of the Asiatic shore and of the Cyclades. On the former and near it they founded twelve towns of note, including Samos, Miletus, Ephesus, Chios, and Phocæa, which are among the more famous cities of ancient times. Their important island settlements in the Cyclades were Naxos, Delos, Melos, and Paros. They possessed, likewise, the great island of Eubœa, with its two wealthy cities of Chalcis and Eretria. These, with Attica, constituted, in the main, the Ionic portion of Hellas.

The Dorians occupied the islands of Rhodes and Cos, and founded on the coast of Asia Minor the cities of Halicarnassus and Cnidus. The important Æolian colonies in Asia were Smyrna (acquired later by the Ionians), Temnos, Larissa, and Cyme. Of the islands they occupied Lesbos and Tenedos.

From these settlements on neighboring coasts and islands the vigorous Greeks pushed on to more distant fields. It is probable that their colonies were in Cyprus and Crete before the eighth century, B. C. In the seventh century B. C., during a time of confusion and weakness in Egypt, they had entered that country as allies or as mercenaries of the kings, and had founded a city, Naucratis, which became an important agent in the exchange of arts and ideas, as well as of merchandise, between the Nile and the Ægean. Within a few years past the site of Naucratis has been uncovered by explorers, and much has been brought to light that was obscure in Greek and Egyptian history before. Within the same seventh century, Cyrene and Barca had been built on the African coast, farther west. Even a century before that time, the Corinthians had taken possession of Corcyra (modern Corfu), and they, with the men of Chalcis and Megara, had been actively founding cities that grew great and rich, in Sicily and in southern Italy, which latter acquired the name of "Magna Græcia" (Great Greece). At a not much later time they had pressed northwards to the Euxine or Black Sea, and had scattered settlements along the Thracian and Macedonian coast, including one (Byzantium) on the Bosphorus, which became, after a thousand years had passed, the imperial city of Constantinople. About 597 B. C., the Phocæans had planted a colony at Massalia, in southern Gaul, from which sprang the great city known in modern times as Marseilles. And much of all this had been done, by Ionians and Dorians together, before Athens (in which Attica now centered itself, and which loomed finally greater in glory than the whole Hellenic world besides) had made a known mark in history.

Rise of Athens.

At first there had been kings in Athens, and legends had gathered about their names which give modern historians a ground-work for critical guessing, and scarcely more. Then the king disappeared and a magistrate called Archon took his place, who held office for only ten years. The archons are believed to have been chosen first from the old royal family alone; but after a time the office was thrown open to all noble families. This was the aristocratic stage of political evolution in the city-state. The next step was taken in 683 B. C. (which is said to be the beginning of authentic Athenian chronology) when nine archons were created, in place of the one, and their term of office was reduced to a single year.

Fifty years later, about 621 B. C., the people of Athens obtained their first code of written law, ascribed to one Draco, and described as a code of much severity. But it gave certainty to law, for the first time, and was the first great protective measure secured by the people. In 612 B. C. a noble named Kylon attempted to overthrow the aristocratic government and establish a tyranny under himself, but he failed.

Legislation of Solon.

Then there came forward in public life another noble, who was one of the wisest men and purest patriots of any country or age, and who made an attempt of quite another kind. This was Solon, the famous lawgiver, who became archon in 594 B. C. The political state of Athens at that time has been described for us in an ancient Greek treatise lately discovered, and which is believed to be one of the hitherto lost writings of Aristotle. "Not only," says the author of this treatise, "was the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect, but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were in absolute slavery to the rich. ... The whole country was in the hands of a few persons, and if the tenants failed to pay their rent, they were liable to be haled into slavery, and their children with them. Their persons were mortgaged to their creditors." Solon saw that this was a state of things not to be endured by such a people as the Athenians, and he exerted himself to change it. He obtained authority to frame a new constitution and a new code of laws for the state. In the latter, he provided measures for relieving the oppressed class of debtors. In the former, he did not create a democratic government, but he greatly increased the political powers of the people. He classified them according to their wealth, defining four classes, the citizens in each of which had certain political duties and privileges measured to them by the extent of their property and income. But the whole body of citizens, in their general assembly (the Ecclesia), were given the important right of choosing the annual archons, whom they must select, however, from the ranks of the wealthiest class. At the same time, Solon enlarged the powers of the old aristocratic senate--the Areopagus--giving it a supervision of the execution of the laws and a censorship of the morals of the people.

{994}

"These changes did not constitute Democracy,--a form of government then unknown, and for which there was as yet no word in the Greek language. But they initiated the democratic spirit. ... Athens, thus fairly started on her way,--emancipated from the discipline of aristocratic school-masters, and growing into an age of manly liberty and self-restraint,--came eventually nearer to the ideal of 'the good life' [Aristotle's phrase] than any other State in Hellas."

(W. W. Fowler.)

Tyranny of Pisistratus.

But before the Athenians reached their nearness to this "good life," they had to pass under the yoke of a "tyrant," Pisistratus, who won the favor of the poorer people, and, with their help, established himself in the Acropolis (560 B. C.) with a foreign guard to maintain his power. Twice driven out, he was twice restored, and reigned quite justly and prudently, on the whole, until his death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by his two sons, Hippias and Hipparchus; but the latter was killed in 514, and Hippias was expelled by the Spartans in 510 B. C.; after which there was no tyranny in Athens.

The Democratic Republic.

On the fall of the Pisistratidæ, a majority of the noble or privileged class struggled hard to regain their old ascendancy; but one of their number, Cleisthenes, took the side of the people and helped them to establish a democratic constitution. He caused the ancient tribal division of the citizens to be abolished, and substituted a division which mixed the members of clans and broke up or weakened the clannish influence in politics. He enlarged Solon's senate or council and divided it into committees, and he brought the "ecclesia," or popular assembly, into a more active exercise of its powers. He also introduced the custom of ostracism, which permitted the citizens of Athens to banish by their vote any man whom they thought dangerous to the state. The constitution of Cleisthenes was the final foundation of the Athenian democratic republic. Monarchical and aristocratic Sparta resented the popular change, and undertook to restore the oligarchy by force of arms; but the roused democracy of Athens defended its newly won liberties with vigor and success.

The Persian Wars.

Not Athens only, but all Greece, was now about to be put to a test which proved the remarkable quality of both, and formed the beginning of their great career. The Ionian cities of Asia Minor had recently been twice conquered, first by Crœsus, King of Lydia, and then by Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian empire, who had overthrown Crœsus (B. C. 547), and taken his dominions. The Persians oppressed them, and in 500 B. C. they rose in revolt. Athens and Eretria sent help to them, while Sparta refused. The revolt was suppressed, and Darius, the king of Persia, planned vengeance upon the Athenians and Eretrians for the aid they had given to it. He sent an expedition against them in 493 B. C., which was mostly destroyed by a storm. In 490 B. C. he sent a second powerful army and fleet, which took Eretria and razed it to the ground. The great Persian army then marched upon Athens, and was met at Marathon by a small Athenian force of 9,000 men. The little city of Platæa sent 1,000 more to stand with them in the desperate encounter. They had no other aid in the fight, and the Persians were a great unnumbered host. But Miltiades, the Greek general that day, planned his battle-charge so well that he routed the Asiatic host and lost but 192 men. The Persians abandoned their attempt and returned to their wrathful king. One citizen of Athens, Themistocles, had sagacity enough to foresee that the "Great King," as he was known, would not rest submissive under his defeat; and with difficulty he persuaded his fellow citizens to prepare themselves for future conflicts by building a fleet and by fortifying their harbors, thus making themselves powerful at sea. The wisdom of his counsels was proved in 480 B. C., when Xerxes, the successor of Darius, led an army of prodigious size into Greece, crossing the Hellespont by a bridge of boats. This time, Sparta, Corinth, and several of the lesser states, rallied with Athens to the defence of the common country; but Thebes and Argos showed friendship to the Persians, and none of the important island-colonies contributed any help. Athens was the brain and right arm of the war, notwithstanding the accustomed leadership of Sparta in military affairs.

The first encounter was at Thermopylæ, where Leonidas and his 300 Spartans defended the narrow pass, and died in their place when the Persians found a way across the mountain to surround them. But on that same day the Persian fleet was beaten at Artemisium. Xerxes marched on Athens, however, found the city deserted, and destroyed it. His fleet had followed him, and was still stronger than the naval force of the Greeks. Themistocles forced a battle, against the will of the Peloponnesian captains, and practically destroyed the Persian fleet. This most memorable battle of Salamis was decisive of the war, and decisive of the independence of Greece. Xerxes, in a panic, hastened back into Asia, leaving one of his generals, Mardonius, with 300,000 men, to pursue the war. But Mardonius was routed and his host annihilated, at Platæa, the next year, while the Persian fleet was again defeated on the same day at Mycale.

The Golden Age of Athens.

The war had been glorious for the Athenians, and all could see that Greece had been saved by their spirit and their intelligence much more than by the valor of Sparta and the other states. But they were in a woful condition, with their city destroyed and their families without homes. Wasting no time in lamentations, they rebuilt the town, stretched its walls to a wider circuit, and fortified it more strongly than before, under the lead of the sagacious Themistocles. Their neighbors were meanly jealous, and Sparta made attempts to interfere with the building of the walls; but Themistocles baffled them cunningly, and the new Athens rose proudly out of the ashes of the old.

{995}

The Ionian islands and towns of Asia Minor (which had broken the Persian yoke) now recognized the superiority and leadership of Athens, and a league was formed among them, which held the meetings of its deputies and kept its treasury in the temple of Apollo on the sacred island of Delos; for which reason it was called the Confederacy of Delos, or the Delian League. The Peloponnesian states formed a looser rival league under the headship of Sparta. The Confederacy of Delos was in sympathy with popular governments and popular parties everywhere, while the Spartans and their following favored oligarchies and aristocratic parties. There were many occasions for hostility between the two.

The Athenians, at the head of their Confederacy, were strong, until they impaired their power by using it in tyrannical ways. Many lesser states in the league were foolish enough to commute in money payments the contribution of ships and men which they had pledged themselves to make to the common naval force. This gave Athens the power to use that force despotically, as her own, and she did not scruple to exercise the power. The Confederacy was soon a name; the states forming it were no longer allies of Athens, but her subjects; she ruled them as the sovereign of an Empire, and her rule was neither generous nor just. Thereby the double tie of kinship and of interest which might have bound the whole circle of Ionian states to her fortunes and herself was destroyed by her own acts. Provoking the hatred of her allies and challenging the jealous fear of her rivals, Athens had many enemies.

At the same time, a dangerous change in the character of her democratic institutions was begun, produced especially by the institution of popular jury-courts, before which prosecutions of every kind were tried, the citizens who constituted the courts acting as jury and judge at once. This gave them a valuable training, without doubt, and helped greatly to raise the common standard of intelligence among the Athenians so high; but it did unquestionably tend also to demoralizations that were ruinous in the end. The jury service, which was slightly paid, fell more and more to an unworthy class, made up of idlers or intriguers. Party feeling and popular passions gained an increasing influence over the juries, and demagogues acquired an increasing skill in making use of them.

But these evils were scarcely more than in their seed during the great period of "Athenian Empire," as it is sometimes called, and everything within its bounds was suffused with the shining splendor of that matchless half-century. The genius of this little Ionic state was stimulated to amazing achievements in every intellectual field. Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, within a single generation, crowded Athenian literature with the masterpieces of classic drama. Pheidias and his companions crowned the Acropolis and filled the city with works that have been the models in art for all ages since. Socrates began the quizzing which turned philosophy into honest truth-seeking paths, and Plato listened to him and was instructed for his mission. Thucydides watched events with sagacious young eyes, and prepared his pen for the chronicling of them; while Herodotus, pausing at Athens from his wide travels, matured the knowledge he had gathered up and perfected it for his final work. Over all of them came Pericles to preside and rule, not as a master, or "tyrant," but as leader, guide, patron, princely republican,--statesman and politician in one.

The Peloponnesian War.

The period of the ascendancy of Pericles was the "golden age" of Athenian prosperity and power, both material and intellectual. The beginning of the end of it was reached a little before he died, when the long-threatened war between Athens and the Peloponnesian league, led by Sparta, broke out (B. C. 431). If Athens had then possessed the good will of the cities of her own league, and if her citizens had retained their old sobriety and intelligence, she might have triumphed in the war; for she was all powerful at sea and fortified almost invincibly against attacks by land. But the subject states, called allies, were hostile, for the most part, and helped the enemy by their revolts, while the death of Pericles (B. C. 429) let loose on the people a swarm of demagogues who flattered and deluded them, and baffled the wiser and more honest, whose counsels and leadership might have given her success.

The fatal folly of the long war was an expedition against the distant city of Syracuse (B. C. 415-413), into which the Athenians were enticed by the restless and unscrupulous ambition of Alcibiades. The entire force sent to Sicily perished there, and the strength and spirit of Athens were ruinously sapped by the fearful calamity. She maintained the war, however, until 404 B. C., when, having lost her fleet in the decisive battle of Ægospotami, and being helplessly blockaded by sea and land, the city was surrendered to the Spartan general Lysander. Her walls and fortifications were then destroyed and her democratic government was overthrown, giving place to an oligarchy known as the "thirty tyrants." The democracy soon suppressed the thirty tyrants and regained control, and Athens, in time, rose somewhat from her deep humiliation, but never again to much political power in Greece. In intellect and cultivation, the superiority of the Attic state was still maintained, and its greatest productions in philosophy and eloquence were yet to be given to the world.

Spartan and Theban Ascendancy.

After the fall of Athens, Sparta was dominant in the whole of Greece for thirty years and more, exercising her power more oppressively than Athens had done. Then Thebes, which had been treacherously seized and garrisoned by the Spartans, threw off their yoke (B. C. 379) and led a rising, under her great and high-souled citizen, Epaminondas, which resulted in bringing Thebes to the head of Greek affairs. But the Theban ascendancy was short-lived, and ended with the death of Epaminondas in 362 B. C.

Macedonian Supremacy.

Meantime, while the city-states of Hellas proper had been wounding and weakening one another by their jealousies and wars, the semi-Greek kingdom of Macedonia, to the north of them, in their own peninsula, had been acquiring their civilization and growing strong. And now there appeared upon its throne a very able king, Philip, who took advantage of their divisions, interfered in their affairs, and finally made a practical conquest of the whole peninsula, by his victory at the battle of Chæronea (B. C. 338). At Athens, the great orator Demosthenes had exerted himself for years to rouse resistance to Philip. If his eloquence failed then, it has served the world immortally since, by delighting and instructing mankind.

{996}

King Philip was succeeded by his famous son, Alexander the Great, who led an army of Macedonians and Greeks into Asia (B. C. 334), overthrew the already crumbling Persian power, pursued his conquests through Afghanistan to India, and won a great empire which he did not live to rule. When he died (B. C. 323), his generals divided the empire among them and fought with one another for many years. But the general result was the spreading of the civilization and language of the Greeks, and the establishing of their intellectual influence, in Egypt, in Syria, in Asia Minor, and beyond.

In Greece itself, a state of disturbance and of political confusion and weakness prevailed for another century. There was promise of something better, in the formation, by several of the Peloponnesian states, of a confederacy called the Achaian League, which might possibly have federated and nationalized the whole of Hellas in the end; but the Romans, at this juncture, turned their conquering arms eastward, and in three successive wars, between 211 and 146 B. C., they extinguished the Macedonian kingdom, and annexed it, with the whole peninsula, to the dominions of their wonderful republic.

The Romans.

The Romans, as stated already, are believed to have been originally near kindred to the Greeks. The same movement, it is supposed, in the successive outswarmings of Aryan peoples, deposited in one peninsula the Italian tribes, and in the next peninsula, eastward, the tribes of the Hellenes. Among the Italian tribes were Latins, Umbrians, Sabines, Samnites, etc., occupying the middle and much of the southern parts of the peninsula, while a mysterious alien people, the Etruscans, whose origin is not known, possessed the country north of them between the Arno and the Tiber. In the extreme south were remnants of a primitive race, the Iapygian, and Greek colonies were scattered there around the coasts. From the Latins sprang the Romans, at the beginning of their separate existence; but there seems to have been a very early union of these Romans of the primitive tradition with a Sabine community, whereby was formed the Roman city-state of historical times. That union came about through the settlement of the two communities, Latin and Sabine, on two neighboring hills, near the mouth of the river Tiber, on its southern bank. In the view of some historians, it is the geographical position of those hills, hardly less than the masterful temper and capacity of the race seated on them, which determined the marvellous career of the city founded on that site. Says Professor Freeman: "The whole history of the world has been determined by the geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues, or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless, more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies. Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried; history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate communities into tribes of a single city."

The followers of Romulus occupied the Palatine Mount, and the Sabines were settled on the Quirinal. At subsequent times, the Cœlian, the Capitoline, the Aventine, the Esquiline and the Viminal hills were embraced in the circumvallation, and the city on the seven hills thus acquired that name.

If modern students and thinkers, throwing light on the puzzling legends and traditions of early Rome from many sources, in language and archæology, have construed their meaning lightly, then great importance attaches to those first unions or incorporations of distinct settlements in the forming of the original city-state. For it was the beginning of a process which went on until the whole of Latium, and then the whole of Italy, and, finally, the whole Mediterranean world, were joined to the seven hills of Rome. "The whole history of Rome is a history of incorporation"; and it is reasonable to believe that the primal spring of Roman greatness is found in that early adoption and persistent practice of the policy of political absorption, which gave conquest a character it had never borne before. At the same time, this view of the creation of the Roman state contributes to an understanding of its early constitutional history. It supposes that the union of the first three tribes which coalesced--those of the Palatine, the Quirinal and Capitoline (both occupied by the Sabines) and the Cœlian hills--ended the process of incorporation on equal terms. These formed the original Roman people--the "fathers," the "patres," whose descendants appear in later times as a distinct class or order, the "patricians"--holding and struggling to maintain exclusive political rights, and exclusive ownership of the public domain, the "ager publicus," which became a subject of bitter contention for four centuries. Around these heirs of the "fathers" of Rome arose another class of Romans, brought into the community by later incorporations, and not on equal terms. If the first class were "fathers," these were children, in a political sense, adopted into the Roman family, but without a voice in general affairs, or a share in the public lands, or eligibility to the higher offices of the state. These were the "plebeians" or "plebs" of Rome, whose long struggle with the patricians for political and agrarian rights is the more interesting side of Roman history throughout nearly the whole of the prosperous age of the republic.

{997}

At Rome, as at Athens, there was a period of early kingship, the legends of which are as familiar to us all as the stories of the Bible, but the real facts of which are almost totally unknown. It is surmised that the later kings--the well known Tarquins of the classical tale--were Etruscan princes (it is certain that they were Etruscans), who had broken for a time the independence of the Romans and extended their sovereignty over them. It is suspected, too, that this period of Etruscan domination was one in which Roman civilization made a great advance, under the tuition of a more cultivated people. But if Rome in its infancy did know a time of subjugation, the endurance was not long. It ended, according to Roman chronology, in the 245th year of the city, or 509 B.C., by the expulsion of Tarquin the Proud, the last of the kings.

The Roman Republic.

The Republic was then founded; but it was an aristocratic and not a democratic republic. The consuls, who replaced the kings, were required to be patricians, and they were chosen by the landholders of the state. The senate was patrician; all the important powers of government were in patrician hands, and the plebs suffered grievous oppression in consequence. They were not of a tamely submissive race. They demanded powers for their own protection, and by slow degrees they won them--strong as the patricians were in their wealth and their trained political skill.

Precisely as in Athens, the first great effort among the common people was to obtain relief from crushing burdens of debt, which had been laid upon them in precisely the same way--by loss of harvests while in military service, and by the hardness of the laws which creditors alone had framed. An army of plebs, just home from war, marched out of the city and refused to return until magistrates of their own choosing had been conceded to them. The patricians could not afford to lose the bone and sinew of their state, and they yielded the point in demand (B. C. 494). This first "secession of the plebs" brought about the first great democratic change in the Roman constitution, by calling into existence a powerful magistracy--the Tribunes of the Plebs--who henceforth stood between the consuls and the common people, for the protection of the latter.

From this first success the plebeian order went forward, step by step, to the attainment of equal political rights in the commonwealth, and equal participation in the lands which Roman conquest was continually adding to the public domain. In 450 B. C., after ten years of struggle, they secured the appointment of a commission which framed the famous Twelve Tables of the Law, and so established a written and certain code. Five years later, the caste exclusiveness of the patricians was broken down by a law which permitted marriages between the orders. In 367 B. C. the patrician monopoly of the consular office was extinguished, by the notable Licinian Laws, which also limited the extent of land that any citizen might occupy, and forbade the exclusive employment of slave labor on any estate. One by one, after that, other magistracies were opened to the plebs; and in 287 B. C. by the Lex Hortensia, the plebeian concilium, or assembly, was made independent of the senate and its acts declared to be valid and binding. The democratic commonwealth was now completely formed.

Roman Conquest of Italy.

While these changes in the constitution of their Republic were in progress, the Romans had been making great advances toward supremacy in the peninsula. First they had been in league with their Latin neighbors, for war with the Æquians, the Volscians, and the Etruscans. The Volscian war extended over forty years, and ended about 450 B. C. in the practical disappearance of the Volscians from history. Of war with the Æquians, nothing is heard after 458 B. C., when, as the tale is told, Cincinnatus left his plow to lead the Romans against them. The war with the Etruscans of the near city of Veii had been more stubborn. Suspended by a truce between 474 and 438 B. C., it was then renewed, and ended in 396 B. C., when the Etruscan city was taken and destroyed. At the same time the power of the Etruscans was being shattered at sea by the Greeks of Tarentum and Syracuse, while at home they were attacked from the north by the barbarous Gauls or Celts.

These last named people, having crossed the Alps from Gaul and Switzerland and occupied northern Italy, were now pressing upon the more civilized nations to the south of the Po. The Etruscans were first to suffer, and their despair became so great that they appealed to Rome for help. The Romans gave little aid to them in their extremity; but enough to provoke the wrath of Brennus, the savage leader of the Gauls. He quitted Etruria and marched to Rome, defeating an army which opposed him on the Allia, pillaging and burning the city (B. C. 390) and slaying the senators, who had refused to take refuge, with other inhabitants, in the capitol. The defenders of the capitol held it for seven months; Rome was rebuilt, when the Gauls withdrew, and soon took up her war again with the Etruscan cities. By the middle of the same century she was mistress of southern Etruria, though her territories had been ravaged twice again by renewed incursions of the Gauls. In a few years more, when her allies of Latium complained of their meager share of the fruits of these common wars, and demanded Roman citizenship and equal rights, she fought them fiercely and humbled them to submissiveness (B. C. 339-338), reducing their cities to the status of provincial towns.

And now, having awed or subdued her rivals, her friends, and her enemies, near at hand, the young Republic swung into the career of rapid conquest which subdued to her will, within three-fourths of a century, the whole of Italy below the mouth of the Arno.

In 343 B. C. the Roman arms had been turned against the Samnites at the south, and they had been driven from the Campania. In 327 B. C. the same dangerous rivals were again assailed, with less impunity. At the Caudine Forks, in 321 B. C., the Samnites inflicted both disaster and shame upon their indomitable foes; but the end of the war (B. C. 304) found Rome advanced and Samnium fallen back. A third contest ended the question of supremacy; but the Samnites (B. C. 290) submitted to become allies and not subjects of the Roman state.

In this last struggle the Samnites had summoned Gauls and Etruscans to join them against the common enemy, and Rome had overcome their united forces in a great fight at Sentinum. This was in 295 B. C. Ten years later she annihilated the Senonian Gauls, annexed their territory and planted a colony at Sena on the coast. In two years more she had paralyzed the Boian Gauls by a terrible chastisement, and had nothing more to fear from the northward side of her realm. Then she turned back to finish her work in the south.

{998}

War with Pyrrhus.

The Greek cities of the southern coast were harassed by various marauding neighbors, and most of them solicited the protection of Rome, which involved, of course, some surrender of their independence. But one great city, Tarentum, the most powerful of their number, refused these terms, and hazarded a war with the terrible republic, expecting support from the ambitious Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, on the Greek coast opposite their own. Pyrrhus came readily at their call, with dreams of an Italian kingdom more agreeable than his own. Assisted in the undertaking by his royal kinsmen of Macedonia and Syria, he brought an army of 25,000 men, with 20 elephants--which Roman eyes had never seen before. In two bloody fights (B. C. 280-279), Pyrrhus was victorious; but the cost of victory was so great that he dared not follow it up. He went over to Sicily, instead, and waged war for three years (B. C. 278-276) with the Carthaginians, who had subjugated most of the island. The Epirot king brought timely aid to the Sicilian Greeks, and drove their Punic enemies into the western border of the island; but he claimed sovereignty over all that his arms delivered, and was not successful in enforcing the claim. He returned to Italy and found the Romans better prepared than before to face his phalanx and his elephants. They routed him at Beneventum, in the spring of 275 B. C. and he went back to Epirus, with his dreams dispelled. Tarentum fell, and Southern Italy was added to the dominion of Rome.

Punic Wars.

During her war with Pyrrhus, the Republic had formed an alliance with Carthage, the powerful maritime Phœnician city on the African coast. But friendship between these two cities was impossible. The ambition of both was too boundless and too fierce. They were necessarily competitors for supremacy in the Mediterranean world, from the moment that a narrow strait between Italy and Sicily was all that held them apart. Rome challenged her rival to the duel in 264 B. C., when she sent help to the Mamertines, a band of brigands who had seized the Sicilian city of Messina, and who were being attacked by both Carthaginians and Syracusan Greeks. The "First Punic War," then begun, lasted twenty-four years, and resulted in the withdrawal of the Carthaginians from Sicily, and in their payment of an enormous war indemnity to Rome. The latter assumed a protectorate over the island, and the kingdom of Hiero of Syracuse preserved its nominal independence for the time; but Sicily, as a matter of fact, might already be looked upon as the first of those provinces, beyond Italy, which Rome bound to herself, one by one, until she had compassed the Mediterranean with her dominion and gathered to it all the islands of that sea.

The "Second Punic war," called sometimes the "Hannibalic war," was fought with a great Carthaginian, rather than with Carthage herself. Hamilcar Barca had been the last and ablest of the Punic generals in the contest for Sicily. Afterwards he undertook the conquest of Spain, where his arms had such success that he established a very considerable power, more than half independent of the parent state. He nursed an unquenchable hatred of Rome, and transmitted it to his son Hannibal, who solemnly dedicated his life to warfare with the Latin city. Hamilcar died, and in due time Hannibal found himself prepared to make good his oath. He provoked a declaration of war (B. C. 218) by attacking Saguntum, on the eastern Spanish coast--a town which the Romans "protected." The latter expected to encounter him in Spain; but before the fleet bearing their legions to that country had reached Massilia, he had already passed the Pyrenees and the Rhone, with nearly 100,000 men, and was crossing the Alps, to assail his astounded foes on their own soil. The terrific barrier was surmounted with such suffering and loss that only 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse, of the great army which left Spain, could be mustered for the clearing of the last Alpine pass. With this small following, by sheer energy, rapidity and precision of movement--by force, in other words, of a military genius never surpassed in the world--he defeated the armies of Rome again and again, and so crushingly in the awful battle of Cannæ (B. C. 216) that the proud republic was staggered, but never despaired. For fifteen years the great Carthaginian held his ground in southern Italy; but his expectation of being joined by discontented subjects of Rome in the peninsula was very slightly realized, and his own country gave him little encouragement or help. His brother Hasdrubal, marching to his relief in 207 B. C., was defeated on the river Metaurus and slain. The arms of Rome had prospered meantime in Sicily and in Spain, even while beaten at home, and her Punic rival had been driven from both. In 204 B. C. the final field of battle was shifted to Carthaginian territory by Scipio, of famous memory, thereafter styled Africanus, because he "carried the war into Africa." Hannibal abandoned Italy to confront him, and at Zama, in the autumn of 202 B. C., the long contention ended, and the career of Carthage as a Power in the ancient world was forever closed. Existing by Roman sufferance for another half century, she then gave her implacable conquerors another pretext for war, and they ruthlessly destroyed her (B.C. 146).

Roman Conquest of Greece.

In that same year of the destruction of Carthage, the conquest of Greece was finished. The first war of the Romans on that side of the Adriatic had taken place during the Second Punic war, and had been caused by an alliance formed between Hannibal and King Philip of Macedonia (B. C. 214). They pursued it then no further than to frustrate Philip's designs against themselves; but they formed alliances with the Greek states oppressed or menaced by the Macedonian, and these drew them into a second war, just as the century closed. On Cynoscephalæ, Philip was overthrown (B. C. 197), his kingdom reduced to vassalage, and the freedom of all Greece was solemnly proclaimed by the Roman Consul Flaminius.

{999}

And now, for the first time, Rome came into conflict with an Asiatic power. The throne of the Syrian monarchy, founded by one of the generals of Alexander the Great, was occupied by a king more ambitious than capable, who had acquired a large and loosely jointed dominion in the East, and who bore the sounding name of Antiochus the Great. This vainglorious King, having a huge army and many elephants at his disposal, was eager to try a passage at arms with the redoubtable men of Rome. He was encouraged in his desire by the Ætolians in Greece, who bore ill-will to Rome. Under this encouragement, and having Hannibal--then a fugitive at his court--to give him counsel, which he lacked intelligence to use, Antiochus crossed the Ægean and invaded Greece (B. C. 192). The Romans met him at the pass of Thermopylæ; drove him back to the shores from which he came; pursued him thither; crushed and humbled him on the field of Magnesia, and took the kingdoms and cities of Asia Minor under their protection, as the allies (soon to be subjects) of Rome.

Twenty years passed with little change in the outward situation of affairs among the Greeks. But discontent with the harshness and haughtiness of Roman "protection" changed from sullenness to heat, and Perseus, son of Philip of Macedonia, fanned it steadily, with the hope of bringing it to a flame. Rome watched him with keen vigilance, and before his plans were ripe her legions were upon him. He battled with them obstinately for three years (B. C. 171-168); but his fate was sealed at Pydna. He went as a prisoner to Rome; his kingdom was broken into four small republics; the Achæan League was stricken by the captivity of a thousand of its chief men; the whole of Greece was humbled to submissiveness, though not yet formally reduced to the state of a Roman province. That followed some years later, when risings in Macedonia and Achaia were punished by the extinction of the last semblance of political independence in both (B. C. 148-146).

The Zenith of the Republic.

Rome now gripped the Mediterranean (the ocean of the then civilized world) as with four fingers of a powerful hand: one laid on Italy and all its islands, one on Macedonia and Greece, one on Carthage, one on Spain, and the little finger of her "protection" reaching over to the Lesser Asia. Little more than half a century, since the day that Hannibal threatened her own city gates, had sufficed to win this vast dominion. But the losses of the Republic had been greater, after all, than the gains; for the best energies of its political constitution had been expended in the acquisition, and the nobler qualities in its character had been touched with the incurable taints of a licentious prosperity.

Beginning of Decline.

A century and a half had passed since the practical ending of the struggle of plebeians with patricians for political and agrarian rights. In theory and in form, the constitution remained as democratic as it was made by the Licinian Laws of 367 B. C., and by the finishing touch of the Hortensian Law of 287 B. C. But in practical working it had reverted to the aristocratic mode. A new aristocracy had risen out of the plebeian ranks to reinforce the old patrician order. It was composed of the families of men who had been raised to distinction and ennobled by the holding of eminent offices, and its spirit was no less jealous and exclusive than that of the older high caste.

The Senate and the Mob.

Thus strengthened, the aristocracy had recovered its ascendancy in Rome, and the Senate, which it controlled, had become the supreme power in government. The amazing success of the Republic during the last century just reviewed--its successes in war, in diplomacy, and in all the sagacious measures of policy by which its great dominion had been won--are reasonably ascribed to this fact. For the Senate had wielded the power of the state, in most emergencies, with passionless deliberation and with unity and fixity of aim.

But it maintained its ascendancy by an increasing employment of means which debased and corrupted all orders alike. The people held powers which might paralyze the Senate at any moment, if they chose to exercise them, through their assemblies and their tribunes. They had seldom brought those powers into play thus far, to interfere with the senatorial government of the Republic, simply because they had been bribed to abstain. The art of the politician in Rome, as distinguished from the statesman, had already become demagoguery. This could not well have been otherwise under the peculiar constitution of the Roman citizenship. Of the thirty-five tribes who made up the Roman people, legally qualified to vote, only four were within the city. The remaining thirty-one were "plebs urbana." There was no delegated representation of this country populace--citizens beyond the walls. To exercise their right of suffrage they must be personally present at the meetings of the "comitia tributa"--the tribal assemblies; and those of any tribe who chanced to be in attendance at such a meeting might give a vote which carried with it the weight of their whole tribe. For questions were decided by the majority of tribal, not individual, votes; and a very few members of a tribe might act for and be the tribe, for all purposes of voting, on occasions of the greatest possible importance. It is quite evident that a democratic system of this nature gave wide opportunity for corrupt "politics." There must have been, always, an attraction for the baser sort among the rural plebs, drawing them into the city, to enjoy the excitement of political contests, and to partake of the flatteries and largesses which began early to go with these. And circumstances had tended strongly to increase this sinister sifting into Rome of the most vagrant and least responsible of her citizens, to make them practically the deputies and representatives of that mighty sovereign which had risen in the world--the "Populus Romanus." For there was no longer either thrift or dignity possible in the pursuits of husbandry. The long Hannibalic War had ruined the farming class in Italy by its ravages; but the extensive conquests that followed it had been still more ruinous to that class by several effects combined. Corn supplies from the conquered provinces were poured into Rome at cheapened prices; enormous fortunes, gathered in the same provinces by officials, by farmers of taxes, by money-lenders, and by traders, were largely invested in great estates, absorbing the small farms of olden time; and, finally, free-labor in agriculture was supplanted, more and more, by the labor of slaves, which war and increasing wealth combined to multiply in numbers. Thus the "plebs urbana" of Rome were a depressed and, therefore, a degenerating class, and the same circumstances that made them so impelled them towards the city, to swell the mob which held its mighty sovereignty in their hands.

{1000}

So far, a lavish amusement of this mob with free games, and liberal bribes, had kept it generally submissive to the senatorial government. But the more it was debased by such methods, and its vagrancy encouraged, the more extravagant gratuities of like kind it claimed. Hence a time could never be far away when the aristocracy and the senate would lose their control of the popular vote on which they had built their governing power.

Agrarian Agitations.

But they invited the quicker coming of that time by their own greediness in the employment of their power for selfish and dishonest ends. They had practically recovered their monopoly of the use of the public lands. The Licinian law, which forbade any one person to occupy more than five hundred jugera (about three hundred acres) of the public lands, had been made a dead letter. The great tracts acquired in the Samnite wars, and since, had remained undistributed, while the use and profit of them were enjoyed, under one form of authority or another, by rich capitalists and powerful nobles.

This evil, among many that waxed greater each year, caused the deepest discontent, and provoked movements of reform which soon passed by rapid stages into a revolution, and ended in the fall of the Republic. The leader of the movement at its beginning was Tiberius Gracchus, grandson of Scipio Africanus on the side of his mother, Cornelia. Elected tribune in 133 B. C., he set himself to the dangerous task of rousing the people against senatorial usurpations, especially in the matter of the public domain. He only drew upon himself the hatred of the senate and its selfish supporters; he failed to rally a popular party that was strong enough for his protection, and his enemies slew him in the very midst of a meeting of the tribes. His brother Caius took up the perilous cause and won the office of tribune (B. C. 123) in avowed hostility to the senatorial government. He was driven to bid high for popular help, even when the measures which he strove to carry were most plainly for the welfare of the common people, and he may seem to modern eyes to have played the demagogue with some extravagance. But statesmanship and patriotism without demagoguery for their instrument or their weapon were hardly practicable, perhaps, in the Rome of those days, and it is not easy to find them clean-handed in any political leader of the last century of the Republic. The fall of Caius Gracchus was hastened by his attempt to extend the Roman franchise beyond the "populus Romanus," to all the freemen of Italy. The mob in Rome was not pleased with such political generosity, and cooled in its admiration for the large-minded tribune. He lost his office and the personal protection it threw over him, and then he, like his brother, was slain (B. C. 121) in a melee.

Jugurthine War.

For ten years the senate, the nobility, and the capitalists (now beginning to take the name of the equestrian order), had mostly their own way again, and effaced the work of the Gracchi as completely as they could. Then came disgraceful troubles in Numidia which enraged the people and moved them to a new assertion of themselves. The Numidian king who helped Scipio to pull Carthage down had been a ward of Rome since that time. When he died, he left his kingdom to be governed jointly by two young sons and an older nephew. The latter, Jugurtha, put his cousins out of the way, took the kingdom to himself, and baffled attempts at Rome to call him to account, by heavy bribes. The corruption in the case became so flagrant that even the corrupted Roman populace revolted against it, and took the Numidian business into its own hands. War was declared against Jugurtha by popular vote, and, despite opposing action in the Senate, one Marius, an experienced soldier of humble birth, was elected consul and sent out to take command. Marius distinguished himself in the war much less than did one of his officers, Cornelius Sulla; but he bore the lion's share of glory when Jugurtha was taken captive and conveyed to Rome (B. C. 104). Marius was now the great hero of the hour, and events were preparing to lift him to the giddiest heights of popularity.

Teutones and Cimbri.

Hitherto, the barbarians of wild Europe whom the Romans had met were either the Aryan Celts, or the non-Aryan tribes found in northern Italy, Spain and Gaul. Now, for the first time, the armies of Rome were challenged by tribes of another grand division of the Aryan stock, coming out of the farther North. These were the Cimbri and the Teutones, wandering hordes of the great Teutonic or Germanic race which has occupied Western Europe north of the Rhine since the beginning of historic time. So far as we can know, these two were the first of the Germanic nations to migrate to the South. They came into collision with Rome in 113 B. C., when they were in Noricum, threatening the frontiers of her Italian dominion. Four years later they were in southern Gaul, where the Romans were now settling colonies and subduing the native Celts. Twice they had beaten the armies opposed to them; two years later they added a third to their victories; and in 105 B. C. they threw Rome into consternation by destroying two great armies on the Rhone. Italy seemed helpless against the invasion for which these terrible barbarians were now preparing, when Marius went against them. In the summer of 102 B. C. he annihilated the Teutones, near Aquæ Sextiæ (modern Aix), and in the following year he destroyed the invading Cimbri, on a bloody field in northern Italy, near modern Vercellæ.

Marius.

From these great victories, Marius went back to Rome, doubly and terribly clothed with power, by the devotion of a reckless army and the hero-worship of an unthinking mob. The state was at his mercy. A strong man in his place might have crushed the class-factions and accomplished the settlement which Cæsar made after half a century more of turbulence and shame. But Marius was ignorant, he was weak, and he became a mere blood-stained figure in the ruinous anarchy of his time.

{1001}

Optimates and Populares.

The social and political state of the capital had grown rapidly worse. A middle-class in Roman society had practically disappeared. The two contending parties or factions, which had taken new names--"optimates" and "populares"--were now divided almost solely by the line which separates rich from poor. "If we said that 'optimates' signified the men who bribed and abused office under the banner of the Senate and its connections, and that 'populares' meant men who bribed and abused office with the interests of the people outside the Senatorial pale upon their lips, we might do injustice to many good men on both sides, but should hardly be slandering the parties" (Beesly). There was a desperate conflict between the two in the year 100, B. C. and the Senate once more recovered its power for a brief term of years.

The Social War.

The enfranchisement of the so-called "allies"--the Latin and other subjects of Rome who were not citizens--was the burning question of the time. The attempt of Caius Gracchus to extend rights of citizenship to them had been renewed again and again, without success, and each failure had increased the bitter discontent of the Italian people. In 90 B. C. they drew together in a formidable confederation and rose in revolt. In the face of this great danger Rome sobered herself to action with old time wisdom and vigor. She yielded her full citizenship to all Italian freemen who had not taken arms, and then offered it to those who would lay their arms down. At the same time, she fought the insurrection with every army she could put into the field, and in two years it was at an end. Marius and his old lieutenant, Sulla, had been the principal commanders in this "Social War," as it was named, and Sulla had distinguished himself most. The latter had now an army at his back and was a power in the state, and between the two military champions there arose a rivalry which produced the first of the Roman Civil Wars.

Marius and Sulla.

A troublesome war in the East had been forced upon the Romans by aggressions of Mithridates, King of Pontus. Both Marius and Sulla aspired to the command. Sulla obtained election to the consulship in 88 B. C. and was named for the coveted place. But Marius succeeded in getting the appointment annulled by a popular assembly and himself chosen instead for the Eastern command. Sulla, personally imperilled by popular tumults, fled to his legions, put himself at their head, and marched back to Rome--the first among her generals to turn her arms against herself. There was no effective resistance; Marius fled; both Senate and people were submissive to the dictates of the consul who had become master of the city. He "made the tribes decree their own political extinction, resuscitating the comitia centuriata; he reorganized the Senate by adding three hundred to its members and vindicating the right to sanction legislation; conducted the consular elections, exacting from L. Cornelius Cinna, the newly elected consul, a solemn oath that he would observe the new regulations, and securing the election of Cn. Octavius in his own interest, and then, like 'a countryman who had just shaken the lice off his coat,' to use his own figure, he turned to do his great work in the East."

(Horton).

Sulla went to Greece, which was in revolt and in alliance with Mithridates, and conducted there a brilliant, ruthless campaign for three years (B. C. 87-84), until he had restored Roman authority in the peninsula, and forced the King of Pontus to surrender all his conquests in Asia Minor. Until this task was finished, he gave no heed to what his enemies did at Rome; though the struggle there between "Sullans" and "Marians" had gone fiercely and bloodily on, and his own partisans had been beaten in the fight. The consul Octavius, who was in Bulla's interest, had first driven the consul Cinna out of the city, after slaying 10,000 of his faction. Cinna's cause was taken up by the new Italian citizens; he was joined by the exiled Marius, and these two returned together, with an army which the Senate and the party of Sulla were unable to resist. Marius came back with a burning heart and with savage intentions of revenge. A horrible massacre of his opponents ensued, which went on unchecked for five days, and was continued more deliberately for several months, until Marius died, at the beginning of the year 86 B. C. Then Cinna ruled absolutely at Rome for three years, supported in the main by the newly-made citizens; while the provinces generally remained under the control of the party of the optimates. In 83 B. C. Sulla, having finished with carefulness his work in the East, came back into Italy, with 40,000 veterans to attend his steps. He had been outlawed and deprived of his command, by the faction governing at the capital; but its decrees had no effect and troubled him little. Cinna had been killed by his own troops, even before Bulla's landing at Brundisium. Several important leaders and soldiers on the Marian side, such as Pompeius, then a young general, and Crassus, the millionaire, went over to Sulla's camp. One of the consuls of the year saw his troops follow their example, in a body; the other consul was beaten and driven into Capua. Sulla wintered in Campania, and the next spring he pressed forward to Rome, fighting a decisive battle with Marius the younger on the way, and took possession of the city; but not in time to prevent a massacre of senators by the resentful mob.

Sulla's Dictatorship.

Before that year closed, the whole of Italy had been subdued, the final battle being fought with the Marians and Italians at the Colline Gate, and Sulla again possessed power supreme. He placed it beyond dispute by a deliberate extermination of his opponents, more merciless than the Marian massacre had been. They were proscribed by name, in placarded lists, and rewards paid to those who killed them; while their property was confiscated, and became the source of vast fortunes to Sulla's supporters, and of lands for distribution to his veterans.

When this terror had paralyzed all resistance to his rule, the Dictator (for he had taken that title) undertook a complete reconstruction of the constitution, aiming at a permanent restoration of senatorial ascendancy and a curbing of the powers which the people, in their assemblies, and the magistrates who especially represented them, had gained during the preceding century. He remodelled, moreover, the judicial system, and some of his reforms were undoubtedly good, though they did not prove enduring. When he had fashioned the state to his liking, this extraordinary usurper quietly abdicated his dictatorial office (B. C. 80) and retired to private life, undisturbed until his death (B. C. 78).

{1002}

After Sulla.

The system he had established did not save Rome from renewed distractions and disorder after Sulla died. There was no longer a practical question between Senate and people--between the few and the many in government. The question now, since the legionaries held their swords prepared to be flung into the scale, was what one should again gather the powers of government into his hands, as Sulla had done.

The Great Game and the Players.

The history of the next thirty years--the last generation of republican Rome--is a sad and sinister but thrilling chronicle of the strifes and intrigues, the machinations and corruptions, of a stupendous and wicked game in politics that was played, against one another and against the Republic, by a few daring, unscrupulous players, with the empire of the civilized world for the stake between them. There were more than a few who aspired; there were only three players who entered really as principals into the game. These were Pompeius, called "the Great," since he extinguished the Marian faction in Sicily and in Spain; Crassus, whose wealth gave him power, and who acquired some military pretensions besides, by taking the field against a formidable insurrection of slaves (B. C. 73-71); and Julius Cæsar, a young patrician, but nephew of Marius by marriage, who assiduously strengthened that connection with the party of the people, and who began, very soon after Sulla's death, to draw attention to himself as a rising power in the politics of the day. There were two other men, Cicero and the younger Cato, who bore a nobler and greater because less selfish part in the contest of that fateful time. Both were blind to the impossibility of restoring the old order of things, with a dominant Senate, a free but well guided populace, and a simply ordered social state; but their blindness was heroic and high-souled.

Pompeius in the East.

Of the three strong rivals for the vacant dictatorial chair which waited to be filled, Pompeius held by far the greater advantages. His fame as a soldier was already won; he had been a favorite of Fortune from the beginning of his career; everything had succeeded with him; everything was expected for him and expected from him. Even while the issues of the great struggle were pending, a wonderful opportunity for increasing his renown was opened to him. The disorders of the civil war had licensed a swarm of pirates, who fairly possessed the eastern Mediterranean and had nearly extirpated the maritime trade. Pompeius was sent against them (B. C. 67), with a commission that gave him almost unlimited powers, and within ninety days he had driven them from the sea. Then, before he had returned from this exploit, he was invested with supreme command in the entire East, where another troublesome war with Mithridates was going on. He harvested there all the laurels which belonged by better right to his predecessor, Lucullus, finding the power of Mithridates already broken down. From Pontus he passed into Armenia, and thence into Syria, easily subjugating both, and extinguishing the monarchy of the Seleucids. The Jews resisted him and he humbled them by the siege and conquest of their sacred city. Egypt was now the only Mediterranean state left outside the all-absorbing dominion of Rome; and even Egypt, by bequest of its late king, belonged to the Republic, though not yet claimed.

The First Triumvirate.

Pompeius came back to Rome in the spring of 61 B. C. so glorified by his successes that he might have seemed to be irresistible, whatever he should undertake. But, either through an honest patriotism or an overweening confidence, he had disbanded his army when he reached Italy, and he had committed himself to no party. He stood alone and aloof, with a great prestige, great ambitions, and no ability to use the one or realize the other. Before another year passed, he was glad to accept offers of a helping hand in politics from Cæsar, who had climbed the ladder of office rapidly within four or five years, spending vast sums of borrowed money to amuse the people with games, and distinguishing himself as a democratic champion. Cæsar, the far seeing calculator, discerned the enormous advantages that he might gain for himself by massing together the prestige of Pompeius, the wealth of Crassus and his own invincible genius, which was sure to be the master element in the combination. He brought the coalition about through a bargain which created what is known in history as the First Triumvirate, or supremacy of three.

Cæsar in Gaul.

Under the terms of the bargain, Cæsar was chosen consul for 59 B. C., and at the end of his term was given the governorship of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, with command of three legions there, for five years. His grand aim was a military command--the leadership of an army--the prestige of a successful soldier. No sooner had he secured the command than fortune gave him opportunities for its use in the most striking way and with the most impressive results. The Celtic tribes of Gaul, north of the two small provinces which the Romans had already acquired on the Mediterranean coast, gave him pretexts or provocations (it mattered little to Cæsar which) for war with them, and in a series of remarkable campaigns, which all soldiers since have admired, he pushed the frontiers of the dominion of Rome to the ocean and the Rhine, and threatened the nations of Germany on the farther banks of that stream. "The conquest of Gaul by Cæsar," says Mr. Freeman, "is one of the most important events in the history of the world. It is in some sort the beginning of modern history, as it brought the old world of southern Europe, of which Rome was the head, into contact with the lands and nations which were to play the greatest part in later times--with Gaul, Germany, and Britain." From Gaul Cæsar crossed the channel to Britain in 55 B. C. and again in the following year, exacting tribute from the Celtic natives, but attempting no lodgment in the island.

{1003}

Meantime, while pursuing a career of conquest which excited the Roman world, Cæsar never lost touch with the capital and its seething politics. Each winter he repaired to Lucca, the point in his province which was nearest to Rome, and conferred there with his friends, who flocked to the rendezvous. He secured an extension of his term, to enable him to complete his plans, and year by year he grew more independent of the support of his colleagues in the triumvirate, while they weakened one another by their jealousies, and the Roman state was more hopelessly distracted by factious strife.

End of the Triumvirate.

The year after Cæsar's second invasion of Britain, Crassus, who had obtained the government of Syria, perished in a disastrous war with the Parthians, and the triumvirate was at an end. Disorder in Rome increased and Pompeius lacked energy or boldness to deal with it, though he seemed to be the one man present who might do so. He was made sole consul in 52 B. C.; he might have seized the dictatorship, with approval of many, but he waited for it to be offered to him, and the offer never came. He drew at last into close alliance with the party of the Optimates, and left the Populares to be won entirely to Cæsar's side.

Civil War.

Matters came to a crisis in 50 B. C., when the Senate passed an order removing Cæsar from his command and discharging his soldiers who had served their term. He came to Ravenna with a single legion and concerted measures with his friends. The issue involved is supposed to have been one of life or death to him, as well as of triumph or failure in his ambitions; for his enemies were malignant. His friends demanded that he be made consul, for his protection, before laying down his arms. The Senate answered by proclaiming him a public enemy if he failed to disband his troops with no delay. It was a declaration of war, and Cæsar accepted it. He marched his single legion across the Rubicon, which was the boundary of his province, and advanced towards Rome.

Pompeius, with the forces he had gathered, retreated southward, and consuls, senators and nobles generally streamed after him. Cæsar followed them--turning aside from the city--and his force gathered numbers as he advanced. The Pompeians continued their flight and abandoned Italy, withdrawing to Epirus, planning to gather there the forces of the East and return with them. Cæsar now took possession of Rome and secured the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, from which it drew its supply of food. This done, he proceeded without delay to Spain, where seven legions strongly devoted to Pompeius were stationed. He overcame them in a single campaign, enlisted most of the veterans in his own service, and acquired a store of treasure. Before the year ended he was again in Rome, where the citizens had proclaimed him dictator. He held the dictatorship for eleven days, only, to legalize an election which made him consul, with a pliant associate. He reorganized the government, complete in all its branches, including a senate, partly composed of former members of the body who had remained or returned. Then (B. C. 48.--January) he took up the pursuit of Pompeius and the Optimates. Crossing to Epirus, after some months of changeful fortune, he fought and won the decisive battle of Pharsalia. Pompeius, flying to Egypt, was murdered there. Cæsar, following, with a small force, was placed in great peril by a rising at Alexandria, but held his ground until assistance came. He then garrisoned Egypt with Roman troops and made the princess Cleopatra, who had captivated him by her charms, joint occupant of the throne with her younger brother. During his absence, affairs at Rome were again disturbed, and he was once more appointed dictator, as well as tribune for life. His presence restored order at once, and he was soon in readiness to attack the party of his enemies who had taken refuge in Africa. The battle of Thapsus, followed by the suicide of Cato and the surrender of Utica, practically finished the contest, though one more campaign was fought in Spain the following year.

Cæsar Supreme.

Cæsar was now master of the dominions of Rome, and as entirely a monarch as anyone of his imperial successors, who took his name, with the power which he caused it to symbolize, and called themselves "Cæsars," and "Imperators," as though the two titles were equivalent. "Imperator" was the title under which he chose to exercise his sovereignty. Other Roman generals had been Imperators before, but he was the first to be named Imperator for life, and the word (changed in our tongue to Emperor) took a meaning from that day more regal than Rex or King. That Cæsar, the Imperator, first of all Emperors, ever coveted the crown and title of an older-fashioned royalty, is not an easy thing to believe.

Having settled his authority firmly, he gave his attention to the organization of the Empire (still Republic in name) and to the reforming of the evils which afflicted it. That he did this work with consummate judgment and success is the opinion of all who study his time. He gratified no resentments, executed no revenges, proscribed no enemies. All who submitted to his rule were safe; and it seems to be clear that the people in general were glad to be rescued by his rule from the old oligarchical and anarchical state. But some of Cæsar's own partisans were dissatisfied with the autocracy which they helped to create, or with the slenderness of their own parts in it. They conspired with surviving leaders of the Optimates, and Cæsar was assassinated by them, in the Senate chamber, on the 15th of March, B. C. 44.

Professor Mommsen has expressed the estimate of Cæsar which many thoughtful historians have formed, in the following strong words: "In the character of Cæsar the great contrasts of existence meet and balance each other. He was of the mightiest creative power, and yet of the most penetrating judgment; of the highest energy of will and the highest capacity of execution; filled with republican ideals, and at the same time born to be king. He was 'the entire perfect man'; and he was this because he was the entire and perfect Roman." This may be nearly true if we ignore the moral side of Cæsar's character. He was of too large a nature to do evil things unnecessarily, and so he shines even morally in comparison with many of his kind; but he had no scruples.

{1004}

After the Murder of Cæsar.

The murderers of Cæsar were not accepted by the people as the patriots and "liberators" which they claimed to be, and they were soon in flight from the city. Marcus Antonius, who had been Cæsar's associate in the consulship, now naturally and skilfully assumed the direction of affairs, and aspired to gather the reins of imperial power into his own hands. But rivals were ready to dispute with him the great prize of ambition. Among them, it is probable that Antony gave little heed at first to the young man, Caius Octavius, or Octavianus, who was Cæsar's nephew, adopted son and heir; for Octavius was less than nineteen years old, he was absent in Apollonia, and he was little known. But the young Cæsar, coming boldly though quietly to Rome, began to push his hereditary claims with a patient craftiness and dexterity that were marvellous in one so young.

The Second Triumvirate.

The contestants soon resorted to arms. The result of their first indecisive encounter was a compromise and the formation of a triumvirate, like that of Cæsar, Pompeius and Crassus. This second triumvirate was made up of Antonius, Octavius, and Lepidus, lately master of the horse in Cæsar's army. Unlike the earlier coalition, it was vengeful and bloody-minded. Its first act was a proscription, in the terrible manner of Sulla, which filled Rome and Italy with murders, and with terror and mourning. Cicero, the patriot and great orator, was among the victims cut down.

After this general slaughter of their enemies at home, Antonius and Octavius proceeded against Brutus and Cassius, two of the assassins of Cæsar, who had gathered a large force in Greece. They defeated them at Philippi, and both "liberators" perished by their own hands. The triumvirs now divided the empire between them, Antonius ruling the East, Octavius the West, and Lepidus taking Africa--that is, the Carthaginian province, which included neither Egypt nor Numidia. Unhappily for Antonius, the queen of Egypt was among his vassals, and she ensnared him. He gave himself up to voluptuous dalliance with Cleopatra at Alexandria, while the cool intriguer, Octavius, at Rome, worked unceasingly to solidify and increase his power. After six years had passed, the young Cæsar was ready to put Lepidus out of his way, which he did mercifully, by sending him into exile. After five years more, he launched his legions and his war galleys against Antonius, with the full sanction of the Roman senate and people. The sea-fight at Actium (B. C. 31) gave Octavius the whole empire, and both Antonius and Cleopatra committed suicide after flying to Egypt. The kingdom of the Ptolemies was now extinguished and became a Roman province in due form.

Octavius (Augustus) Supreme.

Octavius was now more securely absolute as the ruler of Rome and its great empire than Sulla or Julius Cæsar had been, and he maintained that sovereignty without challenge for forty-five years, until his death. He received from the Senate the honorary title of "Augustus," by which he is most commonly known. For official titles, he took none but those which had belonged to the institutions of the Republic, and were familiarly known. He was Imperator, as his uncle had been. He was Princeps, or head of the Senate; he was Censor; he was Tribune; he was Supreme Pontiff. All the great offices of the Republic he kept alive, and ingeniously constructed his sovereignty by uniting their powers in himself.

Organization of the Empire.

The historical position of Augustus, as the real founder of the Roman Empire, is unique in its grandeur; and yet History has dealt contemptuously, for the most part, with his name. His character has been looked upon, to use the language of De Quincey, as "positively repulsive, in the very highest degree." "A cool head," wrote Gibbon of him, "an unfeeling heart, and a cowardly disposition, prompted him, at the age of nineteen, to assume the mask of hypocrisy, which he never afterwards laid aside." And again: "His virtues, and even his vices, were artificial; and according to the various dictates of his interest, he was at first the enemy, and at last the father, of the Roman world." Yet, how can we deny surpassing high qualities of some description to a man who set the shattered Roman Republic, with all its democratic bases broken up, on a new--an imperial--foundation, so gently that it suffered no further shock, and so solidly that it endured, in whole or in part, for a millennium and a half?

In the reign of Augustus the Empire was consolidated and organized; it was not much extended. The frontiers were carried to the Danube, throughout, and the subjugation of Spain was made complete. Augustus generally discouraged wars of conquest. His ambitious stepsons, Drusus and Tiberius, persuaded him into several expeditions beyond the Rhine, against the restless German nations, which perpetually menaced the borders of Gaul; but these gained no permanent footing in the Teutonic territory. They led, on the contrary, to a fearful disaster (A. D. 9), near the close of the reign of Augustus, when three legions, under Varus, were destroyed in the Teutoburg Forest by a great combination of the tribes, planned and conducted by a young chieftain named Hermann, or Arminius, who is the national hero of Germany to this day.

The policy of Drusus in strongly fortifying the northern frontier against the Germans left marks which are conspicuously visible at the present day. From the fifty fortresses which he is said to have built along the line sprang many important modern cities,--Basel, Strasburg, Worms, Mainz, Bingen, Coblenz, Bonn, Cologne, and Leyden, among the number. From similar forts on the Danubian frontier rose Vienna, Regensburg and Passau.

Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero.

Augustus died A. D. 11, and was succeeded in his honors, his offices, and his powers, by his step-son, Tiberius Claudius Nero, whom he had adopted. Tiberius, during most of his reign, was a vigorous ruler, but a detestable man, unless his subjects belied him, which some historians suspect. Another attempt at the conquest of Germany was made by his nephew Germanicus, son of Drusus; but the jealousy of the emperor checked it, and Germanicus died soon after, believing that he had been poisoned. A son of Germanicus, Caius, better known by his nick-name of Caligula, succeeded to the throne on the death of Tiberius (A. D. 37), and was the first of many emperors to be crazed and made beast-like, in lust, cruelty and senselessness, by the awful, unbounded power which passed into their hands. {1005} The Empire bore his madness for three years, and then he was murdered by his own guards. The Senate had thoughts now of restoring the commonwealth, and debated the question for a day; but the soldiers of the prætorian guard took it out of their hands, and decided it, by proclaiming Tiberius Claudius (A. D. 41), a brother of Germanicus, and uncle of the emperor just slain. Claudius was weak of body and mind, but not vicious, and his reign was distinctly one of improvement and advance in the Empire. He began the conquest of Britain, which the Romans had neglected since Cæsar's time, and he opened the Senate to the provincials of Gaul. He had two wives of infamous character, and the later one of these, Agrippina, brought him a son, not his own, whom he adopted, and who succeeded him (A.D. 54). This was Nero, of foul memory, who was madman and monster in as sinister a combination as history can show. During the reign of Nero, the spread of Christianity, which had been silently making its way from Judæa into all parts of the Empire, began to attract the attention of men in public place, and the first persecution of its disciples took place (A. D. 64). A great fire occurred in Rome, which the hated emperor was believed to have caused; but he found it convenient to accuse the Christians of the deed, and large numbers of them were put to death in horrible ways.

Vespasian and his Sons.

Nero was tolerated for fourteen years, until the soldiers in the provinces rose against him, and he committed suicide (A. D. 68) to escape a worse death. Then followed a year of civil war between rival emperors--Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian--proclaimed by different bodies of soldiers in various parts of the Empire. The struggle ended in favor of Vespasian, a rude, strong soldier, who purged the government, disciplined the army, and brought society back toward simpler and more decent ways. The great revolt of the Jews (A. D. 66-70) had broken out before he received the purple, and he was commanding in Judæa when Nero fell. The siege, capture and destruction of Jerusalem was accomplished by his son Titus. A more formidable revolt in the West (A. D. 69) was begun the Batavians, a German tribe which occupied part of the Netherland territory, near the mouth of the Rhine. They were joined by neighboring Gauls and by disaffected Roman legionaries, and they received help from their German kindred on the northern side of the Rhine. The revolt, led by a chieftain named Civilis, who had served in the Roman army, was overcome with extreme difficulty.

Vespasian was more than worthily succeeded (A. D. 79) by his elder son, Titus, whose subjects so admired his many virtues that he was called "the delight of the human race." His short reign, however, was one of calamities: fire at Rome, a great pestilence, and the frightful eruption of Vesuvius which destroyed Herculaneum and Pompeii. After Titus came his younger brother Domitian (A. D. 81), who proved to be another creature of the monstrous species that appeared so often in the series of Roman emperors. The conquest of southern Britain (modern England) was completed in his reign by an able soldier, Agricola, who fought the Caledonians of the North, but was recalled before subduing them. Domitian was murdered by his own servants (A. D. 96), after a reign of fifteen years.

Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian.

Rome and the Empire were happy at last in the choice that was made of a sovereign to succeed the hateful son of Vespasian. Not the soldiery, but the Senate, made the choice, and it fell on one of their number, Cocceius Nerva, who was already an aged man. He wore the purple but sixteen months, and his single great distinction in Roman history is, that he introduced to the imperial succession a line of the noblest men who ever sat in the seat of the Cæsars. The first of these was the soldier Trajan, whom Nerva adopted and associated with himself in authority. When Nerva died (A. D. 97), his son by adoption ascended the throne with no opposition. The new Emperor was simple and plain in his habits and manners of life; he was honest and open in all his dealings with men; he was void of suspicion, and of malice and jealousy no less. He gave careful attention to the business of state and was wise in his administration of affairs, improving roads, encouraging trade, helping agriculture, and developing the resources of the Empire in very prudent and practical ways. But he was a soldier, fond of war, and he unwisely reopened the career of conquest which had been almost closed for the Empire since Pompeius came back from the East. A threatening kingdom having risen among the Dacians, in the country north of the lower Danube--the Transylvania and Roumania of the present day--he attacked and crushed it, in a series of vigorous campaigns (A. D. 101-106), and annexed the whole territory to the dominion of Rome. He then garrisoned and colonized the country, and Romanized it so completely that it keeps the Roman name, and its language to this day is of the Latin stock, though Goths, Huns, Bulgarians and Slavs have swept it in successive invasions, and held it among their conquests for centuries at a time. In the East, he ravaged the territory of the Parthian king, entered his capital and added Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Arabia Petræa to the list of Roman provinces. But he died (A. D. 117) little satisfied with the results of his eastern campaigns.

His successor abandoned them, and none have doubted that he did well; because the Empire was weakened by the new frontier in Asia which Trajan gave it to defend. His Dacian conquests were kept, but all beyond the Euphrates in the East were given up. The successor who did this was Hadrian, a kinsman, whom the Emperor adopted in his last hours. Until near the close of his life, Hadrian ranked among the best of the emperors. Rome saw little of him, and resented his incessant travels through every part of his great realm. His manifest preference for Athens, where he lingered longest, and which flourished anew under his patronage, was still more displeasing to the ancient capital. For the Emperor was a man of cultivation, fond of literature, philosophy and art, though busy with the cares of State. In his later years he was afflicted with a disease which poisoned his nature by its torments, filled his mind with dark suspicions, and made him fitfully tyrannical and cruel. The event most notable in his generally peaceful and prosperous reign was the renewed and final revolt of the Jews, under Barchochebas, which resulted in their total expulsion from Jerusalem, and its conversion into a heathen city, with a Roman name.

{1006}

The Antonines.

Hadrian had adopted before his death (A. D. 138) a man of blameless character, Titus Aurelius Antoninus, who received from his subjects, when he became Emperor, the appellation "Pius," to signify the dutiful reverence and kindliness of his disposition. He justified the name of Antoninus Pius, by which he is historically known, and his reign, though disturbed by some troubles on the distant borders of the Empire, was happy for his subjects in nearly all respects. "No great deeds are told of him, save this, perhaps the greatest, that he secured the love and happiness of those he ruled" (Capes).

Like so many of the emperors, Antoninus had no son of his own; but even before he came to the throne, and at the request of Hadrian, he had adopted a young lad who won the heart of the late Emperor while still a child. The family name of this son by adoption was Verus, and he was of Spanish descent; the name which he took, in his new relationship, was Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. It is unquestionably the most illustrious name in the whole imperial line, from Augustus to the last Constantine, and made so, not so much by deeds as by character. He gave the world the solitary example of a philosopher upon the throne. There have been a few--a very few--surpassingly good men in kingly places; but there has never been another whose soul was lifted to so serene a height above the sovereignty of his station. Unlimited power tempted no form of selfishness in him; he saw nothing in his imperial exaltation but the duties which it imposed. His mind was meditative, and inclined him to the studious life; but he compelled himself to be a man of vigor and activity in affairs. He disliked war; but he spent years of his life in camp on the frontiers; because it fell to his lot to encounter the first great onset of the barbarian nations of the north, which never ceased from that time to beat against the barriers of the Empire until they had broken them down. His struggle was on the line of the Danube, with the tribes of the Marcomanni, the Quadi, the Vandals, and others of less formidable power. He held them back, but the resources of the Empire were overstrained and weakened lastingly by the effort. For the first time, too, there were colonies of barbarians brought into the Empire, from beyond its lines, to be settled for the supply of soldiers to the armies of Rome: It was a dangerous sign of Roman decay and a fatal policy to begin. The decline of the great world-power was, in truth, already well advanced, and the century of good emperors which ended when Marcus Aurelius died (A. D. 180), only retarded, and did not arrest, the progress of mortal maladies in the state.

From Commodus to Caracalla.

The best of emperors was followed on the throne by a son, Commodus, who went mad, like Nero and Caligula, with the drunkenness of power, and who was killed (A. D. 192) by his own servants, after a reign of twelve years. The soldiers of the prætorian guard now took upon themselves the making of emperors, and placed two upon the throne--first, Pertinax, an aged senator, whom they murdered the next year, and then Didius Julianus, likewise a senator, to whom, as the highest bidder, they sold the purple. Again, as after Nero's death, the armies on the frontiers put forward, each, a rival claimant, and there was war between the competitors. The victor who became sovereign was Septimius Severus (A. D. 194-211), who had been in command on the Danube. He was an able soldier, and waged war with success against the Parthians in the East, and with the Caledonians in Britain, which latter he could not subdue. Of his two sons, the elder, nicknamed Caracalla (A. D. 211-217), killed his brother with his own hands, and tortured the Roman world with his brutalities for six years, when he fell under the stroke of an assassin. The reign of this foul beast brought one striking change to the Empire. An imperial edict wiped away the last distinction between Romans and Provincials, giving citizenship to every free inhabitant of the Empire. "Rome from this date became constitutionally an empire, and ceased to be merely a municipality. The city had become the world, or, viewed from the other side, the world had become 'the City'" (Merivale).

Anarchy and Decay.

The period of sixty-seven years from the murder of Caracalla to the accession of Diocletian--when a great constitutional change occurred--demands little space in a sketch like this. The weakening of the Empire by causes inherent in its social and political structure,--the chief among which were the deadly influence of its system of slavery and the paralyzing effects of its autocracy,--went on at an increasing rate, while disorder grew nearly to the pitch of anarchy, complete. There were twenty-two emperors in the term, which scarcely exceeded that of two generations of men. Nineteen of these were taken from the throne by violent deaths, through mutiny or murder, while one fell in battle, and another was held captive in Persia till he died. Only five among these twenty-two ephemeral lords of the world,--namely Alexander Severus, Decius (who was a vigorous soldier and ruler, but who persecuted the Christians with exceptional cruelty), Claudius, Aurelian, and Probus,--can be credited with any personal weight or worth in the history of the time; and they held power too briefly to make any notable mark.

The distractions of the time were made worse by a great number of local "tyrants," as they were called--military adventurers who rose in different parts of the Empire and established themselves for a time in authority over some district, large or small. In the reign of Gallienus (A. D. 260-268) there were nineteen of these petty "imperators," and they were spoken of as the "thirty tyrants." The more important of the "provincial empires" thus created were those of Postumus, in Gaul, and of Odenatus of Palmyra. The latter, under Zenobia; queen and successor of Odenatus, became a really imposing monarchy, until it was overthrown by Aurelian, A. D. 273.

{1007}

The Teutonic Nations.

The Germanic nations beyond the Rhine and the Danube had, by this time, improved their organization, and many of the tribes formerly separated and independent were now gathered into powerful confederations. The most formidable of these leagues in the West was that which acquired the common name of the Franks, or Freemen, and which was made up of the peoples occupying territory along the course of the Lower Rhine. Another of nearly equal power, dominating the German side of the Upper Rhine and the headwaters of the Danube, is believed to have absorbed the tribes which had been known in the previous century as Boii, Marcomanni, Quadi, and others. The general name it received was that of the Alemanni. The Alemanni were in intimate association with the Suevi, and little is known of the distinction that existed between the two. They had now begun to make incursions across the Rhine, but were driven back in 238. Farther to the East, on the Lower Danube, a still more dangerous horde was now threatening the flanks of the Empire in its European domain. These were Goths, a people akin, without doubt, to the Swedes, Norsemen and Danes; but whence and when they made their way to the neighborhood of the Black Sea is a question in dispute. It was in the reign of Caracalla that the Romans became first aware of their presence in the country since known as the Ukraine. A few years later, when Alexander Severus was on the throne, they began to make incursions into Dacia. During the reign of Philip the Arabian (A. D. 244-249) they passed through Dacia, crossed the Danube, and invaded Mœsia (modern Bulgaria). In their next invasion (A. D. 251) they passed the Balkans, defeated the Romans in two terrible battles, the last of which cost the reigning Emperor, Decius, his life, and destroyed the city of Philippopolis, with 100,000 of its people. But when, a few years later, they attempted to take possession of even Thrace and Macedonia, they were crushingly defeated by the Emperor Claudius, whose successor Aurelian made peace by surrendering to them the whole province of Dacia (A. D. 270), where they settled, giving the Empire no disturbance for nearly a hundred years. Before this occurred, the Goths, having acquired the little kingdom of Bosporus (the modern Crimea) had begun to launch a piratical navy, which plundered the coast cities of Asia Minor and Greece, including Athens itself.

On the Asiatic side of the Empire a new power, a revived and regenerated Persian monarchy, had risen out of the ruins of the Parthian kingdom, which it overthrew, and had begun without delay to contest the rule of Rome in the East.

Diocletian.

Briefly described, this was the state and situation of the Roman Empire when Diocletian, an able Illyrian soldier, came to the throne (A. D. 284). His accession marks a new epoch. "From this time," says Dean Merivale, "the old names of the Republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate itself, cease, even if still existing, to have any political significance." "The empire of Rome is henceforth an Oriental sovereignty." But the changes which Diocletian made in the organization and administration of the Empire, if they did weigh it down with a yet more crushing autocracy and contribute to its exhaustion in the end, did also, for the time, stop the wasting of its last energies, and gather them in hand for potent use. It can hardly be doubted that he lengthened the term of its career.

Finding that one man in the exercise of supreme sovereignty, as absolute as he wished to make it, could not give sufficient care to every part of the vast realm, he first associated one Maximian with himself, on equal terms, as Emperor, or Augustus, and six years later (A. D. 292) he selected two others from among his generals and invested them with a subordinate sovereignty, giving them the title of "Cæsars." The arrangement appears to have worked satisfactorily while Diocletian remained at the head of his imperial college. But in 305 he wearied of the splendid burden that he bore, and abdicated the throne, unwillingly followed by his associate, Maximian. The two Cæsars, Constantius and Galerius, were then advanced to the imperial rank, and two new Cæsars were named.

Jealousies, quarrels, and civil war were soon rending the Empire again. The details are unimportant.

Constantine and Christianity.

After nine years of struggle, two competitors emerged (A. D. 314) alone, and divided the Empire between them. They were Constantine, son of Constantius, the Cæsar, and one Licinius. After nine years more, Licinius had disappeared, defeated and put to death, and Constantine (A. D. 323) shared the sovereignty of Rome with none. In its final stages, the contest had become, practically, a trial of strength between expiring Paganism in the Roman world and militant Christianity, now grown to great strength. The shrewd adventurer Constantine saw the political importance to which the Christian Church had risen, and identified himself with it by a "conversion" which has glorified his name most undeservedly. If to be a Christian with sincerity is to be a good man, then Constantine was none; for his life was full of evil deeds, after he professed the religion of Christ, even more than before. "He poured out the best and noblest blood in torrents, more especially of those nearly connected with himself. ... In a palace which he had made a desert, the murderer of his father-in-law, his brothers-in-law, his sister, his wife, his son, and his nephew, must have felt the stings of remorse, if hypocritical priests and courtier bishops had not lulled his conscience to rest" (Sismondi).

But the so-called "conversion" of Constantine was an event of vast import in history. It changed immensely, and with suddenness, the position, the state, the influence, and very considerably the character and spirit of the Christian Church. The hierarchy of the Church became, almost at once, the greatest power in the Empire, next to the Emperor himself, and its political associations, which were dangerous from the beginning, soon proved nearly fatal to its spiritual integrity. "Both the purity and the freedom of the Church were in danger of being lost. State and Church were beginning an amalgamation fraught with peril. The State was becoming a kind of Church, and the Church a kind of State. The Emperor preached and summoned councils, called himself, though half in jest, a 'bishop,' and the bishops had become State officials, who, like the high dignitaries of the Empire, travelled by the imperial courier-service, and frequented the ante-chambers of the palaces in Constantinople." "The Emperor determined what doctrines were to prevail in the Church, and banished Arius to-day and Athanasius to-morrow." "The Church was surfeited with property and privileges. The Emperor, a poor financier, impoverished the Empire to enrich" it (Uhlhorn). That Christianity had shared the gain of the Christian Church from these great changes, is very questionable.

{1008}

By another event of his reign, Constantine marked it in history with lasting effect. He rebuilt with magnificence the Greek city of Byzantium on the Bosphorus, transferred to it his imperial residence, and raised it to a nominal equality with Rome, but to official find practical superiority, as the capital of the Empire. The old Rome dwindled in rank and prestige from that day; the new Rome--the city of Constantine, or Constantinople--rose to the supreme place in the eyes and the imaginations of men.

Julian and the Pagan Revival.

That Constantine added the abilities of a statesman to the unscrupulous cleverness of an adventurer is not to be disputed; but he failed to give proof of this when he divided the Empire between his three sons at his death (A. D. 337). The inevitable civil wars ensued, until, after sixteen years, one survivor gathered the whole realm under his scepter again. He (Constantius), who debased and disgraced the Church more than his father had done, was succeeded (A. D. 361) by his cousin, Julian, an honest, thoughtful, strong man, who, not unnaturally, preferred the old pagan Greek philosophy to the kind of Christianity which he had seen flourishing at the Byzantine court. He publicly restored the worship of the ancient gods of Greece and Rome; he excluded Christians from the schools, and bestowed his favor on those who scorned the Church; but he entered on no violent persecution. His reign was brief, lasting only two years. He perished in a hapless expedition against the Persians, by whom the Empire was now almost incessantly harassed.

Valentinian and Valens.

His successor, Jovian, whom the army elected, died in seven months; but Valentinian, another soldier, raised by his comrades to the throne, reigned vigorously for eleven years. He associated his brother, Valens, with him in the sovereignty, assigning the latter to the East, while he took the administration of the West.

Until the death of Valentinian, in 375, the northern frontiers of the Empire, along the Rhine and the Danube, were well defended. Julian had commanded in Gaul, with Paris for his capital, six years before he became Emperor, and had organized its defence most effectively. Valentinian maintained the line with success against the Alemanni; while his lieutenant, Theodosius, delivered Roman Britain from the ruinous attacks of the Scots and Picts of its northern region. On the Danube, there continued to be peace with the Goths, who held back all other barbarians from that northeastern border.

The Goths in the Empire.

But the death of Valentinian was the beginning of fatal calamities. His brother, Valens, had none of his capability or his vigor, and was unequal to such a crisis as now occurred. The terrible nation of the Huns had entered Europe from the Asiatic steppes, and the Western Goths, or Visigoths, fled before them. These fugitives begged to be permitted to cross the Danube and settle on vacant lands in Mœsia and Thrace. Valens consented, and the whole Visigothic nation, 200,000 warriors, with their women and children, passed the river (A. D. 376). It is possible that they might, by fair treatment, have been converted into loyal citizens, and useful defenders of the land. But the corrupt officials of the court took advantage of their dependent state, and wrung extortionate prices from them for disgusting food, until they rose in desperation and wasted Thrace with fire and sword. Fresh bodies of Ostrogoths (Eastern Goths) and other barbarians came over to join them (A. D. 378); the Roman armies were beaten in two great battles, and Valens, the Emperor, was slain. The victorious Goths swept on to the very walls of Constantinople, which they could not surmount, and the whole open country, from the Black Sea to the Adriatic, was ravaged by them at will.

Theodosius.

In the meantime, the western division of the Empire had passed, on the death of Valentinian, under the nominal rule of his two young sons, Gratian, aged sixteen, and Valentinian II., aged four. Gratian had made an attempt to bring help to his uncle Valens; but the latter fought his fatal battle while the boy emperor was on the way, and the latter, upon hearing of it, turned back. Then Gratian performed his one great act. He sought a colleague, and called to the throne the most promising young soldier of the day. This was Theodosius, whose father, Count Theodosius, the deliverer of Britain, had been put to death by Valens, on some jealous accusation, only three years before. The new Emperor took the East for his realm, having Gratian and Valentinian II. for colleagues in the West. He speedily checked the ravages of the Goths and restored the confidence of the Roman soldiers. Then he brought diplomacy to bear upon the dangerous situation, and succeeded in arranging a peace with the Gothic chieftains, which enlisted them in the imperial service with forty thousand of their men. But they retained their distinctive organization, under their own chiefs, and were called "fœderati," or allies. This concession of a semi-independence to so great a body of armed barbarians in the heart of the Empire was a fatal mistake, as was proved before many years.

For the time being it secured peace, and gave Theodosius opportunity to attend to other things. The controversies of the Church were among the subjects of his consideration, and by taking the side of the Athanasians, whom his predecessor had persecuted, he gave a final victory to Trinitarianism, in the Roman world. His reign was signalized, moreover, by the formal, official abolition of paganism at Rome.

The weak but amiable Gratian, reigning at Paris, lost his throne and his life, in 383, as the consequence of a revolt which began in Britain and spread to Gaul. The successful rebel and usurper, Maximus, seemed so strong that Theodosius made terms with him, and acknowledged his sovereignty for a number of years. But, not content with a dominion which embraced Britain, Gaul and Spain, Maximus sought, after a time, to add Italy, where the youth, Valentinian II., was still enthroned (at Milan, not Rome), under the tutelage of his mother. Valentinian fled to Theodosius; the Eastern Emperor adopted his cause, and restored him to his throne, defeating the usurper and putting him to death (A. D. 388). Four years later Valentinian II. died; another usurper arose, and again Theodosius (A. D. 394) recovered the throne.

{1009}

Final Division of the Empire.

Theodosius was now alone in the sovereignty. The Empire was once more, and for the last time, in its full extent, united under a single lord. It remained so for but a few months. At the beginning of the year 395, Theodosius died, and his two weak sons, Arcadius and Honorius, divided the perishing Empire between them, only to augment, in its more venerable seat, the distress of the impending fall.

Arcadius, at the age of eighteen, took the government of the East; Hononus, a child of eleven, gave his name to the administration of the West. Each emperor was under the guardianship of a minister chosen by Theodosius before he died. Rufinus, who held authority at Constantinople, was worthless in all ways; Stilicho, who held the reins at Milan, was a Vandal by birth, a soldier and a statesman of vigorous powers.

Decay of the Western Empire.

The West seemed more fortunate than the East, in this division; yet the evil days now fast coming near fell crushingly on the older Rome, while the New Rome lived through them, and endured for a thousand years. No doubt the Empire had weakened more on its elder side; had suffered more exhaustion of vital powers. It had little organic vitality now left in it. If no swarms of barbaric invaders had been waiting and watching at its doors, and pressing upon it from every point with increasing fierceness, it seems probable that it would have gone to pieces ere long through mere decay. And if, on the other hand, it could have kept the vigorous life of its best republican days, it might have defied Teuton and Slav forever. But all the diseases, political and social, which the Republic engendered in itself, had been steadily consuming the state, with their virulence even increased, since it took on the imperial constitution. All that imperialism did was to gather waning energies in hand, and make the most of them for external use. It stopped no decay. The industrial palsy, induced by an ever-widening system of slave-labor, continued to spread. Production decreased; the sum of wealth shrunk in the hands of each succeeding generation; and yet the great fortunes and great estates grew bigger from age to age. The gulf between rich and poor opened deeper and wider, and the bridges once built across it by middle-class thrift were fallen down. The burden of imperial government had become an unendurable weight; the provincial municipalities, which had once been healthy centers of a local political life, were strangled by the nets of taxation flung over them. Men sought refuge even in death from the magistracies which made them responsible to the imperial treasury for revenues which they could not collect. Population dwindled, year by year. Recruiting from the body of citizens for the common needs of the army became more impossible. The state was fully dependent, at last, on barbaric mercenaries of one tribe for its defence against barbaric invaders of another; and it was no longer able, as of old, to impress its savage servitors with awe of its majesty and its name.

Stilicho and Alaric.

Stilicho, for a time, stoutly breasted the rising flood of disaster. He checked the Picts and Scots of Northern Britain, and the Alemanni and their allies on the frontiers of Gaul. But now there arose again the more dreadful barbarian host which had footing in the Empire itself, and which Theodosius had taken into pay. The Visigoths elected a king (A. D. 395), and were persuaded with ease to carve a kingdom for him out of the domain which seemed waiting to be snatched from one or both of the feeble monarchs, who sat in mockery of state at Constantinople and Milan. Alaric, the new Gothic king, moved first against the capital on the Bosphorus; but Rufinus persuaded him to pass on into Greece, where he went pillaging and destroying for a year. Stilicho, the one manly defender of the Empire, came over from Italy with an army to oppose him; but he was stopped on the eve of battle by orders from the Eastern Court, which sent him back, as an officious meddler. This act of mischief and malice was the last that Rufinus could do. He was murdered, soon afterwards, and Arcadius, being free from his influence, then called upon Stilicho for help. The latter came once more to deliver Greece, and did so with success. But Alaric, though expelled from the peninsula, was neither crushed nor disarmed, and the Eastern Court had still to make terms with him. It did so for the moment by conferring on him the government of that part of Illyricum which the Servia and Bosnia of the present day coincide with, very nearly. He rested there in peace for four years, and then (A. D. 400) he called his people to arms again, and led the whole nation, men, women and children, into Italy. The Emperor, Honorius, fled from Milan to Ravenna, which, being a safe shelter behind marshes and streams, became the seat of the court for years thereafter. Stilicho, stripping Britain and Gaul of troops, gathered forces with which, at Eastertide in the year 402, and again in the following year, he defeated the Goths, and forced them to retreat.

He had scarcely rested from these exertions, when the valiant Stilicho was called upon to confront a more savage leader, Radagaisus by name, who came from beyond the lines (A. D. 405), with a vast swarm of mixed warriors from many tribes pouring after him across the Alps. Again Stilicho, by superior skill, worsted the invaders, entrapping them in the mountains near Fiesole (modern Florence), and starving them there till they yielded themselves to slavery and their chieftain to death.

This was the last great service to the dying Roman state which Stilicho was permitted to do. Undermined by the jealousies of the cowardly court at Ravenna, he seems to have lost suddenly the power by which he held himself so high. He was accused of treasonable designs and was seized and instantly executed, by the Emperor's command.

{1010}

Alaric and his Goths in Rome.

Stilicho dead, there was no one in Italy for Alaric to fear, and he promptly returned across the Alps, with the nation of the Visigoths behind him. There was no resistance to his march, and he advanced straight upon Rome. He did not assail the walls, but sat down before the gates (A. D. 408), until the starving citizens paid him a great ransom in silver and gold and precious spices and silken robes. With this booty he retired for the winter into Tuscany, where his army was swelled by thousands of fugitive barbarian slaves, and by reinforcements of Goths and Huns. From his camp he opened negotiations with Honorius, demanding the government of Dalmatia, Venetia and Noricum, with certain subsidies of money and corn. The contemptible court, skulking at Ravenna, could neither make war nor make concessions, and it soon exhausted the patience of the barbarian by its puerilities. He marched again to Rome (A. D. 409), seized the port of Ostia, with its supplies of grain, and forced the helpless capital to join him in proclaiming a rival emperor. The prefect of the city, one Attalus, accepted the purple at his hands, and played the puppet for a few months in imperial robes. But the scheme proved unprofitable, Attalus was deposed, and negotiations were reopened with Honorius. Their only result was a fresh provocation which sent Alaric once more against Rome, and this time with wrath and vengeance in his heart. Then the great, august capital of the world was entered, through treachery or by surprise, on the night of the 24th of August, 410, and suffered all that the lust, the ferocity and the greed of a barbarous army let loose could inflict on an unresisting city. It was her first experience of that supreme catastrophe of war, since Brennus and the Gauls came in; but it was not to be the last.

From the sack of Rome, Alaric moved southward, intending to conquer Sicily; but a sudden illness brought his career to an end.

The Barbarians Swarming in.

The Empire was now like a dying quarry, pulled down by fierce hunting packs and torn on every side. The Goths were at its throat; the tribes of Germany--Sueves, Vandals, Burgundians, Alans--had leaped the Rhine (A. D. 406) and swarmed upon its flanks, throughout Gaul and Spain. The inrush began after Stilicho, to defend Italy against Alaric and Radagaisus, had stripped the frontiers of troops. Sueves, Vandals, and Alans passed slowly through the provinces, devouring their wealth and making havoc of their civilization as they went. After three years, they had reached and surmounted the Pyrenees, and were spreading the same destruction through Spain.

The confederated tribes of the Franks had already been admitted as allies into northwestern Gaul, and were settled there in peace. At first, they stood faithful to the Roman alliance, and valiantly resisted the new invasion; but its numbers overpowered them, and their fidelity gave way when they saw the pillage of the doomed provinces going on. They presently joined the barbarous mob, and with an energy which secured the lion's share of plunder and domain.

The Burgundians did not follow the Vandals and Sueves to the southwest, but took possession of the left bank of the middle Rhine, whence they gradually spread into western Switzerland and Savoy, and down the valleys of the Rhone and Saone, establishing in time an important kingdom, to which they gave their name.

No help from Ravenna or Rome came to the perishing provincials of Gaul in the extremity of their distress; but a pretender arose in Britain, who assumed the imperial title and promised deliverance. He crossed over to Gaul in 407 and was welcomed with eagerness, both there and in Spain, to which he advanced. He gained some success, partly by enlisting and partly by resisting the invaders; but his career was brief. Other pretenders appeared in various provinces, of the West; but the anarchy of the time was too great for any authority, legitimate or revolutionary, to establish itself.

The Visigoths in Gaul.

And, now, into the tempting country of the afflicted Gauls, already crowded with rapacious freebooters, the Visigoths made their way. Their new king, Ataulph, or Adolphus, who succeeded Alaric, passed into Gaul, but not commissioned, as sometimes stated, to restore the imperial sovereignty there. He moved with his nation, as Alaric had moved, and Italy, by his departure, was relieved; but Narbonne, Toulouse, Bordeaux, and the Aquitainian country at large, was soon subject to his command (A. D. 412-419). He passed the Pyrenees and entered Spain, where an assassin took his life. His successor, Wallia, drove the Sueves into the mountains and the Vandals into the South; but did not take possession of the country until a later time. The Visigoths, returning to Aquitaine, found there, at last, the kingdom which Alaric set out from the Danube to seek, and they were established in it with the Roman Emperor's consent. It was known as the kingdom of Gothia, or Septimania, but is more commonly called, from its capital, the kingdom of Toulouse.

The Eastern Empire.

Affairs in the Eastern Empire had never arrived at so desperate a state as in the West. With the departure of Alaric, it had been relieved from its most dangerous immediate foe. There had been tumults, disorders, assassinations, court conspiracies, fierce religious strifes, and every evidence of a government with no settled authority and no title to respect; but yet the Empire stood and was not yet seriously shaken. In 408 Arcadius died. His death was no loss, though he left an infant son to take his place; for he also left a daughter, Pulcheria, who proved to be a woman of rare virtue and talents, and who reigned in her brother's name.

Aetius and the Huns.

The imbecile Honorius, with whose name the failing sovereignty of Rome had been so disastrously linked for eight and twenty rears, died in 423. An infant nephew was his heir, and Placidia, the mother, ruled at Ravenna for a fourth of a century, in the name of her child. Her reign was far stronger than her wretched brother's had been, because she gave loyal support to a valiant and able man, who stood at her side. Aetius, her minister, did all, perhaps, that man could do to hold some parts of Gaul, and to play barbarian against barbarian--Hun against Goth and Frank--in skilful diplomacy and courageous war. But nothing that he won was any lasting gain. In his youth, Aetius had been a hostage in the camps of both the Goths and the Huns, and had made acquaintances among the chieftains of both which served his policy many times. {1011} He had employed the terrible Huns in the early years of his ministry, and perhaps they had learned too much of the weakness of the Roman State. These most fearful of all the barbarian peoples then surging in Europe had been settled, for some years, in the region since called Hungary, under Attila, their most formidable king. He terrorized all the surrounding lands and exercised a lordship from the Caspian to the Baltic and the Rhine. The imperial court at the East stooped to pay him annual tribute for abstaining from the invasion of its domain. But in 450, when the regent Pulcheria became Empress of the East, by her brother's death, and married a brave old soldier, Marcian, in order to give him the governing power, a new tone was heard in the voice from Constantinople which answered Attila's demands.

Defeat of Attila.

The Hun then appears to have seen that the sinking Empire of the West offered a more certain victim to his terrors and his arms, and he turned them to that side. First forming an alliance with the Vandals (who had crossed from Spain to Africa in 429, had ravaged and subdued the Roman provinces, and had established a kingdom on the Carthaginian ground, with a naval power in the Carthaginian Sea), Attila led his huge army into suffering Gaul. There were Ostrogoths, and warriors from many German tribes, as well as Huns, in the terrific host; for Attila's arm stretched far, and his subjects were forced to follow when he led. His coming into Gaul affrighted Romans and barbarians alike, and united them in a common defense. Aetius formed an alliance with Theodoric, the Visigothic king, and their forces were joined by Burgundians and Franks. They met Attila near Chalons, and there, on a day in June, A. D. 451, upon the Catalaunian fields, was fought a battle that is always counted among the few which gave shape to all subsequent history. The Huns were beaten back, and Europe was saved from the hopeless night that must have followed a Tartar conquest in that age.

Attila threatening Rome.

Attila retreated to Germany, foiled but not daunted. The next year (A. D. 452) he invaded Italy and laid siege to Aquileia, an important city which stood in his path. It resisted for three months and was then utterly destroyed. The few inhabitants who escaped, with fugitives from neighboring ports, found a refuge in some islands of the Adriatic coast, and formed there a sheltered settlement which grew into the great city and republican state of Venice. Aetius made strenuous exertions to gather forces for another battle with the Huns; but the resources of the Empire had sunk very low. While he labored to collect troops, the effect of a pacific embassy was despairingly tried, and it went forth to the camp of Attila, led by the venerable bishop of Rome--the first powerful Pope--Leo I., called the Great. The impression which Leo made on the Hunnish king, by his venerable presence, and by the persuasiveness of his words, appears to have been extraordinary. At all events, Attila consented to postpone his designs on Rome; though he demanded and received promise of an annual tribute. The next winter he died, and Rome was troubled by him no more.

Rome Sacked by the Vandals.

But another enemy came, who rivalled Attila in ruthlessness, and who gave a name to barbarity which it has kept to this day. The Vandal king, Genseric, who now swept the Mediterranean with a piratical fleet, made his appearance in the Tiber (A. D. 455) and found the Roman capital powerless to resist his attack. The venerable Pope Leo again interceded for the city, and obtained a promise that captives should not be tortured nor buildings burned,--which was the utmost stretch of mercy that the Vandal could afford. Once more, then, was Rome given up, for fourteen days and nights, to pillage and the horrors of barbaric debauch. "Whatever had survived the former sack,--whatever the luxury of the Roman Patriciate, during the intervening forty-five years, had accumulated in reparation of their loss,--the treasures of the imperial palace, the gold and silver vessels employed in the churches, the statues of pagan divinities and men of Roman renown, the gilded roof of the temple of Capitolian Jove, the plate and ornaments of private individuals, were leisurely conveyed to the Vandal fleet and shipped off to Africa" (Sheppard).

The Vandal invasion had been preceded, in the same year, by a palace revolution which brought the dynasty of Theodosius to an end. Placidia was dead, and her unworthy son, Valentinian III., provoked assassination by dishonoring the wife of a wealthy senator, Maximus, who mounted to his place. Maximus was slain by a mob at Rome, just before the Vandals entered the city. The Empire was now without a head, and the throne without an heir. In former times, the Senate or the army would have filled the vacant imperial seat; now, it was a barbarian monarch, Theodoric, the Visigothic king, who made choice of a successor to the Cæsars. He named a Gallic noble, Avitus by name, who had won his esteem, and the nomination was confirmed by Marcian, Emperor of the East.

Ricimer and Majorian.

But the influence of Theodoric in Roman affairs was soon rivalled by that of Count Ricimer, another Goth, or Sueve, who held high command in the imperial army, and who resented the elevation of Avitus. The latter was deposed, after reigning a single year; and Majorian, a soldier of really noble and heroic character, was promoted to the throne. He was too great and too sincere a man to be Ricimer's tool, and the same hand which raised him threw him down, after he had reigned four years (A. D. 457-461). He was in the midst of a powerful undertaking against the Vandals when he perished. Majorian was the last Emperor in the Western line who deserves to be named.

The last Emperors in the West.

Ricimer ruled Italy, with the rigor of a despot, under the modest title of Patrician, until 472. His death was soon followed by the rise of another general of the barbarian troops, Orestes, to like autocracy, and he, in turn, gave way to a third, Odoacer, who slew him and took his place. The creatures, half a dozen in number, who put on and put off the purple robe, at the command of these adventurers, who played with the majesty of Rome, need no further mention. {1012} The last of them was Romulus Augustulus, son of Orestes, who escaped his father's fate by formally resigning the throne. He was the last Roman Emperor in the West, until Charlemagne revived the title, three centuries and a quarter later. "The succession of the Western Emperors came to an end, and the way in which it came to an end marks the way in which the names and titles of Rome were kept on, while all power was passing into the hands of the barbarians. The Roman Senate voted that one Emperor was enough, and that the Eastern Emperor, Zeno, should reign over the whole Empire. But at the same time Zeno was made to entrust the government of Italy, with the title of Patrician, to Odoacer. ... Thus the Roman Empire went on at Constantinople, or New Rome, while Italy and the Old Rome itself passed into the power of the Barbarians. Still the Roman laws and names went on, and we may be sure that any man in Italy would have been much surprised if he had been told that the Roman Empire had come to an end" (Freeman).

Odoacer.

The government of Odoacer, who ruled with the authority of a king, though pretending to kingship only in his own nation, was firm and strong. Italy was better protected from its lawless neighbors than it had been for nearly a century before. But nothing could arrest the decay of its population--the blight that had fallen upon its prosperity. Nor could that turbulent age afford any term of peace that would be long enough for even the beginning of the cure of such maladies and such wounds as had brought Italy low. For fourteen years Odoacer ruled; and then he was overthrown by a new kingdom-seeking barbarian, who came, like Alaric, out of the Gothic swarm.

Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

The Ostrogoths had now escaped, since Attila died, from the yoke of the Huns, and were prepared, under an able and ambitious young king, Theodoric, who had been reared as a hostage at Constantinople, to imitate the career of their cousins, the Visigoths. Having troubled the Eastern Court until it stood in fear of him, Theodoric asked for a commission to overthrow Odoacer, in Italy, and received it from the Emperor's hand. Thus empowered by one still recognized as lawful lord on both sides of the Adriatic, Theodoric crossed the Julian Alps (A. D. 489) with the families of his nation and their household goods. Three battles made him master of the peninsula and decided the fate of his rival. Odoacer held out in Ravenna for two years and a half, and surrendered on a promise of equal sovereignty with the Ostrogothic king. But Theodoric did not scruple to kill him with his own sword, at the first opportunity which came. In that act, the native savagery in him broke loose; but through most of his life he kept his passions decently tamed, and acted the barbarian less frequently than the civilized statesman and king. He gave Italy peace, security, and substantial justice for thirty years. With little war, he extended his sovereignty over Illyrium, Pannonia, Noricum, Rhætia and Provence, in south-eastern Gaul. If the extensive kingdom which he formed--with more enlightenment than any other among those who divided the heritage of Rome--could have endured, the parts of Europe which it covered might have fared better in after times than they did. "Italy might have been spared six hundred years of gloom and degradation." But powerful influences were against it from the first, and they were influences which proceeded mischievously from the Christian Church. Had the Goths been pagans, the Church might have turned a kindly face to them, and wooed them to conversion as she wooed the Franks. But they were Christians, of a heretic stamp, and the orthodox Christianity of Rome held them in deadly loathing. While still beyond the Danube, they had received the faith from an Arian apostle, at the time of the great conflict of Athanasius against Arius, and were stubborn in the rejection of Trinitarian dogma. Hence the Church in the West was never reconciled to the monarchy of Theodoric in Italy, nor to that of the Visigoths at Toulouse; and its hostility was the ultimate cause of the failure of both.

The Empire in the East.

To understand the events which immediately caused the fall of the Ostrogothic power, we must turn back for a moment to the Empire in the East. Marcian, whom Pulcheria, the wise daughter of Arcadius, made Emperor by marrying him, died in 457, and Aspar, the barbarian who commanded the mercenaries, selected his successor. He chose his own steward, one Leo, who proved to have more independence than his patron expected, and who succeeded in destroying the latter. After Leo I. came (474) his infant grandson; Leo II., whose father, an Isaurian chieftain, took his place when he died, within the year. The Isaurian assumed a Greek name, Zeno, and occupied the throne--with one interval of flight and exile for twenty months--during seven years. When he died, his widow gave her hand in marriage to an excellent officer of the palace, Anastasius by name, and he was sovereign of the Empire for twenty-seven years.

The reign of Justinian.

After Anastasius, came Justin I., born a peasant in Dacia (modern Roumania), but advanced as a soldier to the command of the imperial guards, and thence to the throne. He had already adopted and educated his nephew, Justinian, and before dying, in 527, he invested him with sovereignty as a colleague. The reign of Justinian was the most remarkable in the whole history of the Empire in the East. Without breadth of understanding, or notable talents of any kind: without courage; without the least nobility of character; without even the virtue of fidelity to his ministers and friends,--this remarkable monarch contrived to be splendidly served by an extraordinary generation of great soldiers, great jurists, great statesmen, who gave a brilliance to his reign that was never rivalled while the Byzantine seat of Empire stood. It owes, in modern esteem, its greatest fame to the noble collection of Roman laws which was made, in the Pandects and the Code, under the direction of the wise and learned Tribonian. Transiently it was glorified by conquests that bore a likeness to the march of the resistless legions of ancient Rome; and the laurelled names of Belisarius and Narses claimed a place on the columns of victory with the names of Cæsar and Pompeius. {1013} But the splendors of the reign were much more than offset by miseries and calamities of the darkest kind. "The reign of Justinian, from its length, its glory and its disasters, may be compared to the reign of Louis XIV., which exceeded it in length, and equalled it in glory and disaster. ... He extended the limits of his empire; but he was unable to defend the territory he had received from his predecessors. Everyone of the thirty-eight years of his reign was marked by an invasion of the barbarians; and it has been said that, reckoning those who fell by the sword, who perished from want, or were led into captivity, each invasion cost 200,000 subjects to the empire. Calamities which human prudence is unable to resist seemed to combine against the Romans, as if to compel them to expiate their ancient glory. ... So that the very period which gave birth to so many monuments of greatness, may be looked back upon with horror, as that of the widest desolation and the most terrific mortality" (Sismondi). The first and longest of the wars of Justinian was the Persian war, which he inherited from his predecessors, and which scarcely ceased while the Persian monarchy endured. It was in these Asiatic campaigns that Belisarius began his career. But his first great achievement was the overthrow and extinction of the Vandal power in Africa, and the restoration of Roman authority (the empire of the new Rome) in the old Carthaginian province (A. D. 533-534). He accomplished this with a force of but 10,000 foot and 5,000 horse, and was hastily recalled by his jealous lord on the instant of his success.

Conquests of Belisarius in Italy.

But the ambition of Justinian was whetted by this marvellous conquest, and he promptly projected an expedition against the kingdom of the Eastern Goths. The death of Theodoric had occurred in 526. His successor was a child of ten years, his grandson, whose mother exercised the regency. Amalsuentha, the queen-regent, was a woman of highly cultivated mind, and she offended her subjects by too marked a Romanization of her ideas. Her son died in his eighteenth year, and she associated with herself on the throne the next heir to it, a worthless nephew of Theodoric, who was able, in a few weeks, to strip all her power from her and consign her to a distant prison, where she was soon put to death (A. D. 535). She had previously opened negotiations with Justinian for the restoration of his supremacy in Italy, and the ambitious Emperor assumed with eagerness a right to avenge her deposition and death. The fate of Amalsuentha was his excuse, the discontent of Roman orthodoxy with the rule of the heretic Goths was his encouragement, to send an army into Italy with Belisarius at its head. First taking possession of Sicily, Belisarius landed in Italy in 536, took Naples and advanced on Rome. An able soldier, Vitiges, had been raised to the Gothic throne, and he evacuated Rome in December; but he returned the following March and laid siege to the ancient capital, which Belisarius had occupied with a moderate force. It was defended against him for an entire year, and the strength of the Gothic nation was consumed on the outer side of the walls, while the inhabitants within were wasted by famine and disease. The Goths invoked the aid of the Franks in Gaul, and those fierce warriors, crossing the Alps (A. D. 538), assailed both Goths and Greeks, with indiscriminate hostility, destroyed Milan and Genoa, and mostly perished of hunger themselves before they retreated from the wasted Cisalpine country.

Released from Rome, Belisarius advanced in his turn against Ravenna, and took the Gothic capital, making Vitiges a prisoner (A. D. 539). His reward for these successes was a recall from command. The jealous Emperor could not afford his generals too much glory at a single winning. As a consequence of his folly, the Goths, under a new king, Totila, were allowed to recover so much ground in the next four years that, when, in 544, Belisarius was sent back, almost without an army, the work of conquest had to be done anew. Rome was still being held against Totila, who besieged it, and the great general went by sea to its relief. He forced the passage of the Tiber, but failed through the misconduct of the commander in the city to accomplish an entry, and once more the great capital was entered and yielded to angry Goths (A. D. 546). They spared the lives of the few people they found, and the chastity of the women; but they plundered without restraint.

Rome a Solitude for Forty Days.

Totila commanded the total destruction of the city; but his ruthless hand was stayed by the remonstrances of Belisarius. After demolishing a third of the walls, he withdrew towards the South, dragging the few inhabitants with him, and, during forty days, Rome is said to have been an unpeopled solitude. The scene which this offers to the imagination comes near to being the most impressive in history. At the end of that period it was entered by Belisarius, who hastily repaired the walls, collected his forces, and was prepared to defend himself when Totila came back by rapid marches from Apulia. The Goths made three assaults and were bloodily repulsed.

End of the Ostrogothic Kingdom.

But again Belisarius was recalled by a mean and jealous court, and again the Gothic cause was reanimated and restored. Rome was taken again from its feeble garrison (A. D. 549), and this time it was treated with respect. Most of Italy and Sicily, with Corsica and Sardinia, were subdued by Totila's arms, and that king, now successful, appealed to Justinian for peace. It was refused, and in 552 a vigorous prosecution of the war resumed, under a new commander--the remarkable eunuch Narses, who proved himself to be one of the great masters of war. Totila was defeated and slain in the first battle of the campaign; Rome was again beleaguered and taken; and the last blow needed to extinguish the Gothic kingdom in Italy was given the following year (A. D. 553), when Totila's successor, Teia, ended his life on another disastrous field of battle.

The Exarchate.

Italy was restored for the moment to the Empire, and was placed under the government of an imperial viceroy, called Exarch, which high office the valiant Narses was the first to fill. His successors, known in history as the Exarchs of Ravenna, resided in that capital for a long period, while the arm of their authority was steadily shortened by the conquests of new invaders, whose story is yet to be told.

{1014}

Events in the West.

Leaving Italy and Rome, once more in the imperial fold, but mere provinces now of a distant and alienated sovereignty, it is necessary to turn back to the West, and glance over the regions in which, when we looked at them last, the institutions of Roman government and society were being dissolved and broken up by flood upon flood of barbaric invasion from the Teutonic North.

Teutonic Conquest of Britain.

If we begin at the farthest West which the Roman dominion reached, we shall find that the island of Britain was abandoned, practically, by the imperial government earlier than the year 410, when Rome was sinking under the blows of Alaric. From that time the inhabitants were left to their own government and their own defense. To the inroads of the savage Caledonian Picts and Irish Scots, there were added, now, the coast ravages of a swarm of ruthless pirates, which the tribes of northwestern Europe had begun to launch upon the German or North Sea. The most cruel and terrible of these ocean freebooters were the Saxons, of the Elbe, and they gave their name for a time to the whole. Their destructive raids upon the coasts of Britain and Gaul had commenced more than a century before the Romans withdrew their legions, and that part of the British coast most exposed to their ravages was known as the Saxon Shore. For about thirty years after the Roman and Romanized inhabitants of Britain had been left to defend themselves, they held their ground with good courage, as appears; but the incessant attacks of the Picts wore out, at last, their confidence in themselves, and they were fatally led to seek help from their other enemies, who scourged them from the sea. Their invitation was given, not to the Saxons, but to a band of Jutes--warriors from that Danish peninsula in which they have left their name. The Jutes landed at Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet (A. D. 449 or 450), with two chiefs, Hengest and Horsa, at their head. They came as allies, and fought by the side of the Britons against the Picts with excellent success. Then came quarrels, and presently, in 455, the arms of Hengest and Horsa were turned against their employers. Ten years later the Jutes had secure possession of the part of Britain now called Kent, and Hengest was their king, Horsa having fallen in the war. This was the beginning of the transformation of Roman-Celtic Britain into the Teutonic England of later history. The success of the Jutes drew their cousins and piratical comrades, the Saxons and the Angles, to seek kingdoms in the same rich island. The Saxons came first, landing near Selsey, in 477, and taking gradual possession of a district which became known as the kingdom of the South Saxons, or Sussex. The next invasion was by Saxons under Cerdic, and Jutes, who joined to form the kingdom of the West Saxons, or Wessex, covering about the territory of modern Hampshire. So much of their conquest was complete by the year 519. At about the same time, other colonies were established and gave their names, as East Saxons and Middle Saxons, to the Essex and Middlesex of modern English geography. A third tribe from the German shore, the Angles, now came (A. D. 547) to take their part in the conquest of the island, and these laid their hands upon kingdoms in the East and North of England, so much larger than the modest Jute and Saxon realms in the south that their name fixed itself, at last, upon the whole country, when it lost the name of Britain. Northumberland, which stretched from the Humber to the Firth of Forth, Mercia, which covered at one time the whole middle region of England, and East Anglia, which became divided into the two English counties of Norfolk (North-folk) and Suffolk (South-folk), were the three great kingdoms of the Angles.

The Making of England.

Before the end of the sixth century, almost the whole of modern England, and part of Scotland, on its eastern side, as far to the north as Edinburgh, was in possession of the German invaders. They had not merely subdued the former possessors--Britons and Roman provincials (if Romans remained in the island after their domination ceased),--but, in the judgment of the best investigators of the subject, they had practically swept them from all the parts of the island in which their own settlements were established. That is to say, the prior population was either exterminated by the merciless swords of these Saxon and English pagans, or was driven into the mountains of Wales, into the peninsula of Cornwall and Devon, or into the Strathclyde corner of Scottish territory,--in all which regions the ancient British race has maintained itself to this day. Scarcely a vestige of its existence remains elsewhere in England,--neither in language, nor in local names, nor in institutions, nor in survivals of any other kind; which shows that the inhabitants were effaced by the conquest, as the inhabitants of Gaul, of Spain, and of Italy, for example, were not.

The new society and the new states which now arose on the soil of Britain, and began to shape themselves into the England of the future, were as purely Germanic as if they had grown up in the Jutish peninsula or on the Elbe. The institutions, political and social, of the immigrant nations, had been modified by changed circumstances, but they had incorporated almost nothing from the institutions which they found existing in their new home and which they supplanted. Broadly speaking, nothing Roman and nothing Celtic entered into them. They were constructed on German lines throughout.

The barbarism of the Saxons and their kin when they entered Britain was far more unmitigated than that of most of the Teutonic tribes which overwhelmed the continental provinces of Rome had been. The Goths had been influenced to some extent and for quite a period by Roman civilization, and had nominally accepted Christian precepts and beliefs, before they took arms against the Empire. The Franks had been allies of Rome and in contact with the refinements of Roman Gaul, for a century or two before they became masters in that province. Most of the other nations which transplanted themselves in the fifth century from beyond the Rhine to new homes in the provinces of Rome, had been living for generations on the borders of the Empire, or near; had acquired some acquaintance, at least, with the civilization which they did not share, and conceded to it a certain respect; while some of them had borne arms for the Emperor and taken his pay. But the Saxons, Angles and Jutes had thus far been remote from every influence or experience of the kind. {1015} They knew the Romans only as rich strangers to be plundered and foes to be fought. Christianity represented nothing to them but an insult to their gods. There seems to be little doubt, therefore, that the civilizing work which Rome had done in western Europe was obliterated nowhere else so ruthlessly and so wantonly as in Britain. Christianity, still sheltered and strong in Ireland, was wholly extinguished in England for a century and more, until the memorable mission of Augustine, sent by Pope Gregory the Great (A. D. 597), began the conversion of the savage islanders.

The Kingdom of the Franks.

In Gaul, meanwhile, and in southwestern Germany, the Franks had become the dominant power. They had moved tardily to the conquest, but when they moved it was with rapid strides. While they dwelt along the Lower Rhine, they were in two divisions: the Salian Franks, who occupied, first, the country near the mouth of the river, and then spread southwards, to the Somme, or beyond; and the Ripuarians, who lived farther up the Rhine, in the neighborhood of Cologne, advancing thence to the Moselle. In the later part of the fifth century a Roman Patrician, Syagrius, still exercised some kind of authority in northern Gaul; but in 486 he was defeated and overthrown by Chlodvig, or Clovis, the chief of the Salian Franks. Ten years later, Clovis, leading both the Salian and the Ripuarian Franks in an attack upon the German Alemanni, beyond the Upper Rhine, subdued that people completely, and took their country. Their name survived, and adhered to the whole people of Germany, whom the Franks and their successors the French have called Allemands to this day. After his conquest of the Alemanni, Clovis, who had married a Christian wife, accepted her faith and was baptized, with three thousand of his chief men. The professed conversion was as fortunate politically for him as it had been for Constantine. He adopted the Christianity which was that of the Roman Church--the Catholic Christianity of the Athanasian creed--and he stood forth at once as the champion of orthodoxy against the heretic Goths and Burgundians, whose religion had been poisoned by the condemned doctrines of Arius. The blessings, and the more substantial endeavors, of the Roman Church were, therefore, on his side, when he attacked the Burgundians and made them tributary, and when, a few years later, he expelled the Goths from Aquitaine and drove them into Spain (A.D. 500-508). Beginning, apparently, as one of several chiefs among the Salian Franks, he ended his career (510) as sole king of the whole Frank nation, and master of all Gaul except a Gothic corner of Provence, with a considerable dominion beyond the Rhine.

The Merovingian Kings.

But Clovis left his realm to four sons, who divided it into as many kingdoms, with capitals at Metz, Orleans, Paris, and Soissons. There was strife and war between them, until one of the brothers, Lothaire, united again the whole kingdom, which, meantime, had been enlarged by the conquest of Thuringia and Provence, and by the extinction of the tributary Burgundian kings. When he died, his sons rent the kingdom again, and warred with one another, and once more it was brought together. Says Hallam: "It is a weary and unprofitable task to follow these changes in detail, through scenes of tumult and bloodshed, in which the eye meets with no sunshine, nor can rest upon any interesting spot. It would be difficult, as Gibbon has justly observed, to find anywhere more vice or less virtue." But, as Dean Church has remarked, the Franks were maintained in their ascendancy by the favor of the clergy and the circumstances of their position, despite their divisions and the worthless and detestable character of their kings, after Clovis. "They occupied a land of great natural wealth, and great geographical advantages, which had been prepared for them by Latin culture; they inherited great cities which they had not built, and fields and vineyards which they had not planted; and they had the wisdom, not to destroy, but to use their conquest. They were able with singular ease and confidence to employ and trust the services, civil and military, of the Latin population. ... The bond between the Franks and the native races was the clergy. ... The forces of the whole nation were at the disposal of the ruling race; and under Frank chiefs, the Latins and Gauls learned once more to be warriors." This no doubt suggests a quite true explanation of the success of the Franks; but too much may easily be inferred from it. It will not be safe to conclude that the Franks were protectors of civilization in Gaul, and did not lay destroying hands upon it. We shall presently see that it sank to a very darkened state under their rule, though the eclipse may have been less complete than in some other of the barbarized provinces of Rome.

Rise of the Carolingians.

The division in the Frankish dominion which finally marked itself deeply and became permanent was that which separated the East Kingdom, or Austrasia, from the West Kingdom, or Neustria. In Austrasia, the Germanic element prevailed; in Neustria, the Roman and Gallic survivals entered most largely into the new society. Austrasia widened into the Germany of later history; Neustria into France. In both these kingdoms, the Frankish kings sank lower and lower in character, until their name (of Merwings or Merovingians, from an ancestor of Clovis) became a byword for sloth and worthlessness. In each kingdom there arose, beside the nominal monarch, a strong minister, called the Major Domus, or Mayor of the Palace, who exercised the real power and governed in the king's name. During the last half of the seventh century, the Austrasian Mayor, Pippin of Heristal, and the Neustrian Mayor, Ebroin, converted the old antagonism of the two kingdoms into a personal rivalry and struggle for supremacy. Ebroin was murdered, and Pippin was the final victor, in a decisive battle at Testry (687), which made him virtual master of the whole Frank realm, although the idle Merwings still sat on their thrones. Pippin's son, Charles Martel, strengthened and extended the domination which his father had acquired. He drove back the Saxons and subdued the Frisians in the North, and, in the great and famous battle of Tours (732) he repelled, once for all, the attempt of the Arab and Moorish followers of Mahomet, already lodged in Spain, to push their conquests beyond the Pyrenees. {1016} The next of the family, Pippin the Short, son of Charles Martel, put an end to the pretence of governing in the name of a puppet-king. The last of the Merovingians was quietly deposed--lacking even importance enough to be put to death-- and Pippin received the crown at the hands of Pope Zachary (A. D. 751). He died in 768, and the reign of his son, who succeeded him--the Great Charles--the Charlemagne of mediæval history--is the introduction to so new an era, and so changed an order of circumstances in the European world, that it will be best to finish with all that lies behind it in our hasty survey before we take it up.

The Conquests of Islam.

Outside of Europe, a new and strange power had now risen, and had spread its forces with extraordinary rapidity around the southern and eastern circuit of the Mediterranean, until it troubled both extremities of the northern shore. This was the power of Islam--the proselyting, war-waging religion of Mahomet, the Arabian prophet. At the death of Mahomet, in 632, he was lord of Arabia, and his armies had just crossed the border, to attack the Syrian possessions of the Eastern Roman Empire. In seven years from that time, the whole of Palestine and Syria had been overrun, Jerusalem, Damascus, Antioch, and all the strong cities taken, and Roman authority expelled. In two years more, they had dealt the last blow to the Sassanian monarchy in Persia and shattered it forever. At the same time they were besieging Alexandria and adding Egypt to their conquests. In 668, only thirty-six years after the death of the Prophet, they were at the gates of Constantinople, making the first of their many attempts to gain possession of the New Rome. In 698 they had taken Carthage, had occupied all North Africa to the Atlantic coast, had converted the Mauretanians, or Moors, and absorbed them into their body politic as well as into their communion. In 711 the commingled Arabs and Moors crossed the Straits and entered Spain, and the overthrow of the Christian kingdom of the Visigoths was practically accomplished in a single battle that same year. Within two years more, the Moors (as they came to be most commonly called) were in possession of the whole southern, central, and eastern parts of the Spanish peninsula, treating the inhabitants who had not fled with a more generous toleration than differing Christians were wont to offer to one another. The Spaniards (a mixed population of Roman, Suevic, Gothic, and aboriginal descent) who did, not submit, took refuge in the mountainous region of the Asturias and Galicia, where they maintained their independence, and, in due time, became aggressive, until, after eight centuries, they recovered their whole land.

The Eastern Empire.

At the East, as we have seen, the struggle of the Empire with the Arabs began at the first moment of their career of foreign conquest. They came upon it when it was weak from many wounds, and exhausted by conflict with many foes. Before the death of Justinian (565), the transient glories of his reign had been waning fast. His immediate successor saw the work of Belisarius and Narses undone, for the most part, and the Italian peninsula overrun by a new horde of barbarians, more rapacious and more savage than the Goths. At the same time, the Persian war broke out again, and drained the imperial resources to pay for victories that had no fruit. Two better and stronger emperors--Tiberius and Maurice--who came after him, only made an honorable struggle, without leaving the Empire in a better state. Then a brutal creature--Phocas--held the throne for eight years (602-610) and sunk it very low by his crimes. The hero, Heraclius, who was now raised to power, came too late. Assailed suddenly, at the very beginning of his reign, by a fierce Persian onset, he was powerless to resist. Syria, Egypt and Asia Minor were successively ravaged and conquered by the Persian arms. They came even to the Bosphorus, and for ten years they held its eastern shore and maintained a camp within sight of Constantinople itself; while the wild Tartar nation of the Avars raged, at the same time, through the northern and western provinces of the Empire, and threatened the capital on its landward sides. The Roman Empire was reduced, for a time, to "the walls of Constantinople, with the remnant of Greece, Italy, and Africa, and some maritime cities, from Tyre to Trebizond, of the Asiatic coast." But in 622 Heraclius turned the tide of disaster and rolled it back upon his enemies. Despite an alliance of the Persians with the Avars, and their combined assault upon Constantinople in 626, he repelled the latter, and wrested from the former, in a series of remarkable campaigns, all the territory they had seized. He had but just accomplished this great deliverance of his dominions, when the Arabs came upon him, as stated above. There was no strength left in the Empire to resist the terrible prowess of these warriors of the desert. They extinguished its authority in Syria and Egypt, as we have seen, in the first years of their career; but then turned their arms to the East and the West, and were slow in disputing Asia Minor with its Christian lords. "From the time of Heraclius the Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened: the line of empire which had been defined by the laws of Justinian and the arms of Belisarius recedes on all sides from our view" (Gibbon). There was neither vigor nor virtue in the descendants of Heraclius; and when the last of them was destroyed by a popular rising against his vicious tyranny (711), revolution followed revolution so quickly that three reigns were begun and ended in six years.

The so-called Byzantine Empire.

Then came to the throne a man of strong character, who redeemed it at least from contempt; who introduced a dynasty which endured for a century, and whose reign is the beginning of a new era in the history of the Eastern Empire, so marked that the Empire has taken from that time, in the common usage, a changed name, and is known thenceforth as the Byzantine, rather than the Eastern or the Greek. This was Leo the Isaurian, who saved Constantinople from a second desperate Moslem siege; who checked for a considerable period the Mahometan advance in the East; who reorganized the imperial administration on lasting lines; and whose suppression of image-worship in the Christian churches of his empire led to a rupture with the Roman Church in the West,--to the breaking of all relations of dependence in Rome and Italy upon the Empire in the East, and to the creating of a new imperial sovereignty in Western Europe which claimed succession to that of Rome.

{1017}

Lombard Conquest of Italy.

On the conquest of Italy by Belisarius and Narses, for Justinian, the eunuch Narses, as related before, was made governor, residing at Ravenna, and bearing the title of Exarch. In a few years he was displaced, through the influence of a palace intrigue at Constantinople. To be revenged, it is said that he persuaded the Lombards, a German tribe lately become threatening on the Upper Danube, to enter Italy. They came, under their leader Alboin, and almost the whole northern and middle parts of the peninsula submitted to them with no resistance. Pavia stood a siege for three years before it surrendered to become the Lombard capital; Venice received an added population of fugitives, and was safe in her lagoons--like Ravenna, where the new Exarch watched the march of Lombard conquest, and scarcely opposed it. Rome was preserved, with part of southern Italy and with Sicily; but no more than a shadow of the sovereignty of the Empire now stretched westward beyond the Adriatic.

Temporal Power of the Popes.

The city of Rome, and the territory surrounding it, still owned a nominal allegiance to the Emperor at Constantinople; but their immediate and real ruler was the Bishop of Rome, who had already acquired, in a special way, the fatherly name of "Papa" or Pope. Many circumstances had combined to place both spiritual and temporal power in the hands of these Christian pontiffs of Rome. They may have been originally, in the constitution of the Church, on an equal footing of ecclesiastical authority with the four other chiefs of the hierarchy--the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem; but the great name of Rome gave them prestige and weight of superior influence to begin with. Then, they stood, geographically and sympathetically, in nearest relations with that massive Latin side of Christendom, in western Europe, which was never much disturbed by the raging dogmatic controversies that tore and divided the Church on its Eastern, Greek side. It was inevitable that the Western Church should yield homage to one head--to one bishopric above all other bishoprics; and it was more inevitable that the See of Rome should be that one. So the spiritual supremacy to which the Popes arrived is easily enough explained. The temporal authority which they acquired is accounted for as obviously. Even before the interruption of the line of emperors in the West, the removal of the imperial residence for long periods from Rome, to Constantinople, to Milan, to Ravenna, left the Pope the most impressive and influential personage in the ancient capital. Political functions were forced on him, whether he desired to exercise them or not. It was Pope Leo who headed the embassy to Attila, and saved the city from the Huns. It was the same Pope who pleaded for it with the Vandal king, Genseric. And still more and more, after the imperial voice which uttered occasional commands to his Roman subjects was heard from a distant palace in Constantinople, and in accents that had become wholly Greek, the chair of St. Peter grew throne-like,--the respect paid to the Pope in civil matters took on the spirit of obedience, and his aspect before the people became that of a temporal prince.

This process of the political elevation of the Papacy was completed by the Lombard conquest of Italy. The Lombard kings were bent upon the acquisition of Rome; the Popes were resolute and successful in holding it against them. At last the Papacy made its memorable and momentous alliance with the Carolingian chiefs of the Franks. It assumed the tremendous super-imperial right and power to dispose of crowns, by taking that of the kingdom of the Franks from Childeric and giving it to Pippin (751); and this was the first assumption of that right by the chief priest of Western Christendom. In return, Pippin led an army twice to Italy (754-755), humbled the Lombards, took from them the exarchate of Ravenna and the Pentapolis (a district east of the Appenines, between Ancona and Ferrara), and transferred this whole territory as a conqueror's "donation" to the Apostolic See. The temporal sovereignty of the Popes now rested on a base as political and as substantial as that of the most worldly and vulgar potentates around them.

Charlemagne's restored Roman Empire.

Pippin's greater son, Charlemagne, renewed the alliance of his house with the Papacy, and strengthened it by completing the conquest of the Lombards, extinguishing their kingdom (774), and confirming his father's donation of the States of the Church. Charlemagne was now supreme in Italy, and the Pope became the representative of his sovereignty at Rome,--a position which lastingly enhanced the political importance of the Roman See in the peninsula. But while Pope and King stood related, in one view, as agent and principal, or subject and sovereign, another very different relationship slowly shaped itself in the thoughts of one, if not of both. The Western Church had broken entirely with the Eastern, on the question of image-worship; the titular sovereignty of the Eastern Emperor in the ancient Roman capital was a worn-out fiction; the reign of a female usurper, Irene, at Constantinople afforded a good occasion for renouncing and discarding it. But a Roman Emperor there must be, somewhere, for lesser princes and sovereigns to do homage to; the political habit and feeling of the European world, shaped and fixed by the long domination of Rome, still called for it. "Nor could the spiritual head of Christendom dispense with the temporal; without the Roman Empire there could not be," according to the feeling of the ninth century, "a Roman, nor by necessary consequence a Catholic and Apostolic Church." For "men could not separate in fact what was indissoluble in thought: Christianity must stand or fall along with the great Christian state: they were but two names for one and the same thing" (Bryce). Therefore the head of the Church, boldly enlarging the assumption of his predecessor who bestowed the crown of the Merovingians upon Pippin, now took it upon himself to set the diadem of the Cæsars on the head of Charlemagne. On the Christmas Day, in the year 800, in the basilica of St. Peter, at Rome, the solemn act of coronation was performed by Pope Leo III.; the Roman Empire lived again, in the estimation of that age, and Charles the Great reopened the interrupted line of successors to Augustus.

{1018}

Before this imperial coronation of Charlemagne occurred, he had already made his dominion imperial in extent, by the magnitude of his conquests. North, south, east, and west, his armies had been everywhere victorious. In eighteen campaigns against the fierce and troublesome Saxons, he subdued those stubborn pagans and forced them to submit to a Christian baptism--with how much of immediate religious effect may be easily surmised. But by opening a way for the more Christ-like missionaries of the cross, who followed him, this missionary of the battle-ax did, no doubt, a very real apostolic work. He checked the ravages of the piratical Danes. He crushed the Avars and took their country, which comprised parts of the Austria and Hungary of the present day. He occupied Bavaria, on the one hand, and Brittany on the other. He crossed the Pyrenees to measure swords with the Saracens, and drove them from the north of Spain, as far as the Ebro. His lordship in Italy has been noticed already. He was unquestionably one of the greatest monarchs of any age, and deserves the title Magnus, affixed to his name, if that title ever has been deserved by the kings who were flattered with it. There was much more in his character than the mere aggressive energy which subjugated so wide a realm. He was a man of enlightenment far beyond his time; a man who strove after order, in that disorderly age, and who felt oppressed by the ignorance into which the world had sunk. He was a seeker after learning, and the friend and patron of all in his day who groped in the darkness and felt their way towards the light. He organized his Empire with a sense of political system which was new among the Teutonic masters of Western Europe (except as shown by Theodoric in Italy); but there were not years enough in his own life for the organism to mature, and his sons brought back chaos again.

Appearance of the Northmen.

Before Charlemagne died (814) he saw the western coasts and river valleys of his Empire harried by a fresh outpouring of sea-rovers from the far North, and it is said that he had sad forebodings of the affliction they would become to his people thereafter. These new pirates of the North Sea, who took up, after several centuries, the abandoned trade of their kinsmen, the Saxons (now retired from their wild courses and respectably settled on one side of the water, while subdued and kept in order on the other), were of the bold and rugged Scandinavian race, which inhabited the countries since known as Denmark, Sweden and Norway. They are more or less confused under the general name of Northmen, or Norsemen--men of the North; but that term appears to have been applied more especially to the freebooters from the Norwegian coast, as distinguished from the "Danes" of the lesser peninsula. It is convenient, in so general a sketch as this, to ignore the distinction, and to speak of the Northmen as inclusive, for that age, of the whole Scandinavian race.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us